Election 2008 may very well be the most significant election in all of our

lives; it’s certainly the most important one so far. Between the war in Iraq, with
our young being shipped home in body bags and the collapse of our economy, with a
stock market about as stable as Brittany Spears' psyche, the American public is
counting on the next president to be an instant political panacea, a parental
figure that makes everything alright again. The winner of this election needs to
move quickly and precisely so as not to be dismissed as just another charlatan
with hollow promises and open palms. Considering that the outcome of this election
will shape an extraordinary epoch in history, why is it being run and decided
according to the same archaic system implemented over 300 years ago?
The staggered primaries are the first things that we need to reform.
The system we have now is haphazard and unfair, with some states holding their
primary one month, while other states hold theirs in other months. States are now
jockeying for position to ensure that their primaries actually contribute to the
process of choosing a candidate. It is simply not fair to citizens of the states
that hold later primaries because A). Maybe the candidate I would have chosen has
already dropped out due to lack of support and B). I’d feel like I needed to vote
for the candidate who’s already taken the lead (Re: John McCain) or I’m just
throwing my vote away. No state wants a repeat the situation that New Jersey and
Montana found themselves in back in 2004, when they held their state primaries 13
weeks after John Kerry had begun running unopposed. To ensure their relevance,
some states chose to vote too soon this time around and wound up forfeiting their
delegates all together.
“Delegates” you say. What on earth are delegates? Okay, pay close
attention now because this is where it gets a bit tricky.
The whole house of cards is based on an antiquated system known as “The
Electoral College.” In short, the Electoral College is made up of a body of
electors, who choose the president and vice president of the United States. Each
state has a designated number of electors, equal to the total number of the
state's Senators and Representatives. In theory, on Election Day, whichever
candidate wins the popular vote in a state is awarded that state's electors; but
there is no Constitutional clause or law that requires electors to vote in
accordance with the popular vote in their states.
The idea for the Electoral College, itself was established by our
founding fathers as a compromise between an election of the president by Congress
and an election by popular vote. The electors are a designated body chosen by the
States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in
November (November 4, 2008). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one
for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3
for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd Amendment). Each State's
allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is
entitled plus two Senators. The decennial (10-year) census is used to reapportion
the number of electors allocated among the States. To win the presidency, a
candidate must have a majority in the electoral college (270 votes). Are you
still with me?

Now, most voters would surely be unhappy to see their candidate win the most
votes but lose the election. Given that, why would the Founding Fathers create a
constitutional process that would allow this to happen? The Framers of the
Constitution wanted to make sure the citizens of the country had direct input in
choosing their leaders and saw two possible ways to accomplish this:
The people of each state could elect their members of the US Congress
by direct popular election. In turn, the members of Congress would then express
the wishes of the people by electing the president and vice president themselves:
An election by Congress.
-or-
The people of the entire nation could vote for and elect the president and vice
president based on popular votes alone: A direct popular election.
 Election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess
their constituents desires and then to actually vote accordingly. The only problem
was that this could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and
political agendas of the members of Congress rather than the actual will of the
people.
On the other hand, the Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election
option because there were no organized national political parties as of yet nor
any structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition,
travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good
candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the
country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the
vote and not reflect the wishes of the nation as a whole. So as a compromise, the
Electoral College system was instituted and written into the Constitution as
Amendment 12—Choosing the President, Vice President and was ratified on June 15,
1804.
By continuing to recognize the Electoral College, we’re discounting the
fact that the concerns that plagued our forefathers are no longer issues in our
country today. With the Industrial Revolution came the advent of mobility and
community, then radio and television furthered the ability to disseminate
information to the masses in a relatively short amount of time. Since the dawn of
the technological age, the transfer of information is instantaneous and constant.
Campaigns today cost millions of dollars to run and their sole objective is to
inform every last American about their candidate. We are no longer confined by the
limitations of our past, so why is our election process?

©2008 Political Pillow Talk™ Vol. II JG Gordon