Delegates, Electoral College, and your vote

**part ogf the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign**

So as the political parties work closer to deciding who will be their nominee a renewed call is circulating for a modified system for deciding the winner of the Presidential election. As is too well known, the popular vote in the nation does not decide who is President. The most notable example of this has to be the election of 2000, with Al Gore eventually winning the popular vote and losing the election.

The question of why the general vote does not decide the winner can be summed up in possibly it’s biggest detraction. Were there to be a straightforward vote, candidates would focus the predominance of their attention and campaigning to states with large populations. Thus New York, California and others would be huge targets, while states like Montana and the Dakotas would be virtually ignored. That would take away the importance of these states in the election cycle. Considering the numbers in New York City alone, which the state of Illinois matches in population, the disparity becomes clear.

Thus the electoral college attempts to balance the field, giving more weight to the less populous parts of the nation. Though it fails as well. Many like myself are annoyed with the fact that the popular vote does not directly influence who gets to be President, and that candidates are more concerned with the mathematics of a win versus the public.

But there is a solution proposed that might answer this dilemma. It’s not perfect, and again bigger states take more precedence, but that’s not a new thing. The plan is called the National Popular Vote.

“…the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.

If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state — basically the same system used now.”

Now that plan is far from perfect but doesn’t it sound better than what we have now? Doesn’t it place the candidates more in a direct accountability to the voters? Wouldn’t it reflect the sentiment of the nation more accurately?

Some want to focus on the weaknesses and potential delays of the proposed system. That if there was a need for a recount in an especially close race, it would have to be done nationally and that this is impractical today. Of course if such a system were to be employed we would need far better technology to record each vote, thus making it easy to recount as well. And upgrading the voting system from the sometimes overly archaic punch tab machines that evoke the hi-tech and cutting edge of 1950’s technology.

At least this much is known right now. The current voting system is faulty at every level from the individual voting machines up to the Electoral College. No one likes the system as it exists. And efforts to patch the worst aspects of the system are currently failing miserably.

Something needs to be done, and sadly it will not be in time for the 2008 election. But until it does get fixed, or at least replaced with a system that is closer to an accurate representation of the voice of the people, you at least know what is going on.

No matter the failures remember this, 118,599 total votes decided which way the electoral vote of Ohio would go in 2004. That’s just 1 extra person for every 100 in that state. Just 1. Imagine if just 1 extra person per 100 in the nation made their voice heard.

Now imagine that you are that person stepping up and making sure that America makes the best choice possible. That’s how powerful your vote is. Use it, it’s your Constitutional Right.