|Election by County (can not find one by Congressional District)|
The original system created by the Founding Fathers was the Electoral College. Put one way, our elected leaders elect our leader. This is a Republic. Each Representative and Senator gets one vote. Then it changed, for the better in my opinion. Each State gets the number of votes equal to it's number of Representatives and Senators. However, the State's get to decide how to divide those votes. And almost all have chosen winner take all in a popular vote (does not sound like they gave it much thought). 1828 was the last time a significant state split its electoral vote when New York went 20 for Andrew Jackson and 16 for John Quincy Adams (Maryland always split their vote until 1836 when either they changed it, or they all got on the same page - I have not researched it).
People saw winner-take-all in both the Republican and Democrat Primaries as both were hotly "contested" (Bernie contested the vote, but the final counting was not really a contest). My informal survey results - people do not like the winner-take-all for primaries...unless their candidate won.
I believe in the Electoral College, but I believe in awarding votes by Congressional District (not county). In that way, Presidential Candidates would have "battle grounds" all over - not just in a few states. It would have the added benefit of BEING WHAT THE COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON. It would still be a "popular vote" and every vote counts and matters, but it would be more representative. Instead of just letting the Congressmen vote for who they want, each district would tell them who to vote for. The Senators could be assigned by the statewide popular vote.
To say this would then just mirror the House of Representatives would ignore the Senate - and also would ignore the fact that in places like southern New Jersey where Democrat Hillary Clinton won 54,472 to 47,882 in Atlantic County, yet Republican Congressman Frank Lobiando won 53,679 to 41,386.
So let me give you some perspective. My analysis...the voting public nation wide in the current voting scheme is basically 50/50. I will concede that. So far the 2016 results look like this:
Hillary Clinton 61,324,576
Donald Trump 60,526,852
That is a 797,724 vote lead by Clinton. Democrats (the goofy ones, but some of the leaders too) claim that number of votes is a mandate to throw out the founder's vision of a Republic, or a reason for Republican Electors to vote for Clinton (that one seriously shows the lack of understanding of who "electors" are).
Perspective. Clinton is winning California by 3,071,770. So in the rest of the country, Trump wins the popular vote by 2,274,046. Three times Clinton's lead in the nationwide popular vote. Unfortunately, California still matters, and she is winning the popular vote - but that is like giving the win to the football team with the most yards, not the most points. Trump gets the W, and now they will treat him just like they treated W.
And if they actually counted all the absentee ballots, this 'lead' might evaporate and shut them up.
I hope California does secede. I hate the thought of them choosing our president for life (if we actually went to a popular vote system.
I think that the present system works. Congressional districts would work too, but vote counting organizations are by county because county government is there to oversee it. Doing it by district would mean that somebody would have to figure out how to pay for it and manage it. In Western states - Utah comes to mind, you have 4 EC votes and two congressional districts encompassing many counties. Trying to figure out how to manage the process cross-county would be a serious headache.
Post a Comment