The numbers represent how many eligibile voters each Elector in the Electoral College represents. In a small blurb the authors published with the diagram, they discussed the strange way that the number of congressional delegates is based on the population, not the eligible electorate, so people who can't vote such as children, non-citizens, and people in prison count when they are allocating seats. But, really, any way you cut it, Wyoming is still going to be overrepresented (sorry, Charlotte) with the current system of a minimum of two senators and one representative.
As an Illinoisan, my vote counts for practically nothing, slightly more than the vote of Floridians, Pennsylvanians, Texans, North Carolinians, Virginians, Ohioans, Georgians, Michiganians (sp?) and, suprisingly, Hoosiers. That puts us tenth, which I find puzzling because I heard that Illinois was likely to lose a seat in the next redistricting. In any case, my vote counts for absolutely nothing this election cycle because Illinois is a sure thing for Senator Obama and Senator Durbin.
DC has three electoral votes but only one stinkin' non-votin' delegate to the House. Taxation without representation!
I think if I were going to write a thesis (which I'm not because I can't be in the honors program because I will be abroad in the spring. God forbid that a government major at an excellent school for political science with such a heavy international bent would want to study abroad for a whole year) for my government major I would do an investigation of the Electoral College and proportionality in the U.S. system. I'm really interested in those sorts of calculations, and it's hard trying to explain the Electoral College system to foreigners, so I would enjoy (yeah, I'm a nerd) reading literature on alternate solutions.
The Electoral College doesn't seem to make a lot of sense any more, but I would really need to read up because a pure popular vote wouldn't make that much sense either. As it is now, only the "swing states," and especially those with a nice prize of electoral votes, such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania get all of the attention from the candidates. It's nice that new states have been brought into this category this cycle such as Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, etc. But if you are a voter in California, Illinois, New York, or Texas, for example, where the vote is considered decided, good luck getting the time of day from a candidate unless it is at a fundraiser, even though your state accounts for a good chunk of the U.S. electorate.
The primary system is also stupid. I'm tired of Iowa and New Hampshire getting first in the nation status. I think for the primaries a rotating regional primary system would make sense, so each geographic area would get their day in the sun, and candidates wouldn't have to jet between long distances all the time. Or at least rotate the states that go first. Nevada and South Carolina kind of got that treatment this year in the Democratic primary, but they were still behing Iowa and New Hampshire, meaning that by that time half the candidates had already dropped out. And let's not even get into the Florida/Michigan debacle...but it seems now is all well. I was worried we would cede those to the Republicans, but McCain stupidly dropped his campaign in Michigan and I think the Democrats have a very fighting chance in Florida. Thank God Hillary Clinton is such a gracious Senator. She could not have been classier in Denver. And, for the record, I think she has a better, more defined sense of style than Sarah Palin. It is her own.
My dream job is basically to become a political pundit, but I am not sure how one reaches this "office" without first having been a legitimate journalist or elected official. Law school...
P.S. Diane, what ever happened to those photos of Hillary Clinton from her swan song speech?
No comments:
Post a Comment