Erik Thomas
With the 2016 presidential election coming up and the news focusing on the candidates, the world really gets to see a shining example of the American political system. This is a system that we have prided ourselves on for years and one that we try to instill in countries all over the world. We pride ourselves on this system so much that we fail to see how it is falling apart and breaking.
Even at the roots, our system is broken. Our founding fathers felt it was necessary to add the electoral college into our voting process because they feared that the average American wouldn’t understand enough about politics or what is going on to be able to vote competently. This still exists today. How can we preach and really believe that every vote and every voice counts if at the end of the day, the electoral college can elect whomever they want as we have seen in the past? This also affects the way candidates will campaign for office, by giving different states different numbers of electoral votes its almost like placing a value on that state. So candidates will focus their time more on states that are considered to be more valuable, giving the people in those states what seems like a more important vote than people in other states.
America’s political scene is comprised mostly of two political parties that never agree with each other or at least will never admit to agreeing with each other. And it seems that the best way for a candidate to get elected is to be an extreme on one side of the spectrum or the other. While there are smaller parties in our system, none of them draw enough support to really make waves. There is no middle group. You are ether red or blue. But Americans aren’t like that – we are comprised of many different people coming from all sorts of different backgrounds and cultures, yet we are forced to choose one side or the other.
In order to even have a shot at the election, you have to raise millions of dollars to even become a contending candidate. I know we have all heard the cliché about how politicians are always in the pocket of big businesses and corporations, but systems like the one we have in place foster this kind of activity. We can’t be so shocked and awed when it comes out that politicians are receiving money from companies to help with campaigning. Normal everyday Americans can’t run for office simply because they can’t afford it. This leaves everybody in government as someone who has got a lot of money or has friends that have a lot of money.
Our current political system only truly represents two groups of people, not everyone. There is no room for people who believe a little of both sides, or even something completely different. Yet we sell our political system as the best one around because everybody has a voice and a vote. We can’t sell this system to other countries when we don’t take it seriously ourselves.
Comment policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to not publish entirely anonymous comments.
2 Comments
The past does not show that the electoral college can elect whomever they want.
There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
State size and number of electoral votes does not determine political relevancy in presidential elections.
CA, NY, TX, and GA, for example are politically irrelevant.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recently said
“The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.
In the 2012 general election, 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only 10 competitive states
2/3rds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (OH, FL, VA, IA).
38 small, medium, and large states were politically irrelevant
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Most analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So, without a change in the system, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.
Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988
In 1960, presidential campaigns paid attention to 35 states.
In 2008, Obama only campaigned in 14 states after being nominated.
In 2012, the presidential campaigns only cared about 10 swing states.
Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.
Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.
“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like water issues in the west