The following is an article by Thomas Melia, VP of Programs at the National
Democratic Institute in Washington which he wrote several weeks ago
foretelling the situation Americans are now facing with this presidential
election.
It was forwarded to me by a staff member with tongue-in-cheek comment that
perhaps NDI should consider extending its election-monitoring mandate to
cover elections in the US given the fiasco in Florida. Who knows how many
Floridas there are in this year's presidential elections.
John Quincy Adams, the only son of a US President became minority
President-thanks to the Electoral College system. Ironically, another son
of a former US President is at the threshold of repeating a similar feat. As
commentators have been saying, the system was designed by the Founding
Fathers to fend-off "democracy of the rowdy and uncontrollable masses."
Coming to think of it, it may also have been designed to lend a helping hand
to ambitious sons of ex-US Presidents.
Sidi Sanneh
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The ever-prescient VP for Programs Tom Melia forsaw some of the pesky
problems the country now faces when he wrote the following pre-election
op-ed on October 30 for his local paper in West Virginia.
Now EVERYBODY is talking about it, but Tom was ahead of the curve!. FYI.
Commentary: Let's Junk the Electoral College
Whoever wins the popular vote should take office
By Thomas O.Melia
Charleston [West Virginia] Daily Mail, October 30, 2000
The man sworn in as the 42nd president of the United States next January may
very well not be the candidate who wins the most votes on Nov. 7 -- thanks
to an 18th century safeguard against popular democracy known as the
Electoral College.
Combined with the likelihood of razor-thin majorities in the House and
Senate, the closeness of the forthcoming elections could lead directly to
our first constitutional crisis of the 21st century.
The prospect is more than hypothetical. As Election Day approaches, polls
suggest not only that the presidential race is a dead heat nationally, but
also that a number of individual states -- including West Virginia -- are
toss-ups. Either candidate, it appears, could receive the larger number of
popular votes nationwide and still see the other candidate win in the
Electoral College.
Under our Constitution, voters cast their ballot for 'electors' pledged to
support the indicated candidate when the real election occurs in December.
Each state has electors equal to the number of senators and representatives
(and the District of Columbia gets three anyway). Democracy purists say we
should cut out the middlemen and middle women and permit citizens to vote
directly for president, and of course they are right.
It is past time to eliminate the Electoral College -- a system that adds no
value to the process and carries only the prospect of an indefensible
result. It is no longer sufficient to try to explain away this quirk in our
system by noting the Founding Fathers' anxieties about poor choices ordinary
voters might make. Two hundred and twenty-three years on, we have evolved in
so many ways to become a more genuinely democratic nation. Why not in this?
The most egregiously undemocratic aspect of the Electoral College system is
the winner-take-all provision. Whoever wins the most votes in each state,
even a modest plurality, gets all the electors from that state. This means
that a handful of well-placed wins in large states, no matter how narrow,
can add up to Electoral College victory, even if the voters nationwide
prefer the other guy. Consider the consequence for our embattled, distrusted
political system if the candidate who wins the most votes does not become
president. Sure, it would be legal -- constitutional, even.
But would it be right? Would it seem right if the silver medalist were
awarded the White House? Every schoolchild in America would know that
something is amiss.
Citizens of other countries would wonder why the world's strongest democracy
protects the most important office in the land from the popular vote. Our
nation's credibility as a promoter of democracy worldwide could be severely
undermined.
Talk radio, conspiracy websites and late night TV would likely pounce on
such an incongruous result as proof that voting is a waste of time, even
that the system is somehow rigged.
Three times in the 19th century, the person with the most votes did not
become president.
When no candidate secured an Electoral College majority in the four-way race
of 1824, the House of Representatives decided in favor of second-place
finisher John Quincy Adams. In 1876, when 83 percent of those eligible
officially voted (the most ever), Democrat Samuel Tilden probably received
250,000 votes more than Republican Rutherford B.Hayes.
Bipartisan skullduggery in Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon led
to the appointment of a special commission of senators, representatives and
Supreme Court justices to resolve disputes. The panel worked on strictly
partisan lines and determined that Hayes won the Electoral College by a
single vote.
Democrats boycotted his inauguration and for a time referred to the new
chief executive as "Rutherfraud B. Hayes" and "his Fraudulency."
Incumbent President Grover Cleveland won a plurality of the nationwide vote
in his 1888 bid for re-election, yet was turned out of office due to the
arithmetic of the Electoral College. The issue then, however, was merely
patronage; the lucre conspicuously associated with government
positions was the prime motivator for many in politics. These days, folks
take their politics way more seriously.
The fireworks over Pennsylvania Avenue would likely be spectacular. For the
kind of Congress most likely to challenge the political legitimacy of an
"Electoral College president" is precisely the kind we are most likely to
see after next month's election -- one very narrowly controlled by one party
or the other. This tends to enhance partisanship in any legislature.
Imagine the potential for obstructionism inherent in a House of
Representatives (or Senate) whose slim majority arrives on the meager
coattails of a presidential candidate who wins the most votes - and loses
the election. The Gingrich-Clinton battles after 1994 would pale in
comparison. The next campaign would be launched before Inauguration Day, and
with gusto.
What do Al Gore and George W. Bush think about this constitutional
anachronism? If either should prevail in the popular vote, and fail in the
Electoral College, how would they persuade their party colleagues in
Congress to respect and cooperate with the victor? Would either candidate be
prepared now to propose an amendment to update and
democratize the Constitution?
_____________________________________________-
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
