Civics

Ah, Civics, a long lost subject, but with the election just 8 days away, it seems an appropriate topic. We have quite a unique electoral system, as is well known after the 2000 election, since it is possible to win the election without winning the popular vote. That is because, when we vote, we are voting for electors that meet in December and actually vote for the President. Originally, the individual with the second most votes for President became the Vice President, but this changed with the passing of the 12th amendment when separate ballots were instituted.

And I quote from the Constitution, "each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress." What is interesting about this process is the lack of explanation as to its implementation. So, interpretation comes into play. Should someone get all of the electoral votes if they win the popular vote, or should the votes be apportioned by the percentage of the popular vote received or district won. There is no wrong answer to this question. All methods appear valid, and all have been used by the majority of States at one time or another. Currently, most States use the winner take all strategy. There are only two that apportion the votes on popular vote percentage - Maine and Nebraska. This leads us to major point number one- the Constitution was created with interpretation in mind. You know my stand on strict constructionism.

This year, there is an initiative on the Colorado ballot to switch how they parcel out their electoral votes from winner take all to apportionment. What is not very constructive about this ballot initiative is that it will be enforceable with this election, which seems like changing the rules in midstream to me. It's fine to change methods for the next election, but why create an issue that will probably require review by the State Supreme Court at the very least. I think that it is inviting disaster. It is akin to Florida in 2000. Clearly a mess, and while the Supreme Court's ruling didn't make me very happy, they were within their rights to look at the issue. They are charged with reviewing federal matters, and I think that the election of the President qualifies. As you can guess, I voted for Gore by the way. Another issue that is really going to be watched is vote tampering. Not in the strict sense, but if allegations are true that there is organized and wholesale disqualification of registering voters because of their party affiliation, there is going to be a problem. Major rule number two- Do not screw around with the process while it's happening, it just makes everyone cranky.

Like P. Diddy says, Vote or Die

Let's here your thoughts.