Friday, February 29, 2008

civics 101

"Any person who really knows the rules of the game understands that it's better to settle for the least egregious option than to risk the worst possible one. It's not that the two parties - Democrats and Republicans - excel at their job as links between people and their representatives. It's not even that they do a better job than most third parties would do. It's just that no third party candidate stands a chance of winning an election under current election rules. Setting aside the prohibitive cost of running a viable campaign, even if a third party candidate makes it onto the public radar, the Electoral College guarantees that he or she will not win the presidency. Ever. This is because it is the electors' votes that actually select the president, not the voters' (for those of us who've already forgotten the political science lesson that was Election 2000). And it is only the two major parties that get to select slates of electors for each state. In fact, these individuals - the electors - are selected precisely because of their demonstrated loyalty to their respective party. They can be counted on to vote for the party's candidate - in fact, that pretty well sums up the job description of an elector. For an elector, there is no meaningful choice between candidates because they know how they're voting beforehand - we all do. The question is not for whom an elector will cast his or her vote, only which slate of electors will be permitted to do so in each individual state. This, of course, depends on which candidate wins the state. Because it is a plurality system, the winner - that is, the person with more votes than anyone else - gets all of the electoral votes from that state (with the exceptions of a couple of small states that utilize a proportional rule). It's called "winner take all," and it's the reason why not only will no third party candidate ever win the presidency, but why none is likely to ever get more than a handful of electoral votes."

read in entirety here

i have been harping this tune forever. congress is the only directly elected branch we have. we vote for the electoral college- not directly for the president. hence- there isn't a single reason for nader to run. that's why- if we want a more representative government- we have to overhaul the constitution in order to do so. who thinks that will ever, ever happen?


Brother Tim said...

I do. ......After the Revolution.

Intrepidflame said...

Why are people so afraid of Nader? If it is that obvious that the American Political system is so broken that we are just voting knowing that our votes mean nothing then what difference does it make who are meaningless votes go to. At least Nader could if allow bring forth teh issues the Dem will never put on the table...

The American public wants to feel like they are mkaing a change and Obama is the perfect scapegoat for American liberal guilt. But true change will only come from a dramatic change in how the system operates. Call it revolution. Call it what you will, but until thousands of people are in the streets like in1968..ain't nothing going to change. The Untied Corporate States of American are too are gone.