FOX and CNN: Let's let them elect the President

FOX and CNN: Let's let them elect the President

Not many people, with the exception of political science students or teachers know much about the election process for the President of the United States.

First, there is the electoral college that Benjamin Franklin founded. That was because he didn't believe the average person had the sense or knowledge of the newly founded republic. We are stuck with that archaic bit of political nonsense but those who know how to play the games are delighted with it.

Then there is the delegate count that each aspiring candidate has to reach before they can be nominated. You figure it out. Let's see. You remember Al Gore won the popular vote but then President George Bush won the electoral college vote. If that didn't confuse enough people in the United States the Supreme Court got into the act. By a one vote count Bush 43 was named President.

I say named because I don't know if he got elected or appointed. So for the first time in an American election for President the court of nine Justices, none of whom are elected cast our vote aside and declared the President. In my opinion this voided the votes of millions of Americans.

If you are confused about the process don't feel alone; there are millions of Americans is the same state of confusion. Really, how does the system work? So here is my suggestion on how to further screw up the system. We allow CNN or Fox news or any combination of media outlets decide the outcome.

Now bear with me. CNN takes a poll of unending categories: who will older females vote for, who will younger females vote for, who will older men vote for, who will younger men vote for? Now let's really find out who mustached men will likely vote for. How about men with full beards or goatees, who will they vote for? Who will women who wear makeup vote for or women who do not wear makeup vote for...and the unending and relenting questions move on.

After all the results are tabulated John King can go to his technologically expanded score board with colors and dancing numbers. Who are these people that are likely voters creating a plus 4 or minus 4 margin of error? They never say. But that's ok.

Now here is where it gets more confusing: the announcer goes to the battleground states that are usually the ones with the heaviest number of electoral college votes. Then the mathematics begin to play an important part of the process.

After some of the possibilities are graded it would appear that candidate X will be the winner or by another similar poll at another station Y will be declared the winner. Now by the election date CNN will say:"we can't be sure but if our numbers are correct President X will be elected. However, it appears closer than we thought at first so possibly President Y will win." Dance around the flag boys.

Now the whole country is confused but I'll leave it up to the media. With all their statistics that would drive an actuary to drink they should elect our next President. After all we all vote but whose vote counts?

Yours or the electoral college that Benjamin Franklin founded? The popular vote? We know that doesn't count unless you have the electoral college count. So in reality in how many states does the candidate need to be elected. CNN and FOX know.

So, as they do so effectively today let them play with their toys and decide who our next President will be. After all, what can be more fair than a bunch of high priced anchor people electing the President for us? It seems to me that would be better than no one really knowing how the vote actually works.

Aint' politics fun? Only if you learn how to play the game.


Leave a comment
  • I disagree with "the court of nine Justices, none of whom are elected cast our vote aside and declared the President." The "sage" justices of the Florida Supreme Court said that the election judges could use their own judgment to find the intent behind a hanging chad. That injected an equal protection problem that was not previously present, and gave the U.S. Supreme Court a ground for saying that the count stops now. I suggest that you read the opinion (and an official version at that).

    Otherwise, we know that the counters in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area would have kept recounting until they found enough Democrat votes. Actually, Washington state counters got away with that in the next Senate election.

    At least this mess resulted in the Help America Vote Act, which ended punch card voting, although various state authorities [especially in Illinois] have figured out how to mess up the tabulation of early, touch screen, and scanner votes.

    I agree with most of the rest of this. However, the left wing bloggers will cry that MSNBC and Current TV don't get votes in your system.

    Besides these polls depressing the vote, what tees me off is media outlets like ABC declaring Durbin the winner at 7:02 p.m., before vote #1 had been counted (and probably the voting machines not yet locked, if there were people in line).

    But, in any event, Illinois has not been in play for the Electoral College election for some time and will not be in 2012. Maybe advertisements for the congressional races will keep the local TV stations afloat.

  • Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions, including Illinois, possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

Leave a comment