Another Piece of the Broken Government Puzzle

Does my vote for the president actually count?

J.P. McJefferson, http://jpmcjefferson.blogspot.com/

There are many confusing explanations in response to this question, but it’s a simple matter of state votes vs. public or popular votes. When you vote for President, you are actually voting to determine how your state will vote for President — you are not voting directly for the President.

Frankly, I could care less, how my state votes for the President, yet it is one of the primary reasons for the electoral college process. It’s all about big states vs. little states. The Founders had a fear that under the popular vote, the choice of President would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. When they wrote the constitution, this was a big deal with the limitations of travel and communication. Obviously, a candidate could campaign in a few large states, save money, time and likely get elected.

In today’s world, the process is totally meaningless and irrelevant and yet we continue to use the same antiquated process over 200 years after it was instituted. It has now led to two unprecedented Presidential elections in the last 16 years where the states elected George Bush and Donald Trump, but the public elected Al Gore and Hillary Clinton by over 500,000 and 2.23 million votes, respectively.

Another reason for the electoral college process was to prevent a charismatic tyrant from fooling the public and attracting a majority of the popular vote. The Founders reasoned that the electoral college process would allow a more knowledgeable group of savy electors to override a misinformed public. As you might expect, there are various opinions on whether that “check and balance” actually works.

124 Views · View Upvotes

Upvoters3

Comment

Share

View 14 Other Answers to this Question

Sweeping Gridlock Under The Rug

As the nation prepares for the most watched television debate ever between Clinton and Trump, the most important governance crisis this country faces is almost never discussed – Congressional gridlock.

Oh yeah, you will hear candidates expounding on how they’re going to work with Congress to get things done. They’re going to “reach across the aisle” and work with the other side – blah, blah, blah – it’s all empty rhetoric.

The issue of Congressional gridlock is front and center, the most important underlying issue this country faces. It is destroying the country’s ability to govern itself, make important decisions and advance the principles of democracy that made this country great and the shinning star on the world stage.

Yet, despite its importance, the basic issue and serious proposals for reform rarely get the appropriate public exposure, debate and attention it deserves. It demands Presidential leadership and should be at the top of the agenda for the Presidential debate.

The publics’ frustration with government’s dysfunction is highlighted consistently with nearly two-thirds in recent years, silently screaming the country is on the wrong track. But, they are also focusing their frustration like a laser beam on Congress – not the President and specifically not President Obama.

The latest and recent Presidential approval ratings show President Obama at between 50-54 percent. Congressional approval, on the other hand is between 9-12 percent – H-E-L-L-O! – screaming dissatisfaction with the way Congress is addressing its Constitutional responsibilities. (RealClearPolitics latest and recent polling)

In tonight’s Presidential debate, wouldn’t you like to hear each candidate provide some specifics (underline specifics) on how they will address the most important, underlying issue in U.S. politics today? GO LESTER HOLT!

FOLLOW UP: Well, the subject of good government, broken government, Congressional gridlock, etc. did not come up in Monday night’s debate watched by over 80 million viewers (transcript). But, it sure would have been interesting to hear the responses. Maybe next time. How about this question for example:

MODERATOR: This question is for both of you. As you know, the overall Congressional approval rating hovers at around 10%, yet President Obama’s approval rating is over 50%. How do you explain this phenomenon? And, as President, how would you use the bully pulpit to educate the American public about Congressional gridlock and what do you plan to do or propose to make Congress more functional?

An Inside Look At The Politics of Congressional Gridlock

If you’re looking for an excellent example and an inside look at how political gridlock works to stifle action on critical issues, you need to read this well written account by Lindsay Wise with McClatchy news service:

The day Zika deal died:

A cautionary tale of congressional gridlock

This is why only 14% of registered voters approve of the job Congress is doing; 78% disapprove; and 9% are unsure. [Monmouth U. RV poll 8/4/16.] 

This is the reason "Right Track - Wrong Track" polling results continually indicate widespread belief that the country is on the wrong track, in spite of the fact that President Obama’s approval ratings continue to rank over 50% -- which is always a milestone for any President.

Congressional reformers should look closely at this article and dissect it at each junction in the process to develop proposals for change. A major focus should be on the ability of legislators to add unrelated amendments and riders to legislation designed to address a specific issues. [See my post: Unrelated Amendments & Riders – Tricks of the Political Trade]

Unfortunately, these political shenanigans continue each day Congress is in session and are designed to frustrate constructive action on major issues. They further divide and polarize the legislature and the general public as the “blame game” plays out with 24/7 media coverage & news bites, tweets & blog posts, editorials & op-eds and general Internet chatter.

The source of overall public discontent with “government” seems clear – the solutions are not. Interesting, the current Presidential campaigns seem to be missing an important opportunity to address strategies and specific solutions to address the current state of governmental dysfunction.