A split nation is one in need of healing.

Electoral Mismatch is a Signal
Why are we concerned about a sway of a percent or two of popular vote count in either direction?

Most votes cast were against someone rather than for someone. Either way, we are a tragically divided nation. We have a selection process that allows finding of consensus in times like these. We have not made good use of it. If we recognize that a mismatch between Electoral vote tallies and popular vote tallies is a clear indication of a precariously divided nation, we can resolve to make extraordinary attempts to bridge the political divide and find a consensus candidate when a mismatch occurs.

This would be what we would do if we understand the selection of President as an attempt to promote the national interest above any and all factional or party interests. This prospect would be more salient in our minds, and more manifest in reality, if we were to allocate Electoral votes by Congressional District rather than by State. Lively discussions could be had in many State Capitols when Electors meet, if people with different perspectives were coming together in State Capitols all across the nation. But just because what we have is not ideal does not mean we should not make the best possible use of our current situation.

Electors should reach across the political divide and find a consensus candidate.

Doris Kearns Goodwin for President Jon Stewart for President

Work. Love. Play. Find a balance. Make a difference.

Who might appeal to Republican Electors and Democratic Electors... and the people at large?

December 19th Signs

Original Intent: Electors discuss and reflect

The early expectation for the Electoral College was that a State Capitol would have people gathering from around the state, from different Congressional districts AND different political factions, and if there was a mismatch between popular and electoral counts, that would indicate a close election and divided nation (or divided State).

 In that context (where Electoral votes were assigned according to who won the vote in each Congressional District), a gathering of Colleagues that has people from both sides of the political divide would be discussing the situation. When people from different viewpoints discuss, there is more chance of creative solutions emerging.

 Now imagine that one of the candidates the Electoral Colleagues are considering is a bombastic rabble-rouser who exploits prejudice and xenophobia. The people, the Colleagues, who were chosen for their wisdom and ability to reflect and put national interest first (we hope) would be able to transcend their party affiliations and do what is right for the nation.

 By preventing a demagogue from gaining the highest office and turning the nation down a path of authoritarian cronyism, Electoral Colleagues can help preserve the form of government that is responsive to the people AND well administered. (Federalist #68) We should tell Electoral Colleagues to seek a consensus candidate.

  The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from gaining power

#JonStewartForPresident

Electors are Heroes, if we want.

The system is structured in a way that shows objectively when we have a nation that has become dangerously divided.

If we find a mismatch between the Electoral vote and the popular vote, we can let that be a signal that we should look for an alternative someone who can reach across the political divide and bring the nation together. This is even more true if candidates on the ballot had historically high disapproval ratings in random polls. Imagine if Electors were allotted according to which candidate won the vote in each Congressional District. Then, when Electors gather in State Capitols, they would be a more diverse group. There could be lively discussions about possible alternatives, in an effort to find a consensus candidate. We need to tell our State Legislators we want that for next time.

Colleges do their best work when colleagues discuss from differing perspectives. (Imagine 2000 with Electoral Colleagues discussing among themselves what third name they might introduce, to heal the divide and take advantage of opportunities ordinarily not available to a system that only considers ambitious self-promoters.)

The Constitution gives a nod to this interpretation and this method of choosing (assignment by Congressional district) when it defines the number of Electors for each State as being equal to the number of persons in Congress representing the State. Modern science supports this interpretation when it reveals that groups made up of people with a diversity of views always arrive at better solutions than homogeneous groups when they have a chance to discuss various options.

Because Electors are chosen by a winner-take-all method in each State, we loose the opportunity to have this discussion among a diverse group of prominent or highly-respected citizens on the day of their meeting. So, to compensate, we can have the conversation now about what alternative names we would want to offer to Electors by way of suggestion, in hopes that they might travel across a state line to talk to a colleague from across the political divide and seek an accord. Even in their relatively homogeneous groups in the State Capitols, they will be better able to make a decision in conversation as colleagues rather than decide in silence to operate as a rubber-stamp mechanism.

Our Electors are Colleagues are Heroes. If we want. If they want. If there are enough Republican Electors who want to change their vote (37 out of over 300), we could have a surprisingly positive outcome of this election... IF they change their vote to a person whose public stature could ensure wide support from across the population. Electoral Colleagues vote in December. They CAN seek consensus. The November election gave #NoMandate to any candidate. (For a more lively discussion on December 19th, and to compensate for the distortion toward homogeneity caused by the winner-take-all system, Colleagues could invite their opposite numbers to the discussion, perhaps, at least until the homogeneity situation is remedied.

electors.blogspot.com

How to Fix Civilization

Who Cares?

The number of people voting for either candidate was approximately equal. A better option than dismissing the Electoral College and electing the winner of that popular vote would be to ask Electors to decide a consensus candidate.

Not all, and not even a majority, would need to change their vote. If they can put a third name and if it is someone many people would prefer (an actual improvement, let's say, over the two who have such high negative ratings), then Congress would decide in January, from the top three. Will Republican Electors put national interest ahead of Party 'loyalty'? Will three dozen of them do so?

A College is made up of colleagues. They are supposed to talk about their decision when they gather. If they decide to function in a confirmatory role, they will say, "The election past produced a clear mandate and the result should be taken as an expression of the sentiments of the people". If Electors decide to vote in a way not anticipated by their Party nomination process, they may explain, "The election produced no mandate due to the nearly equal split in the popular vote AND the voters reported higher-than-usual levels of dissatisfaction with the candidates offered".

If the meeting of Electors at the State Capitols on December 19th is understood as a meeting of citizens who have the best interests of the nation at heart... if the Electors approach it with that spirit and frame of mind, we may be pleasantly surprised at the result. I heard someone say once, "There is no loyalty without loyalty to truth". The truth is, we would be better off, the world would be better off, if Republican and Democrat Electors talk among themselves and find someone who most of them could agree on AND who most citizens agree is a good choice.

How to Fix Civilization #JonStewartForPresident

If we ONLY consider those who tell us that they are the best choice for President, we will tend to get egotistical people as leaders.

The 'winner' on Tuesday will not be a winner in the sense that we might like. We might like to have as a winner of this race a person who most all people trust and respect and admire; one who most people can agree will likely be a good or even a great President. We ought to have as President a person who can, more than anyone else, help us to recognize what we all have in common as Americans, a person who will call on us to look beyond our own private interests to the larger national and even global interest. We ought to have a President who will call on us to work for the greater good; to give of ourselves, for our fellows, and for future generations.

I hope that the Electors will realize that a popular vote that has most people staying away from the polls, and, of those who do vote, most voting for someone other than the 'winner', and of those who voted for the so-called winner, most of those saying that they were voting for 'the lessor evil', does not constitute a mandate from the people.

Walter Cronkite never ran for President because he does not want to see a situation where people who have become famous as television journalists use that as a platform to get into office. If that happened, anything any reporter said would be suspect. People would wonder, "Are they reporting news, or are they just trying to say what will help them build a platform to run for office?" Cronkite does not want to see anything happen that could strike at our belief in the integrity of journalists. It is important that citizens in a free society know and believe that reporters are trying to report objectively and not trying to promote their own future political career.

So, Cronkite believes that he should not promote himself. OK. He has a good point. But there might be another way to go about this process of choosing Presidents. Cronkite believes also that we might get better results if, instead of only considering those who are running, we also look beyond those who promote themselves to others who might be qualified. Many years ago, he put out a survey: "Besides those who appear to be running, who do you think might make a good President?" He showed a long list of names. Some people some other people think might make a good choice. Not surprisingly, his name was on the list. I think he has the right idea. We probably would get better results if we actively look for who we want to vote for.

What should the Electors do? Should they keep the tradition of voting their party interest, even with such low levels of participation--and in the face of such high levels of dissatisfaction--among voters and non-voters alike? If there could ever be a time when Electors should break from tradition and vote their conscience, to discuss among themselves and find someone who they, and we, could most all agree on, is it not now time? Will the Electors to the President rise to the challenge that this crisis of confidence has presented? Can they set aside party interest in favor of national interest? Should they?


Walter Cronkite for President


Why Cronkite never ran - and a hint that he might welcome a draft


John Champagne