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
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Who are the Electors - What do they do? - Can they help change the system for the better?
What is the Electors' responsibility?
The Electors are responsible for choosing the president of the United States. Traditionally, they have voted their party's nominee, but there is reason to believe that to do so now will unnecessarily divide the nation. There is an alternative. Electors could look for a widely trusted and respected person who is not partial to any party but who is clearly committed to the interests - to the long-range health - of this nation, and well-being of her people.
In a very close election, just a few Electors would be all that is necessary to ensure that a third name is put up for consideration, and with no majority of Electoral votes going to any one person, the House of Representatives would decide, from the top three.
The Process - as I understand it
The Electors have traditionally been hand-picked by the two 'major' political parties, with the party receiving a plurality of votes cast in each State enjoying the privilege of naming the entire slate of Electors for that State. The Electors, ostensibly chosen by the Legislators, (according to the Constitution), but picked by the parties, then vote for their party's nominee. (This is where I am a bit confused. Who is actually choosing the Electors? Is it the Legislature or the Parties?)
If the level of citizen participation in the election falls to one-half or less, and if those who do vote are voting as much or more against someone as for someone, and if most people feel that the choices presented leave much to be desired--if, when asked who they would like to have as president if they could choose anyone, people say, "someone who is not running"--, the question arises: Is the election a mandate in any sense of the word? Or is it time for the Electors to set aside tradition and vote their conscience? If not now, when? How low can public confidence in the slate of candidates go before the Electors would see a responsibility to look beyond this slate? Should the Constitution be changed to eliminate the role of the Electors? A computer program could much more efficiently perform the function that Electors perform today. But a computer program may not recognize when the data inputted lacks validity.
The tradition of voting for the nominee of the party that receives the largest number of votes in a particular State may be a convenient way for established interests to maintain their grip on power, but it has done little recently to cultivate the sense among the people that they are getting something other than corporate sponsored, advertiser supported candidates.
(This is an old article. Now the traditional way that the Electoral College functions would enable the 'populist' disaster involving pandering to base instincts that the College was intended to prevent... even though the person who seems to have the Electoral College vote did not receive most of the popular vote. Now that's strong irony.)
Walter Cronkite for President < -- too late
Systemic flaws are not reported
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
The Electors are responsible for choosing the president of the United States. Traditionally, they have voted their party's nominee, but there is reason to believe that to do so now will unnecessarily divide the nation. There is an alternative. Electors could look for a widely trusted and respected person who is not partial to any party but who is clearly committed to the interests - to the long-range health - of this nation, and well-being of her people.
In a very close election, just a few Electors would be all that is necessary to ensure that a third name is put up for consideration, and with no majority of Electoral votes going to any one person, the House of Representatives would decide, from the top three.
The Process - as I understand it
The Electors have traditionally been hand-picked by the two 'major' political parties, with the party receiving a plurality of votes cast in each State enjoying the privilege of naming the entire slate of Electors for that State. The Electors, ostensibly chosen by the Legislators, (according to the Constitution), but picked by the parties, then vote for their party's nominee. (This is where I am a bit confused. Who is actually choosing the Electors? Is it the Legislature or the Parties?)
If the level of citizen participation in the election falls to one-half or less, and if those who do vote are voting as much or more against someone as for someone, and if most people feel that the choices presented leave much to be desired--if, when asked who they would like to have as president if they could choose anyone, people say, "someone who is not running"--, the question arises: Is the election a mandate in any sense of the word? Or is it time for the Electors to set aside tradition and vote their conscience? If not now, when? How low can public confidence in the slate of candidates go before the Electors would see a responsibility to look beyond this slate? Should the Constitution be changed to eliminate the role of the Electors? A computer program could much more efficiently perform the function that Electors perform today. But a computer program may not recognize when the data inputted lacks validity.
The tradition of voting for the nominee of the party that receives the largest number of votes in a particular State may be a convenient way for established interests to maintain their grip on power, but it has done little recently to cultivate the sense among the people that they are getting something other than corporate sponsored, advertiser supported candidates.
(This is an old article. Now the traditional way that the Electoral College functions would enable the 'populist' disaster involving pandering to base instincts that the College was intended to prevent... even though the person who seems to have the Electoral College vote did not receive most of the popular vote. Now that's strong irony.)
Walter Cronkite for President < -- too late
Systemic flaws are not reported
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)