Louisiana voters are gearing up for election day in record numbers.Spurred on by the presidential election,more than one quarter of a million people cast absentee ballots which is an all-time record.And for good reason.This is certainly one of the most important elections in modern history.But if you live in Louisiana, your vote is looked on as irrelevant to the process.Your sway on who will win American Idol has more influence than who will be the next president of the United States.
Louisiana has been written off as a “red state,” which means, for all practical purposes, your vote does not count.You might as well write in “none of the above” or leave a hanging chad.Why?Look no further than the Electoral College.We are about to elect our country’s and the world’s most powerful leader, but the system we have in place causes us to abdicate our right to have our vote count.
Under the present system, the Electoral College rules require that all the state’s electoral votes go to the winner, no matter how close the election might have been.If, for example, Obama gets 45% of the Louisiana votes, he still gets 0% of the Louisiana electoral votes.If McCain ends up winning by one vote in Louisiana, he receives all of Louisiana’s electoral votes.In fact, it is mathematically possible for one of the candidates to get 49% of the popular vote and 100% of electoral votes.Go figure.
Right now, there are fewer than 10 competitive “battleground” states that are receiving the focus and the money from the presidential candidates. In a state like Louisiana, where McCain will easily win, or a state like New York, where Obama is a cinch, why even vote for president?All of the electoral delegates get assigned to the winner, and we know who the winner is going to be, so your vote for president, for all practical purposes, has been taken away.
Now when it comes to other statewide races on the ballot, like Governor or U.S. Senator, strangely enough, we use the popular vote. So what is so important about having the electoral vote system that allows Louisiana voters and the voters in the majority of the states in this country to be disenfranchised in a presidential election?An idiosyncratic system that on four occasions in our nation’s history has created a quagmire where the winner of the largest number of popular votes did not win the largest number of electoral votes, and therefore did not become president.Remember some guy named Al Gore?
The system in place was confected in the early days of the republic by our founders, where electors were supposed to be independent agents exercising their best judgment in choosing a presidential candidate from a list of several contenders. Why?Because the Framers of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, the champions of democracy, did not trust the voters to make an intelligent choice.Check out these quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
“The extent of the country renders a popular vote impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.”Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787.
“A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men and throughout the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment.”Delegate Gerry.July 25, 1787.
“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”Delegate Johnson, July 19, 1787.
So what this all comes down to is that the Founding Fathers were trying their best to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.They didn’t trust voters then and the system does not trust you now to make your choice. So because of conservative political persuasions, Louisiana is left out of any serious attention from the presidential candidates.
Since receiving their respective nominations, neither McCain nor Obama have set foot in Louisiana.Neither candidate has said a word about hurricane recovery, wetlands protection, or supporting a larger percentage of oil and gas revenues for the state off the Louisiana coast.From each of their perspectives, Louisiana issues are irrelevant in the current campaign.Their just is no political capital to gain by either coming to or speaking about the BayouState.
By being so out of the mix, just what else is Louisiana missing?How about the lack of all that attention?No knocks on the door by college students from out of state with leaflets about what an old, unhealthy guy John McCain is.No robo-calls in the middle of dinner telling you that Barack Obama is a terrorist.And no presidential TV ads.In Louisiana, you are left out of the national political bombardment that is taking place in the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida where those voters are taught that McCain is a Bush clone and that Obama will socialize the country.Besides those paid for by state and local candidates, all we get are ads about bladder control and erectile dysfunction.
There are a number of reforms being considered for future elections.A proportional electorial vote by congressional districts is as compromise solution that makes sense.In the meantime, don’t forget to go vote for a number of candidates and propositions on the ballot next Tuesday.Your vote might make the difference in many of these local and state races.That is except for President.In this election, you really are irrelevant.
*******
"We've said it before, and we'll say it again - the American Electoral College system sucks.
The Daily Iowan
The Daily Iowan. (23 Sept 2004). Editorial/Opinion. "Long past time to fix Electoral College."
Peace and Justice
Jim Brown
Jim Brown’s column appears weekly, and is published in a number of newspapers and websites throughout Louisiana.You can read past columns by going to Jim’s website at www.jimbrownla.com.Jim’s regular radio show on WRNO, 995fm out of New Orleans can be heard each Sunday from 11:00 am till 1:00 pm.
Why? Is McCain going to free the slaves or something????? Written by
on 11/3/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The Cook Report has changed Louisiana to leaning to McCain. Your vote does matter Tuesday. Written by David Quidd
on 11/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So is that a 3.87 to 3.6 of the electoral votes there DQ? If so, then I guess 1.53 electors is 'up for grabs'......... If some of those earlier 3. wutever's don't get a sliver or change there minds or something.... I wonder what in the sam hill .87 of an electoral voter looks like? Is that like almost 9/10ths of a person? It could mean everything from the neck down...... Or from the knees up, whichever way you want to look at it.... I wonder about that 1.53 also, does that mean there is a tall elector and a midget elector hiding behind a curtain somewhere????? Or perhaps the midget is riding around on the tall mans shoulders? Or crazy enough, the tall man could be riding around on the midgets shoulders...... Ohhhh yeeegads!!!! This is all so confusing..... Written by
on 10/31/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If "the will of the people" is what we want - then let's allow "the people" to vote on issues directly instead of elected representatives. It's only a matter of time before this happens somewhere in this country, then you'll see real "change" in our governance as it spreads like wildfire as more and more communities demand this. Written by kpf
on 10/31/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
A poll taken for WWL TV by Ed Renwick shows McCain leading Obama 43% to 40% in Louisiana. Obama is now running tv ads in Arizona, Georgia and North Dakota. As I said before, take nothing for granted. Vote Tuesday. Written by David Quidd
on 10/31/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows--namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
- - - - - - - - - -
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.
Written by susan
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Written by susan
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I believe that every state but one gives all the elctoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state. This is a great system, otherwise we would have California, New Jersey, and New York determining who the president will be. Written by Sid
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actually getting rid of the electoral college period and allowing people to vote for their candidates that are running for office is closer to the will of the people there Mr. Sullivan....... Written by
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Thought the Constitution requires an Electoral College, it also leaves it to the states to determine the method of selection of Electors. We could determine in Louisiana that congressional districts each elect an Elector and that the other Electors be elected by statewide ballot. That would produce results like those of the election of Representatives and would also be closer to the will of the people. Written by Robert Desmarais Sullivan
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I agree with you Mr. Quidd, never take anything for granted..... Especially the validity of any absentee ballots that are going to be cast..... Written by
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Never take anything for granted. I urge everyone to vote Tuesday for President and every other position on the ballot. Written by David Quidd
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The below post, brings up some thought, and they may even have some merit, but I myself personally believe that the electoral college needs to be dismantled..... Media polls relating to numbers for or against a candidate during campaigns need to be outlawed... All people running for office should be given equal exposure and airtime..... And it should break down to the common vote.... Perhaps this nation really does need to hit bottom so that it can get its priorities right... If that is the case, I advocate voting for Obama...... And am satisfied with the electoral college.... Written by
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In the early days, our population was too far flung and too consumed with survival to learn about candidates and cast informed votes. Today, the population is ignorant, selfish and too easily manipulated by media and political lies and bribes to cast an informed vote. Written by
on 10/30/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Louisiana, New Orleans Area Politics News Punches In Grand Comedy
