h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Reforming the US Presidential election - A2896842
Author: shagbark - U170775

I have made an effort to get this into finished form. I think it deserves to be seen. I welcome the comments of my fellow researchers.

This is a very good entry, but seems to assume that the reader is American. You'll have to make some slight changes: instead of saying "our President", say "America's President". Instead of saying "we have all been taught", say "American children are all taught". And so on.

The entry is entitled "Reforming the US Presidential election". But it starts by talking about something called an electoral college, as if we have all heard of them. I'd suggest that you say something like this:

"The President of the USA is one of the most powerful people on the planet. American calls itself a democracy, but the President is elected by a process which many people consider undemocratic - the Electoral College system."

Then continue with your entry as it is.

There was a lovely scene which was deleted from Star Wars: Attack of the Clones but is on the DVD. Padme says to Anakin "Democracy isn't about giving the people what they want, it's about giving them what they need". Which just goes to show that Padme, despite being an ex-queen and a senator, doesn't understand the word "democracy".

Can I just ask if this is personal opinion ?

I'm not certain, and by that I mean, please can we have a few people's opinion, if this should go in as it it's a strictly balanced view of the electroial system. Especially as the US elections are comming up

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the entry and I'm one of the first to say that I don't think the current system is a fair way for Americans to elect our leader (yep, I'm british, and we are ment to elect our own, but hey, we seem to have inheriteted a commander in chief )

Just wondering if it is appropriate for The Editied Guide

Other notes - it may be worth pointing out that the 2000 election swung on 500 odd votes in Florida, and so it certainly doesn't ring true about the 1 man 1 vote for every citizen (and don't get me started about the fact that some GOP voters in the milarty were able to vote twice and that from democrats were 'accidently' denied their vote in by the Presidents Brother and campiagn chief)

Strange though that nobody seems that bothered in Britain that it is easy enough to have the same problem over hear. I'm not sure if when John Major won the General Election, he may have lost the popular vote. There was only a small majority of seats and most of them were marginals, 20 seats won by 500 to 1000 votes are cancelled out in popular terms by 1 or two seats with big majorities.

Didn't Winston Churchill or somebody else dead and quoteable say "We have the worst system of Democracy in the World, until you look at everybody elses !!"

I thought Franco said that in a letter to Castro...

It is certainly a fact that some people consider the American system undemocratic. It is also a fact that a President can be elected when more than half the population support the other candidate. I think these are worth reporting on.

I think i will let the editors decide if it is appropriate. didn't you see the disclaimer at the bottom of each page "the views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC"

I think it's a nice Entry, well-written and quite balanced. However, I am afraid it will sound dated sooner or later.

HELL

I don't think it will sound dated. However I may be wrong.

Hmmm... Maybe it's just an impression caused by one or another sentence?

H

Hi

“The Electoral College was a brilliant 18th Century device that solved a cluster of 18th Century problems.”

Do you need ‘18th Century’ in there twice?

“a slew of 21st Century problems has appeared”

Have appeared?

ammending --> amending

“The Electoral College works like this today.”

Doesn’t sound right as a sentence. Perhaps ‘Today, the Electoral College works as follows...’ or something. That’s still not right though.

“defecting electors in a close race would cause a crisis of confidence in our electoral system.”

Is that supposed to be ‘could cause...’?

“Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but he was up against a man whose family was already entrenched. So John Quincy Adams was selected to be our fifth president.”

You make it sound like we’re a monarchy. It was a lot more complicated than that.

“Then in 1876 Rutherford B Hayes won the electoral vote. He did so because all the small states were for him while the more populous ones went for Samuel Tildon. It was proof that the Electoral College did what it was designed to do- empower states equally regardless of their density.”

I dunno... each state does not have the same number of Electors, and in 1876 there were definitely differences in population from state to state. East coast states like New York, Virginia and Massachusetts would have many more votes than frontier states in the west.

“To this end on 29 October, 2002 President Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act of 2002 which authorizes $3,900,000,000 in federal subsidies to the states.”

Is it just me or would saying 3.9 billion dollars or $3.9 billion be simpler than $3,900,000,000?

“The Electoral College gives the power to select a president to a few, and gives power to the two major political parties. A third party vote is seen as a wasted vote because it is nearly impossible for a third party to win a majority in a state, let alone a majority of the nation. The Electoral College is unfair to third parties, and those persons excluded in the election process.”

Well this isn’t quite acurate. In the days of Abe Lincoln, remember that the Republicans were a third party once, before the Whigs died. Their first presidential candidate did really well for a new party, and just look at them now I also wouldn’t say that in a popular vote election in modern times, majorities are any easier to obtain. People would still say it’s impossible for a third party to win a majority in the country and would still vote Republican or Democrat. Of course, the exception, historically speaking, is when a parties comes about from a very divisive issue... like... say slavery?

“The notion of a national government holding an election is not a grave one, and state's rights would still be intact.”

How would they still be intact? Which rights?

“some still defend the Electoral College, claiming the founding fathers could not have been wrong.”

I’m just curious, who said that? These are the same founding fathers who recognized and voted not to ban slavery? And are these the same founding fathers who included a clause allowing for the amendment of the constitution, in case they were wrong?

“As I said before, the Electoral College solved many 18th Century problems, but they were just that, 18th Century problems”

As was said...?

“ratifying an ammendment to the Constitution. “ amendment

“They do not want states like New York and California deciding who will be president and electing someone like Samuel Tilden.”

Well, if it were a popular vote then it wouldn’t be able states, it would be able people. States are just a convenient divider.

“and court cases have named it constitutional”
Decided it was constitutional?

“However if they could be persuaded to split their vote in accordance with one of the systems above a more fair outcome could be achieved. “

Well, I believe that more states used to split their votes, but decided to go with a winner take all system (I might not be right, I’ll have to check) This sentence implies (or maybe it doesn’t... it’s a judgement call really) that all states began with a winner take all system.

“I think the best strategy in getting a change in a 210-year-old system is to start small, test it out on a smaller basis, and if people like it have them wage a grass roots campaign to make it national policy.”

First person references are bad!

All of this said, I believe that this is a rather biased entry, and needs more about the advantages of the Electoral College to make it balanced. Like in the sentence where you say both reasons for the electoral college to exist (and I think there are more than two) are absurd... that’s a bit biased, don’t you think? However, if you go through it and make it more balanced (I happen to agree with you on this, but I understand the opposite point) and readable, it has a good chance of working itself a place in the Edited Guide

I will be gone for about a week but I intend to work on these problems eventually. Perhaps after the November Election will be a better time for making final changes

I did a little more work on it. as to the number $3,900,000,000 I was considering that not all nations on this globe agree as to what a billion is. Some say a thousand million, some a million million ( with a milliard thrown in between)

I have added some numbers to the top ten states. The list of states would look better as a list but I forget the guide ML format for lists in edited entries. Anyone have a link to that format?

the original author of this piece may not like my conclusion that reform is not going to happen. However there are no signs that he has been in h2g2 since 2001 so unless the editors e-mail him about it this article (which I retrieved from the flea market) will bear my conclusions and those of any future editors.

Ummm... see? That's what I meant with dated (cf. before). Suppose it gets reformed in 20 years...

What the heck

HELL

Many articles that are already in the Edited guide are out of date in less than four years. this would be no more dated than any of those.
See for example my article on Lansing Michigan

Yah, you're right, there are many sub-optimal Edited Entries out there.

HELL

True, SB, naming Bush is going to date the entry, but many of the names you throw out are over 100 years in the past; so I don't really see that as a problem if you mention the year involved.

I think you've done a fine job, on an intricate subject. I may have missed a point or two, but I don't recall you mentioning that some states swing all their electoral votes to one candidate (like Florida did), and some apportion them to the popular vote.

Personally, I would rather the focus move away from states, state's rights, and state votes. For an all-encompassing post like president, I feel that the popular vote is the only way that is fair to ALL Americans.

What difference should it make to those from Rhode Island, or California, how their 'state' (an arbitrary boundary) voted, if each person has an equal say? They're ALL Americans, after all. Apportioning states rights is what the Congress is supposed to be all about.

I have read many treatises on a representative owing more to their constituency than casting a representative vote on the basis of the popular opinion. If things get complex, and many additional add-ons spoil the worth of a law, or the resulting law will not provide the promised benefit, Yes, a representative will best serve by voting accordingly regardless of opinion. But representing the will of an informed public is what they were elected to do, and should do, in all but the most reprehensible of situations.

Good luck with the piece. It desererves a place in the guide.

can anyone guess what I've added this week ( 20 October 2004)?