Letter: Let's try a different voting system

The election is over, and after a year of campaigning and a billion-plus dollars, the voters have spoken: Let’s just keep things the same.

It seems to me that if we really don’t understand how precarious our economy has become by living beyond our means for years and the culpability of our politicians, then why have elections based on actual substance? Wouldn’t it just be more fun to choose our politicians another way, such as a reality TV show? That would be something people can understand.

There would be local and regional tryouts judged on how attractive the person is and how many free things he can promise to give away in 30 seconds. Extra points could be awarded for how many clichés, such as “the American people,” “our children and grandchildren,” “change,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “move forward” and the ever-popular “create jobs,” the candidate can put in a sentence and sound like he knows what he is talking about.

People could tweet or text their votes, or there could be celebrity judges. What fun!

And just think how much more time we would have for TV and shopping without the burden of thinking about what sort of country we are leaving our “children and grandchildren.”

David Epstein

retired real estate developer

New Orleans

Comments

1) Comment by Wallop - 30/11/2012

Oh, come ON, DMJ. Really! Just because what we have today is called the "Electoral College" you think that's what was intended? Do you really think that the Founders meant for the electors in each state to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the popular vote in each state? I'm sorry, but it's obvious to me that you don't have a clue as to what the "EC" was originally intended to achieve. And, after 20 years of trying, I no longer care to try to educate people. I won't fight with people's determined ignorance. YOU study it. YOU read the Founders' writings, and learn for yourself, just as I did, what they had originally intended. Otherwise, you will continue to be viewed on this forum, by those who have actually made the effort to know what they're talking about, as nothing more than an ignorant crank.

2) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

What do you mean "it would have..."? We have the Electoral College now. No need to contemplate the hypothetical when you can look at actual resutls. The EC gave the 2000 presidential election to W despite Gore getting more votes. This year, Obama won the popular vote by 3% yet the EC vote by 23%. Get a calculator and do some studying yourself. Speaking of how it was intended to work... I know all about the reasons it was created; I just don't care It's not the 1700s anymore. It's not a worthwhile system anymore, if it ever was. The Constitution wasn't perfect when it was written (women and black people of the time might agree with me). We have the Elastic Clause for a reason.

3) Comment by Wallop - 30/11/2012

DMJ, I suggest you study how the Electoral College was intended to work. I think it would have eliminated virtually all of the problems we have today with our presidential campaign/election circuses. Based on what you've said here, it's apparent to me that you need to do some more studying.

4) Comment by Wallop - 30/11/2012

rgeraldwallace, U.S. Senators were originally appointed by their state legislatures instead of by popular vote in order to create two legislative bodies that were naturally opposed to each other. The Senate was expected to reflect the desires of the rich few, while the House was to reflect the interests of the common folks. Changing to popular elections for Senate served both "progresives" as well as the wealthy. And I think an honest view of what we have today should show that the wealthy have come out way ahead.

5) Comment by Whatchange - 30/11/2012

This is getting so boring. Mr. Epstein, you are right, the election is over, get over it.

6) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

Tradewinns, I agree. Doing away with the Electoral College would be a good first step. The left-leaning voters in red states, essentially, don't matter much like the right-leaning voters in blue states. Entire states like Louisiana are disreguarded and the poor people of the 8 or so actual swing states are inundated with ads, polls, canvassers, and....campaign cash. It's a bad system. Something's gotta give. I almost with Romney would have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote so there would be pressure from the right to end the Electoral College. Oh well...

7) Comment by tradewinns - 30/11/2012

La. needs to stop being a "non contested" state. we didn't get much money from the national election, while some states got 100's of millions. even if we are going to vote lopsided for a particular side, cain't we just say we're not sure which way we'll go so we can benefit from all that money?

8) Comment by DMJ - 30/11/2012

Sounds like someone's candidate lost and is upset about it. Nothing new here.

9) Comment by [e-mail] - 30/11/2012

Quite right, Wallop. Populistswho could never otherwise be considered for the post of senator joined forces and became the minions of the progressives and waged an unending populist war until they got what they wanted, i.e. an erosion of state's rights.

10) Comment by Wallop - 30/11/2012

“The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” - Alexander Hamilton As far as I'm concerned, so long as we have so much "democracy" at the federal level, we're going to have the circus Mr. Epstein describes. I think we need to both reduce (drastically) the power of the federal government and go back to appointment of Senators and the proper use of the Electoral College.

11) Comment by Bighug - 29/11/2012

I don't understand. What is the difference in the method the letter suggests and the system we use now?