Fixing the Electoral Process

Every four years, talk of dismantling the Electoral College drags itself, if only temporarily, into the public mind. Critics argue it undermines the concept of pure democracy by placing greater importance on some states over others. They also point out how a candidate can win the popular vote, the Vox Populi, yet lose the election. Both observations I agree with. Yet, to make a national election hinge solely on the popular vote fails to avoid both the aforementioned thorns. Take for example the battle ground state of Ohio. The US Census Bureau’s 2006 figures list its population as 11,478,006. That is for the entire state. New York City, for the same year, had a population of 8,214,426. That is one city. Include the entire state and New York will trump Ohio every time in every election. Therefore, candidates will focus on higher, densely populated areas over smaller, less populated ones.

A simple solution I’ve been mulling over is having two layers of pure democracy. The first layer consists of leaving the popular vote on the state level just as it is. The change I’d make is this: whoever wins the state’s popular vote wins the state, and the candidate who wins the most states wins the election. In this system, no state is more important than then any other. Candidates would have to win a broad appeal across the country to win the election.

Have at it. 

 

2020 Update. 12 years later. Nothing has changed. The Electoral College is still both hero and villain. It all depends on who you ask. Maybe that means it has just the right amount of flaws and strengths? Hmmm....

Loaded words.

A few years back Mark and I produced a comic about giant zombies titled The Tall and the Dead, a mostly comedic tale of the Zombie Apocalypse featuring undead of ungodly proportions. Mixed into the jokes were a number of serious observations about the world. We are, after all, students of the Romero School of Zombie. The above panel is such an observation. Its topic is politics. In three panels, we illustrated a basic tactic in politics as old as society: control the language and you control thought. Control thought and you control people.

Don't like a rival? Call him or her a name and burden them with the weight of history. Stink them up with inference. Bloody their hands with the actions of others. Facts don't count, remember. We're talking politics. Repeat it enough and people will believe it.

Don't like a group of people? Use a label that invokes and evokes emotion. Better yet, take a loner's actions and wonder aloud within earshot of a live microphone. Wonder how many others are just like (insert name here). Suddenly, this person's name becomes a deadly germ. People will smile while gladly hacking off a healthy limb to avoid the slightest contamination. Guilt by implied association. Say it loud enough and people will remember it.

Will someone please invent a rehab program for the American political system so we are all free of its addiction to coercive labels and its unauthorized conscription of the language? Is that so much to ask? Is it?

I'm Sam Girdich and I approve this message.