If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It!
Recent efforts to sneak around the U.S. Constitution's method of electing the President by John Anderson and Friends really get stuck in my craw. Where it might be an interesting assignment in a political science class to imagine ways to subvert the intent of the Constitution by State Legislatures, it is bad public policy to do it. If the Constitution needs to be changed, the issue should be brought to the public square, debated and amended. The fact that it is not easy to change the Constitution and attempts to eliminate the Electoral College have failed, is not an excuse to subvert it. In my letter to the editor, I noted James Madison's view of a straight democratic form of government. He rejected it because of the obvious opportunity for abuse.
As for those who want to pass a national popular vote law in Illinois because of candidates not campaigning here, they are really only suggesting changes to which regions get ignored. It makes me wonder how many times George Washington, John Adams, etc. campaigned in, say, Georgia? With today's communication technology, it seems that there is less need to have a physical presence. Still, I have some suggestions. 1) Require all Presidential candidates to personally certify their spot on the ballot. If they do not come, they are not on the ballot. 2) Raise about a million dollars (a dime a person) in Illinois. Let the candidates know we are splitting the pot on a certain day. If you come, you get your share. If you don't, your share goes to your opponent. 3) Provide for a 'virtual' campaign. They can video conference to thousands of people at a time.
The Constitution is not broke; it is working the way it was designed.
As for those who want to pass a national popular vote law in Illinois because of candidates not campaigning here, they are really only suggesting changes to which regions get ignored. It makes me wonder how many times George Washington, John Adams, etc. campaigned in, say, Georgia? With today's communication technology, it seems that there is less need to have a physical presence. Still, I have some suggestions. 1) Require all Presidential candidates to personally certify their spot on the ballot. If they do not come, they are not on the ballot. 2) Raise about a million dollars (a dime a person) in Illinois. Let the candidates know we are splitting the pot on a certain day. If you come, you get your share. If you don't, your share goes to your opponent. 3) Provide for a 'virtual' campaign. They can video conference to thousands of people at a time.
The Constitution is not broke; it is working the way it was designed.
Labels: national popular vote, political
posted by Carl at 10:01 PM
2 Comments:
I disagree with your views on this issue (popular vote-constitutional amendment). I have trouble getting my arms around the fact that a two hundred year old document that has not evolved at all while society has. The same analogy could be used in France at the begining of the industrial revolution. Technology and society changed, and so did the power structure of the nation as a whole. While this is an extreme example, the point remains that our Constitution must be dynamic in nature rather than a static document that does not take into account issues pertaining to the citizens of this nation at this time. One of those issues for example is gun control. Forcing people to register their guns is not a bad thing. Neither is outlawing certain types of firearms (fully automatic weapons for example).
I agree that the Constitution should have the ability to change. However, this should not be by dictate, fiat, or coniving, but by the method allowed for in the Constitution. The Amendment process is there specifically because the Founding Fathers knew that the document would need changes. My point is that changes should be made by the existing stucture of the Constitution. To undermine the process is to destroy the Foundation of the document.
Post a Comment
<< Home