Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: Gary Gilbert on March 12, 2011, 08:18:19 AM
-
The Electoral College was created as part of the Constitutional convention of 1786 and was intended to reflect the physical reality and social attitudes of the time. Distances were vast, communication slow, and commoners were expected to defer to their betters.
The 1788 election was the first use of the college. States could split their votes. In that election, 137 votes from 10 states were cast for 12 different candidates. Vermont had 3 votes or 2 percent of the total.
Today, the rapid flow of information has compressed distances and we now value the opinions of all citizens. But the value of our votes has diminished. In the 2008 election, 538 votes were cast by 50 states between two candidates. Only two states split their votes. Vermont’s 3 votes were only.one-half of a percent of that total.
A President can now be elected by only winning 11 states. Candidates will cater to the states that have the votes; states with higher populations and large cities. Federal policies are reflective of the needs of those states not small or rural states. The question is whether to continue a process where Vermont has limited influence or to pool our votes with other states creating the possibility of selecting a President who campaigned on a national level and is willing to present policies representative of all our citizens and states rather than just those with the most Electoral votes. A national popular vote is worth considering to retain the qualities we value in Vermont.
Representative Gary Gilbert
Fairfax/Georgia
March 11, 2011
849-6333
-
you need to worry about this states problems and what your gonna tax next to makeup the 500 million the state is short to balance the budget
-
Mr. Gilbert,
Respectfully, I must disagree with your position.
While your math is correct that Vermont's 3 of the 538 votes in the electoral college equals 0.56% of the body that elects our President and Vice President, the proportion of Vermont's population to the entire US population is much smaller. According to the the 2010 US Census, Vermont's population was 625,741 (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php)). The same census declared the population of the United States of America to be 308,745,538 in 2010. Vermont's percentage of the overall US population is actually 0.20% (625,741 / 308,745,538). In reality the electoral college systems boosts Vermont's per capita influence on the election of our president and vice president by 275%.
The electoral college system was not designed by our forefathers so that the beliefs of commoners could be deferred their betters, but it was designed to balance the power and needs between more densely populated urban states and sparsely populated rural states. While it is true that a president could be elected by winning the popular vote in the 11 most populous states in the country that outcome unlikely, and it necessitates the need for a nationwide campaign. Vermont does not get a lot of attention on from presidential candidates, but if Vermont passes a law to vote in the electoral college based on the results of the national popular vote then a visit to Vermont becomes even less important. A presidential candidate could never set foot in Vermont and not even get a single vote and still count on our electoral votes if they knew they could win the popular vote.
Regardless of a person's politics, I think Vermonters would be upset in a situation where the final tally of the state's presidential votes did not align with the national popular vote. I understand many Vermonters were upset when Al Gore lost the election to George W. Bush in 2000 even though Gore won the popular vote. How would those Vermonters who voted for John Kerry in 2004 have felt if our state's electoral votes were cast for George W. Bush (who won the popular vote) even though the state favored John Kerry by an almost 10% margin?
I truly believe that our forefathers knew what they were doing when they established our government. While the existence of the electoral college may seem counterintuitive to many, it was put in place to protect the interests of a state like Vermont. Any action to undo the well thought out work of our forefathers would be a tragedy. I can only hope that I have had some influence on your opinion regarding this topic. More importantly, I hope that I have convinced your constituents (as I am a resident of Fletcher) that a change to how Vermont participates in our nation's electoral college would have a profound negative impact on our state's role in presidential elections.
Respectfully,
Todd Baumeister
-
Todd's math is better than Rod's math
but I must agree with both points !
-
Gary,
Just out of curiousity; what are the qualities that you value in Vermont that would benefit from or retain in a national popular vote?
Ed,
Please stop using your calculator to determine how fupped up our deficit is. I am running low on blood pressure medicine!!
Todd,
Well stated.
-
To be honnest after seeing what the majority of peoples political views are in Vermont(Very Liberal). I'm kind of glad we don't have much pull I think we would probably just do more bad then good. Just my opinion
-
thor add up all the positions that he has {shummie} added to the payroll then tell me my math is wrong
-
Ed,
I never said your math was wrong. I just told you to stop telling me what it is, as I am running low on medicine!!!
Chris, Todd,
Although Todd's numbers look good, his math (or text) is wrong. Vermont is not .20 of the total US population. Vermont is just over .002 (2%) of the population.
Josh,
You nailed it!
And I am not sure if you guys have ever heard this quote before... something like this.... " a politician worries about the next election, a statesman worries about the next generation".
-
Thor,
Please check your math again. 0.002 equals 2 thousendths of 1 or 0.2%.
-
my bad so sorry
-
Awaiting Gary's comments:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=50727 (http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=50727)
-
and more............
http://newsentinelreport.wordpress.com/category/national-popular-vote-plan-npv/ (http://newsentinelreport.wordpress.com/category/national-popular-vote-plan-npv/)
-
Electorial College is obsolete. Currently an individual vote in each state, for a national election, does not count for anything if it is not a majority.
I would much rather my vote be of equal value to a voter in Florida, New York, California or Arizona.
Having said that.... there are "bigger fish to fry". One example would be to use fiscal constraint, learn to spend what we have, not invent more taxes, cut back on unnecessary and redundant state departments. Eliminate Efficiency Vermont, 90% of the surcharge on your light bill is paid in salaries not in energy efficient products. Reduce the redundant non-for profit organizations and put them back on the tax payroll.
I could continue... but I am feeling in a good mood and do not want to ruin it for myself.
-
Actually, with the popular vote all a candidate has to do is campaign in the most populous states and ignore the smaller ones. Todd's math is right, oppose this deconstruction of the constitution!
-
Interesting Points by all involved --- Let me provide some additional thoughts to ponder ..
2 Out of 100 ---- Equal representation --- Every state rerpresented by 2 -- Regardless of Population --- The Senate provides an equal playing field
regardless of population.
Vermont has TWO -- Power Players -- Big Decision Makers who are truely enfluencial in our grand country ..
One only think : Vermont Jobs in Homeland Security & Passport Services ----
My point being this tiny state -- with a fractional populations -- has a TON of Power -- a TON of POWER -
How do you think the 'Big States' feel about this piece of the equation ?
Someone stated earlier, our country founders, were truely visionary folks, 235 years later and their system still works ! I for one consider their
bi-partisonship amazing .... and their brillance keeps shining.
-
Electoral college, popular vote.... you all are missing the one that Obama ran on and won... some refer to it as the Welfare Vote, others refer to it as the Progressive vote. All you have to do is promise more to those who do less, and you have successfully bought their vote. The stage is set... in his reelection run, all he has to do is promise more again.
-
BECAREFUL thor you keep talking like that people will think you are nuts like me
-
That's all right in my book. They would probably really think I was nuts if I posted most of my anti progressive, anti liberal, anti socialist thoughts. So I just keep it simple.
-
Yeah be for you know it people will start calling you a Right wing loon like they do to me!!
-
Josh, Ed,
Who is "loonier"... the Conservative or the Liberal? Liberals have convinced themselves that something that has never worked, anywhere, can now, somehow work here. I'll take the Conservative label anyday and avoid any ties to Sanders the Socialist or Leahy the Liberal.
-
Does Gary ever reply on these???? I respect you Mr. Gilbert, but if I had this type of follow up in your classes, I would have gotten an F.
-
HHHAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
In my opinion, and mine only, I think what you said MKR is key to all of these discussions. Carolyn always answers and showes that she is for the people. Gary never does. That is the difference between working for the people and not working for the people. I would vote for Carolyn over and over. It doesn't matter if people are for or against you. What matters in any relationship is communication. I don't see it happening. It makes you wonder.
-
Well said Shelly. It really disappoints me. He was a super teacher and I expected more when it came to this...... Carolyn is SUPER and I will continue to vote for her. This is such a great resource for them to utilize and gain the input from the community with a minimal amount of time needed to respond and listen to the people who voted them in.
-
I raised the issue of the Electoral College because the newspapers did not deal with the complexity of the issue. Vermont’s influence by either measure is small but what concerns me more is that federal policies do not recognize the unique needs of rural states. Particularly those that have a town form of government and provide services to its citizens from both the state and local level. Most states have a county form of government where decisions are made at the state level, administered by the county and local agencies do only what they are told to do.They do not understand the importance to us to be able to make our own decisions, right or wrong, about things that concern us. Let me give an example from education.
Last year the feds announced that education grants would be available to states that offered or created the opportunity for charter schools to be operated and financed with state dollars. Millions of dollars were at stake but Vermont was not eligible because we did not have any. The reason we don’t is because almost all of our school districts can already do everything that charter schools are allowed to do. Every town district is like a charter school. Charters must allow local communities to determine their curriculum, choose their own school board, hire and fire their own administrators and staff. In return they can be granted exemptions from some state regulation. Fairfax, Georgia, and Fletcher already do this. They can also ask the Commissioner of Education for waivers of state rules.
They do not understand that a school district, like Fairfax, Georgia, or Fletcher has the right to join with or retire from operations with another district. Or that they can close their own school and reopen it as a private school serving the community needs. Or that a community can choose to close their school, or never open one, and tuition all their students.
Other states create school districts, change districts and fully fund them from the state level. We let our local voters make most of these decisions for themselves. In fact, the federal government does not recognize town school districts. They define a district as under a superintendent. The most recent national change is from the NECAP tests to a new Common Core. The feds thought that our Dept. of Education could mandate a curriculum for all schools. They did not understand that their proposed change would mean that every school district in the state would have to go through the same process to match their curriculum of skills and knowledge to the new tests requirements.
After reading the comments to the issue of the current application of the Electoral College, I am convinced that a winner take all position really distorts the will of the voters so that the minority has no voice at all. The biggest weapon Vermont has is, as one of the comments noted, the opportunity to have representatives and senators that serve for a long time: Aiken, Stafford, Leahy, and perhaps Welch and Sanders. The federal seniority system is becoming very important in order to prevent Vermont from being ignored. Our Congressional Delegation seems to spend quite a little time asking for wavers or shaping bill so that they can work in Vermont, not just New Jersey. This state is different and that difference lies in that our citizens have a greater voice that exists in other states.
I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of many of the writers. I hoped to provoke some awareness of the issue. I guess I did.
-
THANK YOU MR. GILBERT!
-
Mr. Gilber,
I think what I read was that you favor Vermont keeping it's participation in the electoral college as is, meaning that Vermont's electoral college vote should reflect the vote of the majority of Vermonters?
Did I read that right? Can you confirm or deny?
Thanks,
Todd Baumeister
-
Gary,
I interpreted your post to mean that you are still in favor of popular vote elections for president.
Instructing Vermont's electors to vote for the national popular vote winner will decrease Vermont's influence. A popular vote election will give more influence to the urban areas, not less. Candidates will only have to win New York and California by wide margins and ignore the rest of the country. That's just what we need in Vermont, more rule by urbanites. If you think the rules are bad now, just wait until the Californians who have bankrupted their state take over!