DeAnneFree & Fair Elections
March 6th 2008 17:25
There seems to be a lot of stress on "Free and Fair Elections" worldwide these days, but do we really have "Free and Fair Elections" in the United States?
The U. S. Constitution does not actually guarantee the rights of U. S. Citizens to vote. There are amendments that state that the right to vote can not be infringed upon because of race, gender, or abiltiy to pay a poll tax, but the right to vote, in general, isn't there.
Our president is selected by a group of electors (the electoral college) and each state is free to decide how to choose those electors. Supposedly, the popular vote in each state is going to determine for whom the electors of that state vote, but it doesn't always have to work that way.
With the technology we have today, why can't the popular vote decide?
I personally don't like the way our primaries work either. With primaries being spread out for such a long period of time (up to six months, I think, from the first to the last), we don't all have the opportunity to choose from the same group of candidates. By the time it gets to the last states, some of the candidates have dropped out.
This is what I think we should do:
All who want to run for president should have to declare their intent before January 1 of an election year. They can then campaign wherever they want up until June 1. There should be debates - broadcast on public airways so everyone has access to them - each month, or two weeks during that five months. On June 1 (or the first Tuesday, Saturday - pick a day) there is one day of voting - across the entire country. That way, we all are able to choose from the entire group of those running. The candidate from each party with the largest popular vote - across the entire country - becomes that party's nominee. This saves a lot of money, because there is no need for all these conventions - the popular vote decides.
Then, for the next four months, the two (or three) party's nominees have debates before the general election. Again, the popular vote around the first of November will decide who the new president will be.
I think this would be much more fair than the way we do things now.
To make it even more fair - get rid of the party system all together. Have one primary for ALL candidates (no party designations) and the top two or three will continue on to the general election.
I also think it would be better if they all chose their running mates before the elections, so you know the whole team for whom you are voting - even in the primary.
This is just my opinion. But I think it would be more fair. What do you think?
The U. S. Constitution does not actually guarantee the rights of U. S. Citizens to vote. There are amendments that state that the right to vote can not be infringed upon because of race, gender, or abiltiy to pay a poll tax, but the right to vote, in general, isn't there.
Our president is selected by a group of electors (the electoral college) and each state is free to decide how to choose those electors. Supposedly, the popular vote in each state is going to determine for whom the electors of that state vote, but it doesn't always have to work that way.
With the technology we have today, why can't the popular vote decide?
I personally don't like the way our primaries work either. With primaries being spread out for such a long period of time (up to six months, I think, from the first to the last), we don't all have the opportunity to choose from the same group of candidates. By the time it gets to the last states, some of the candidates have dropped out.
This is what I think we should do:
All who want to run for president should have to declare their intent before January 1 of an election year. They can then campaign wherever they want up until June 1. There should be debates - broadcast on public airways so everyone has access to them - each month, or two weeks during that five months. On June 1 (or the first Tuesday, Saturday - pick a day) there is one day of voting - across the entire country. That way, we all are able to choose from the entire group of those running. The candidate from each party with the largest popular vote - across the entire country - becomes that party's nominee. This saves a lot of money, because there is no need for all these conventions - the popular vote decides.
Then, for the next four months, the two (or three) party's nominees have debates before the general election. Again, the popular vote around the first of November will decide who the new president will be.
I think this would be much more fair than the way we do things now.
To make it even more fair - get rid of the party system all together. Have one primary for ALL candidates (no party designations) and the top two or three will continue on to the general election.
I also think it would be better if they all chose their running mates before the elections, so you know the whole team for whom you are voting - even in the primary.
This is just my opinion. But I think it would be more fair. What do you think?
| 72 |
| Vote |
