11.01.2004: Life at the Edge of a Foregone Conclusion
Today is Monday, November 1, 2004; the day before The election. I know who I am voting for, but apparently there are a great many who don't - candidates are still beating the bricks trying to convice rallys full of people who showed up because they'd already decided to vote for them. The real undecideds don't go to rallys; they're at home. They will probably be at home tommorrow, too; or at least they should if they've haven't decided by now.
More depressing is the thought that, at least on a national level, my vote won't count. I live in one of the many states the media has already declared a winner for. So the candidates don't come here. They spend all their time hitting the so-called 'swing' states trying to 'swing' them their way. Our political fates are decided by the eight most indecisive states in the union.
But I live on the very border of Illinois. Just across the river is Iowa, a state that has made an industry out of being up for grabs. Half of the local TV stations are Iowa-side-based, so we see ALL the ads. Apparently, no matter who we vote for, the world will explode. No kidding. Whoever wins, there will be no healthcare, social security will dry up forever, and everyone will be poor, but it won't matter because terrorists will blow us all up soon anyway... if you believe the ads.
I've not seen any ads for Nader, until I saw the news this morning I didn't know he was still in the race. Does anybody care? Does he even stand a chance of having any effect at all? People talk about him messing things up but I don't even see him being able to do that.
The only good ads I've seen are those just encouraging people to vote, regardless of who they choose. This is good and might actually encourage a few first-timers who haven't become jaded yet.
But I don't think the reason people don't vote is because they can't decide. I don't think the reason people don't vote is because they don't want to make a choice. I don't think the reason people don't vote is because they are too lazy to participate in the process. I think the reason is the process itself. Not being disgusted by the ads, but being told months in advance who will win your state.
I only see one solution. It won't help this election, it probably won't help the next couple elections. But the day is coming when people's votes can count again.
One thing all the Floridian idiocy of four years ago brought was a movement to update voting machine technology. It's still got some kinks, but if we can keep the momentum of it going we'll get to a point where we can actually acurately count the popular vote in another 10-15 years, maybe sooner.
Y'see, I believe that the biggest problem with presidential elections is the electoral college. It was a good idea when our founding fathers thought it up, it simplified the process of counting a nationwide vote and getting a result in a day and age when transportation and communication were considerably less speedy than today.
But that was Then. Then was a long time ago. This is Now, and Now has the capability of accurately transmitting and tabulating huge amounts of information in microseconds. As soon as the data collection devices are brought up to date by a few decades, the reason for the electoral college will cease to exist.
Technology isn't the only hurdle. Removing the college will take amendments, something many congress-men & -women are loathe to do, especially those who dream of sitting in a cornerless office someday. Because campaigning will be more difficult: you'll have to appeal to everyone, not just the terminally wishy-washy.
But the overwhelming upside is this: every vote will really count. So what if the rest of your state votes against you, your vote will still go in support of your chosen candidate in the big picture! The electoral college was a compromise made to the limits of technology. When those limits are finally gone, abolishing the college will be the final step to a truly democratic vote.
An interesting note: I've heard tell of something brewing in Colorado: a plan to keep the college but drop the all-or-nothing mindset. The idea is this: if a candidate takes home 70% of Colorado's popular vote, they get (roughly) 70% of Colorado's electoral votes. No more winner-take-all. As a concession to the remaining limits of technology and as a transition to the future, I think this is fantastic. I hope it becomes law, and not just for Colorado but for every state in the nation. At the very least, it would mean the end of the 'swing' state concept. And as the 'margin of error' on the media polls grow, the less likely they are to be able to pick an overall winner. And the less people are told who is going to win before it happens, the more likely people are to feel that they can actually participate in the process rather than be swallowed up by it.
Until we get rid of the foregone conclusions, all the well-intentioned get-out-the-vote ads will never have the desired effect and the number of people who actually vote more than twice in their lives will never go up.
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America? -- Author Unknown
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. -- Ronald Reagan
Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right? -- Robert Orben
