Letters to the Editor
-
But is this the real problem?
I understand what the author is saying, but I don't think it addresses how we got into our current mess. In the 2000 election, George Bush lost the popular vote (The Florida electoral votes, of course, will be the subject of fierce discussion, but are largely irrelevant to my point). What IS obvious and undeniable is that the will of the majority was clearly ignored, spat on, shat on, raped and abused. Gore got more votes than Bush, and when you add in the Nader votes (and I think it is highly unlikely that many would-be Bush voters would have opted for Nader) it is even more certain that the electorate was not looking to install an extreme neocon platform. (Of course, we should also not forget that Gore's running mate was Lieberman, hardly the most progressive of candidates.)
After the Supreme Court weighed in, Bush promised to be a uniter, and not a divider. It was the first of the infinite number of lies of George Bush. Once he was sworn in, he began almost immediately to speak of the "mandate" for change he'd been handed, when there was no mandate. It was the second of his many lies. And yet, from the beginning, the democrats in the house and senate seemed to act as if he'd won in a landslide. They never did put up much of a struggle. Knowing the true mindset of the voting public, they should have forced Bush to fight like mad for every one of his proposals, knowing that most voters had their back. Instead, we all had to watch as the view was advanced that America is a conservative place of bible thumping christians who wanted to privatize everything as fast as possible.
In the '96 elections, the Democrats were given another mandate, a true and obvious and clear mandate, unlike Bush's non-existent mandate, and they still act as if there is nothing much they can do. So now we are facing a situation in which our terrible president — the worst president possible in the history of presidents and all presidents to come — has basically been allowed to chart the course for the country well into the next several years. None of the "leading" candidates has expressed a definite desire to get out of Iraq as fast as our little legs can carry us, even some democrats hinting that it might take a couple of years at least.
Given the results of the 2000 election, the Electoral College doesn't seem to make much sense, I agree. But the worse damage by far has been caused by congress' refusal to force the president into his proper balance of power. Elected by an Electoral College or direct majority vote, the president is not our king or emperor. He is not supposed to have unrestrained power. Checks and balances; Checks and balances! If I had to chose between changing the Electoral College and restoring checks and balances, my vote goes to the latter.