By the time you read this, the Michigan Primary will be over and Hillary will have "won" another road battle.
Michigan was punished with removal of its delegates late last year when the primaries were rescheduled early for Jan. 15, violating Democrat party rules.
One reason Clinton had nearly half the state's worth in approval ratings immediately preceding those primaries: Obama and Edwards dropped out after the delegates were revoked.
Many voters in the state still want to vote for the candidate they think is best, but can't.
This outdated system could use some updating.
Critics point out that a small state with 3 electoral votes in the general election (the US minimum) has, proportionally, more voting power than a large state with a standard amount. This makes Washington, DC the most "powerful" territory in the nation, with 3 votes.
But the very nature of an indirect election system is to represent. Corners are cut and numbers are fudged to find the lowest common denominator: Montana, over 2100 times larger than the District of Columbia in geographical size (and larger in population than Buffalo), gets the same number of votes as DC.
Your voice, as an individual, will not be heard by an election system that lumps you in with the rest of your state and recognizes delegates to represent you.
Furthermore, the popular vote doesn't always signify a winner, and to many people that's weirder than a bearded Conan O'Brien.
Alternatives to the Electoral College have had a long time to stew. One such nifty idea is IRV- instant runoff voting.
Imagine this: instead of checking one box, you rank your preference for the Presidential candidates from top to bottom. The losers who get ranked last are removed, and the process starts again discounting them. Kind of like a caucus, right?
It isn't like we're hurting for ideas. For more information, check out fairvote.org, a non-profit dedicated to informing the apathetic public about representation, rights and the voting process.
Proponents of the current system say that it was put in place to protect smaller states.
For example, a candidate winning a majority of popular votes in "big" states (like New York, Florida, California, and others with electoral votes numbering in the dozens) might not be a better choice than one winning by slimmer margins in more states. The "big"-winning candidate might just appeal to a select demographic that happens to be a majority of citizens in an area, when what the nation needs (so the Electoral fans claim) is a candidate with widespread approval all over the country.
Abolishing the College would require a Constitutional Amendment, and that's just the start of the trouble.
The government would need an overhaul.
To improve a system as complicated as our voting process, you can't just pick one part to fix and hope the rest gets better. Criticism of the current College system leads me to believe the problem is more widespread than that.
With the replacement of President Bush, we might see a change to health care, the rights of people to marry, the War, and issues we're not even aware of yet. Maybe even the College.
Maybe 2008 will be an even bigger year than we thought.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
