By
Nick Zeckets
Finally, the ballots have been tallied, and America knows its leader for the next four years. George W. Bush, lead us well, but do not forget you hold onto the nation by just a few thousand well placed votes. Florida's follies have allowed the nation some time to reflect on what our election process means, on what the electoral college truly means. Regardless of who you favored, the outcome should burn you up. Gore won the popular vote, yet lost the presidency. How the American President is elected must be reviewed and changed in order to make the post a servant of the people.
Originally, CNN jumped the gun and gave Florida to Gore. However, as later poll returns indicated, the state was much closer than thought early in the evening of the seventh. Moreover, the Florida Voting Authority announced that some ballots had been incorrectly marked and tallied. Hours passed, then days. America wanted an answer and on the ninth, it came, as Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris announced that Bush had won the state, and thus the electoral vote. Slim or questionable as it may have been, the real issue in the whole mess has been overlooked.
When the US Constitution was conceived over 200 years ago, the framers realized that common farmers and the general national populace were not educated enough to elect a national leader. Thus, educated representatives - like lawyers, judges and doctors - were sent to the electoral college. For a time this was a good system, but America evolved, leaving the electoral college in the dust. All or nothing elections have undermined three other elections, giving the presidency to John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888, who all lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. Slim races have come and gone, but election 2000 is posing the question anew of the worth of the electoral college.
Post-graduate Film studies major Orpheus Knox, talking about the electoral college, said, "It worked great for all but three elections," and that "the three times have been in close elections. The closeness of the election shows the weakness of the candidates." The system, for Knox, has shown more than a fault in the American political structure, but fault in the candidates. Neither showed a real difference from the other or inspired the nation.
Jenny McCartney, a sophomore majoring in biology, was frustrated with the electoral college, saying, "I don't think it's very fair that the people vote one way - and it's supposed to be the people's nation - and it [the Presidency] goes the other way."
Even Bush supporters admitted that the electoral college was antiquated, as senior chemical engineering major William Post remarked, "I think the electoral college is out of date. . .it's obsolete."
Another Bush backer, physiology senior Cheryl Wilhelm, said, "This isn't the first time [the electoral and popular vote have not been for the same person], but in general I think the rules for the electoral college should change."
Political science professor and expert on American politics John Garcia noted, "What happens is that with the electoral college now, we haven't had that many situations of conflict, so the issue arises about what we do." Deciding how to address the issue for the next election will be critical. Garcia continued, saying, "There's going to be some discussion for 2004 so that we don't have this situation."
Garcia noted that this election may have alienated a number of voters, saying, "For first time voters, this must be very disheartening." For those who did not vote, the pain must be ringing true now, as slightly over 100 million of 200 million enfranchised Americans turned out for the election.
Now, the Congress must decide to make a change, or states need to revamp how electoral votes are delegated. Garcia raised the issue of difficulty in changing the electoral college, saying, "The problem of getting rid of the electoral college is going through the whole constitutional process." However, he continued to say that a more feasible and viable alternative may be electoral vote delegation. "Like Nebraska and Maine, there might be some discussion about the allocation of electoral college votes (in other states)."
Whatever the outcome of these elections, one point has become clear to a new era of Americans: the electoral college is not true to the doctrine of democracy in America. If the president is to have any legitimacy, the vote has to be popular. Either Congress has to amend the Constitution, or states must take it upon themselves to institute new forms of electoral vote allocation. If the president isn't elected by the people, who is he representing?
