2-for-1 Voting
Thank you, Bruce Ackerman, for giving me at least one reason to like the Electoral College. In his piece today, Ackerman suggests that if Ralph Nader is serious about wanting to unseat George W. Bush, but insists on running for president himself, the responsible thing for him to do is choose the same slate of electors as John Kerry. If he did this, Nader and Kerry's votes would be pooled together for the purposes of choosing each state's electors, who would then cast electoral votes for whichever of the two (Kerry, of course) got more votes in the state.
Since America refuses to make it easier for third parties through, say, runoff voting, this would be a good way for Nader to make a respectable showing without hurting the nation. It would probably increase his numbers because people would be able to vote for him and know they'd be voting against Bush at the same time--heck, I might even vote Nader if I knew my vote would help Kerry as well. (Of course, Republicans protesting Bush's socially reactionary positions who can't quite pull the lever for Kerry, including members of my family, might not feel as comfortable voting Nader.)
As Ackerman points out, this is pretty much the way the Electoral College system was meant to work. If you don't like that...well, maybe you should join me in calling to have the thing abolished. In the meantime, I hope Nader is paying attention today. This suggestion could bring his campaign relevance and excitement while guaranteeing that he doesn't spoil another election.
No comments:
Post a Comment