The Voter’s View: Why Don’t We Count?

By: Stephen W. Simpson, Ph.D. (View Profile)

For the second time in less than ten years, a candidate might win an election with fewer votes than his or, ahem, her opponent. I understand how our election process makes this possible. What I don’t understand is why we sit still for it.

I know that the United States is a republic and not a pure democracy. I understand the rules by which the Democratic National Committee (DNC) governs its presidential primaries. I can tell you as much as you want to know about superdelegates and why the DNC has them. Yet, I’m still left with a nagging question.

Why don’t we just count votes?

If Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania and there is no presumptive Democratic nominee by June, she could win the nomination even though Barack Obama has more delegates based on the votes of the American people. Twenty percent of the delegates at the convention are “superdelegates.” Superdelegates are Democratic governors, members of Congress, and former elected officials that can vote for whomever they darn well please. Since Obama is the new kid on the block and the Clintons became a force in Democratic politics a few minutes after the last dinosaur died, you get one guess at who has more superdelegates in her pocket.

I don’t understand why voters and the media don’t make more of a stink about this. Why doesn’t it bother people that the DNC gives so few so much power? I might understand if this sort of thing had never happened before and we were all caught off guard. But it has happened before, eight short years ago.

In the 2000 election, more people voted for Al Gore in the general presidential election. However, George W. Bush became president because of the Electoral College system, which allots a certain number of votes to each state in a winner-take-all fashion. The founding fathers established the Electoral College in 1787 because dissemination of information to the population about the candidates was too difficult and they didn’t trust the voters to make the best decision. This antiquated system removed the power from the voters in 2000. As far as I can tell, few seemed to mind. Forget crazy counting in Florida—the guy with the most votes still lost. And the American people just swallowed it.

9 readers liked this story.
bookmarks
Comments
posted: 04.18.2008
Jennifer Hastings
There are many organizations out there advocating for election reform like Common Cause and reformelections.org, representing all sides, democrat, libertarian, republican etc. Nothing is set in stone. I’ve learned from such sites that the U.S. Constitution allows each state to choose its own system for picking electors, and over our history states have used a variety of methods for doing so. So technically, by acting together, states can choose to elect the president who wins the national popular vote. The electoral catastrophe in the 2000 presidential election is a pretty strong indicator that the system needs to change. Congress, the states, and the media start need to pay more attention to this critical issue since voter confidence (which seems low to me) is essential to free and fair elections.
posted: 04.05.2008
Solitaire Barragan
In a civilized society, you have to abide by the rules. They were set some time ago and they were decided by a majority. There are several reasons why they are the way they are. And you can not change the rules the very moment you want them to change... just because you don't like them! In the end, what really matters is: who can win the general election. The way this primaries take place (some times opened to general electorate), includes the concept of super-delegates. You can't change horses in the middle of the river. You got to go, the same way it goes. I encourage you to push for a change in the primary's rules... for the next primaries! Not this time. Please. No, no, no! Unless you want the same kind of goverment that has taken away your fundamental liberties... In this land of the free.
posted: 04.03.2008
Cindy Wood
Here! Here! My sentiments, exactly. As a log cabin conservative who has found herself admiring a statesman like Obama and who has many friends who will align themselves with him but not with a "good old boy" woman who has gathered super-delegates, we can only pray! I hope other leaders, like my state's Bill Richardson,. who has endorsed Obama much to the fury of the Clintons, will let their moral sense guide them.
posted: 04.02.2008
Sherrolyn Mincey
I live in Florida and we have been told we cannot vote and have a say in who is elected on the Democratic platform because of some stupid rule that says we held primaries too early. That is ridiculous. I am an adult and regardless of who I plan to vote for (Democratic or Republican) the Democratic party telling Florida and Michigan their votes don't count is the same as telling our states they are of no value.
posted: 04.01.2008
Ellie Boylan
I totally agree but feel powerless. I can send a message to superdelegates but why will they listen to me? They've got Bill Clinton begging to take them to lunch. How can we band together and demand change? Tell me of an organization that can do this and I'll join in......
It feels good to write.

Your stories, musings, and advice are welcome here. We know you've got something to share, so jump in—maybe get a little famous. And don't worry—you can save a draft!

most liked
Loader_buff
Other topics you might appreciate
Neighborhood & World