How to conduct a Presidential Election or Not | Eastern North Carolina Now

   This is a semi-humorous attempt to satire the election process.   Please see Tom Campbell's article which is a more thoughtful and reasoned alternative to this post. Bobby Tony

    Here are some alternatives to our election process.

Click here for a larger view of vote count

    Donald Trump keeps the focus on his lead in the primary. That is a good analogy if this were a horse race where you place your bet and win or lose. But this is an election where you get to watch several races and watch the horses and jockeys drop out one by one. Then you have the final race which will be a match race between two or possible three horses. That is when you bet becomes a final bet. Up until that point, it has just been the preliminaries.

    This is where the horse race analogy falls apart. What if the jockey who has won most of the races has done so by intentionally bumping, crowding, cutting off and hitting opposing horses with his quirt.

    In a normal horse race that horse and jockey would be disqualified for a foul. It is most likely true that the rules for the final race would be stricter than the other races. Disqualification not only punishes the horse and jockey but it also punishes the bettor (i.e.Voter). Placing a bet (vote) on a horse that could most likely be disqualified would be a fool's bet. Both horse races and elections have been known to be fixed or rigged.

    Moving away from the horse race analogy, the election will be between two people who are arguably the most hated of the entire candidates field. In this case, the results of an election are almost unpredictable because of the negative vote.

    Without benefit of facts and study, which is perhaps my strong suit, I estimate that 80% of the people vote based on emotional content and not carefully a considered review of the issues and candidate positions. That 80% are split about evenly on both sides. Both sides would vote for a rock because that is the party of their choice. The remaining 20%, may split down the middle on either side. Half of this side is the Moderates who never can make up their minds and the other half is Issue based crowd.



    I could propose that we find that 10% of thinking voters and base the election on their vote only. This would require that we change the constitution or bend the rules (some erroneously think that is exactly what was done in the 2000 election - those are in the left 40% rock voting side). I call this the Thinking Count Method.

    There is another solution to the problem. Maybe all voters could study the issues. Decide where they stand. Then vote for the candidate that represents their position without regard to emotion, hate, or even whim. I call this The Common Sense Count Method.

    We could just allow the voters to cast their vote and then have a select committee count the votes: I call this the Chicago Count Method.

    But that would not work either. Our system is based on the Electoral College vote and not the popular vote. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The system is fair and prevents larger states from having undue power over the less populous states. As of now the "MEDIA" does not get a vote, they only get ink and broadcast frequencies.

    After some additional reflection on this issue, I think we have it just about right. We get to elect whoever we want for whatever reason we want. Then we all get to live under that President for four years and repeat it again, again and again.

    I am sure glad I got that solved. Feel Free to offer your own alternatives. After all is is just a horse race.

RESEARCH SITES:

Vote Count Source website
Click here for a larger view of vote count

Approved for posting by Bobby Tony April 2, 2016 6:30 AM