![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (3)
 Associate Circuit Court Judge James T. "Tut" Bellamy offers area high school students information about the Electoral College and urges them to participate in elections. Bellamy's speech was part of Government Day, Thursday, March 4, an annual event sponsored by county American Legion chapters. Seated in the background are American Legion representatives, from left, Jim Brown, Bob Kurth, Harry Lightfoot and Ray Prichard. (Eric Crump/Democrat-News) [Click to enlarge] [Order this photo] |
His comments were part explanation of the mechanics of the electoral system and part exhortation for students to get involved in governance by voting.
Bellamy told students the Electoral College is the body that actually elects the nation's president, with electors selected in accordance with the results of the popular vote in each state. But because the number of electors is a combination of a state's number of U.S. representatives and senators, it helps provide balance of influence.
To illustrate the key role of the Electoral College, Bellamy reminded students of how the 2000 election was decided, when Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote, but George W. Bush narrowly won the Electoral College vote after intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Florida recount process.
He said the Electoral College was intended by the writers of the Constitution to be something of a buffer against the will of the people, which some of the founders didn't entirely trust.
"Some people say they came to this compromise because they thought just a vote from the people would be too reckless," he said.
The qualifications for electors, however, are not specified very precisely, he said. The Constitution mostly spells out who can't serve as an elector: U.S. legislators, people of high rank in the government and people who have participated in insurrection against the U.S. government.
For the most part, he said, people who have participated in party politics for a long time are most likely to be selected as electors.
"Your vote is important at the state level because it determines so many things at the national level," he said.
And Bellamy told the students in the audience that they have good reason to want to exert their influence on the government, citing the excesses of the Baby Boom generation that have to be undone.
"We were the best educated generation. Times were good. We had money," he said. "We thought times were always going to be good. We spent and spent and spent."
Now that times are not so good, the next generation will have to find ways to help the nation live within its means, he said.
"We're going to rely on your courage to fix this mess we've gotten into," he said. "If you don't participate, if you don't vote, you're going to be part of the problem. I hope you can do a lot better than we did."
Contact Eric Crump at marshalleditor@socket.net
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please ![[Order this photo]](http://marshallnews.mycapture.com/mycapture/remoteimage.asp?backtext=Return%20to%20site&backurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marshallnews.com%2Fstory%2F1616701.html&thumbpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marshallnews.com%2Fphotos%2F13%2F19%2F92%2F1319922-S.jpg&previewpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marshallnews.com%2Fphotos%2F13%2F19%2F92%2F1319922-L.jpg&pricingsheetid=1511){kind=link}
Great speach Tut. You are too correct about how our generation screwed up! I wish generation x&y all the best. I will just go and collect the remainder of Social Security which we also screwed up too!
What is too scary is that generation X&Y will be picking our nursing homes! YIKES!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.