This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 23, 2008.
Evaluating the local races
I've had a hard time deciding for whom to vote for governor.
This may come as somewhat of a shock if you've read these words over the past few months. It would not be inaccurate to call me a Democratic Party partisan. But I try not to make decisions purely based on party. And this year, there are three good choices. What's a partisan to do?
I'll circle back to the governor's race - first, I want to offer my support for local Democrats Terry Macaig and Jim McCullough. McCullough is a long-time resident of Williston and a long-serving member of the legislature. Though he may score low on some business group's scorecard, I'm confident that he knows what business needs from Montpelier and will work to that end.
Macaig is also a long-time resident and shares many of my own views on local issues, notably on mandatory minimum sentences and on Vermont Yankee. These are important issues that will need to be worked out carefully and thoughtfully, and I'm confident Macaig will be an important part of that process.
As far as the Senate goes, my family has a personal relationship with Diane Snelling, and I do plan to give her one of my votes. From the Democratic column, I have long experience with Ginny Lyons, Ed Flanagan, and Doug Racine. I still have some thinking to do on my final two choices for Senator.
Guiding those choices will be my goal of maintaining a Democratic majority in the statehouse. However, I think it is good to have a robust and vocal opposition, so I don't want to see the Republicans and Progressives trounced.
And that brings me back to the gubernatorial race. Because I see positives about all three candidates, it has been a process of elimination to come to my decision.
Anthony Pollina has good ideas and he is articulate. I used to hear him on the radio during lunchtime drives, and remember nodding in agreement as he spoke. But in the end, I think his position on Vermont Yankee is dangerous for the Vermont economy, and I fear his health care plan. I would be comfortable voting for Pollina for lieutenant governor - but not for the state's highest office.
Jim Douglas has some good ideas, to be sure. He opposed an increase in the gas tax, his e-State initiative is a positive plan for our future, and he supports Vermont Yankee. However, his refusal to support a clean-up fund for Yankee is troubling, and I disagree with his continued support for unnecessary road projects in Williston and Bennington.
Gaye Symington has a leg up on Douglas because of her party affiliation, and I agree with most of her published positions. I fully support Symington's plan for Vermont's infrastructure. The money we would spend on the Circ and on the Bennington Bypass could be put to much better use elsewhere, improving what we already have.
However, I fear her support for Yankee is limited to the plant's decommissioning. I think Yankee needs to be a centerpiece of our energy plan and we need to work closely with Entergy to that end.
But the biggest reason I have had such a hard time getting behind Symington fully is a basic belief of mine - that the separation of powers is critical to making sure good laws are made. There are so many problems in Washington right now that I think we need to have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. I'm a bit afraid of what could happen if the Democrats are flush with power at the state level, though.
So that's it. Do I support Douglas knowing I disagree with him on several key issues, but also knowing that for bills to become laws, they will have to be reasoned compromises? Or do I support Symington, knowing we agree on most issues, but fearing that the checks and balances of our system are in jeopardy when there is little need for compromise?
After some considerable soul-searching, I have decided to support Symington. We have tough times over the horizon, and I think that with the fourth estate keeping a close eye on our state government, the Democrats can pass laws that benefit the state without burdening the taxpayers. I urge you to support Symington, too, and give her a chance to steer us through the coming storm.
Showing posts with label election day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election day. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Back to (Electoral) College
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 25, 2008.
Back to (Electoral) College
Every four years, we Americans go back to college - the Electoral College. The Electoral College is important because despite conventional wisdom, it is not presidential candidates that we will vote for in November but instead the members of this exclusive college.
Officially, the President is chosen not by the people but by the states, and each state has as many votes as it has members of Congress. All states get at least three electoral votes - one for each Senator and Representative. Vermont, then, only gets three. California, by contrast, has 55.
These elector counts are how commentators can tell you how many electoral votes a candidate needs to win the election. There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives in Congress, for a total of 535 electoral votes. Add three more for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. You need half plus one to win outright, or 270.
It is these electors you are selecting when you cast your ballot in November, not the exact candidate, though each political party chooses its electors. In most states, including Vermont, the slate of electors that garners the most votes will vote in the Electoral College. The electors from the other parties get to watch from home like the rest of us.
After the electors all vote, the votes are bundled up and mailed off to Congress, where they are eventually opened and tallied, and a winner is officially declared.
This year, Election Day falls on November 4. Elector Day, when the electors gather in their state capitals to cast their votes, is December 15. Finally, the Congress will count the votes on January 6.
Most of this process is pro forma after Election Day. Though electors are not technically bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, they almost always do; and unless an elector goes against the grain, the reading of the votes in Congress is no surprise.
Why so convoluted a system? Why do we not just vote for the presidential candidate directly? The answer goes back to the great compromises the Framers made when they wrote the Constitution back in 1787.
The Electoral College does a few things. The biggest effect it has is to protect the smaller states, like Vermont, from the whims of the larger states. For one thing, large-state favorite sons can only get as many electoral votes as their state has; for another, because of equal suffrage in the Senate, smaller states have disproportionately large voting power in the College.
Another effect is our quadrennial reminder of the power of representative democracy. Just as we elect Senators and Representatives to weigh our demands with those of the nation, we elect electors to weigh our vote with the choices available. Even if the Electoral College always ends up voting as expected, there is always that slim possibility they could change their collective mind.
I have vacillated on the issue of the Electoral College over time, from supporter, to detractor, to compromiser.
As a resident of a small state, I am happy that my vote counts for more than a New York vote or a California vote. I am, however, uncomfortably happy, this being the equivalent of electoral schadenfreude.
The populist idea is a straight national popular vote. After the election debacle of 2000, I cringe, though, at any national plan. If there is dispute about the national vote, do we mandate Florida-style recounts in all 50 states? Would this grind the process to a halt?
Undoubtedly we could work something out, where recounts are by precinct or district or state, but still the prospect of needing a national recount is plausible. At least with the Electoral College as it is now, a recount in New York or New Hampshire does not necessitate a recount here.
A promising compromise is an interstate compact whereby, once enough states to total 270 or more electoral vote have signed on, those states would change their laws to select the slate of electors for the winner of the national vote, regardless of the state vote.
In any case, it is too late for change now, so the Electoral College process is going to go forward at least one more time. So, revel in our little electoral idiosyncrasy, and as homework, try to find out the names of the electors you'll be voting for when you cast your vote on Election Day.
Back to (Electoral) College
Every four years, we Americans go back to college - the Electoral College. The Electoral College is important because despite conventional wisdom, it is not presidential candidates that we will vote for in November but instead the members of this exclusive college.
Officially, the President is chosen not by the people but by the states, and each state has as many votes as it has members of Congress. All states get at least three electoral votes - one for each Senator and Representative. Vermont, then, only gets three. California, by contrast, has 55.
These elector counts are how commentators can tell you how many electoral votes a candidate needs to win the election. There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives in Congress, for a total of 535 electoral votes. Add three more for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. You need half plus one to win outright, or 270.
It is these electors you are selecting when you cast your ballot in November, not the exact candidate, though each political party chooses its electors. In most states, including Vermont, the slate of electors that garners the most votes will vote in the Electoral College. The electors from the other parties get to watch from home like the rest of us.
After the electors all vote, the votes are bundled up and mailed off to Congress, where they are eventually opened and tallied, and a winner is officially declared.
This year, Election Day falls on November 4. Elector Day, when the electors gather in their state capitals to cast their votes, is December 15. Finally, the Congress will count the votes on January 6.
Most of this process is pro forma after Election Day. Though electors are not technically bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, they almost always do; and unless an elector goes against the grain, the reading of the votes in Congress is no surprise.
Why so convoluted a system? Why do we not just vote for the presidential candidate directly? The answer goes back to the great compromises the Framers made when they wrote the Constitution back in 1787.
The Electoral College does a few things. The biggest effect it has is to protect the smaller states, like Vermont, from the whims of the larger states. For one thing, large-state favorite sons can only get as many electoral votes as their state has; for another, because of equal suffrage in the Senate, smaller states have disproportionately large voting power in the College.
Another effect is our quadrennial reminder of the power of representative democracy. Just as we elect Senators and Representatives to weigh our demands with those of the nation, we elect electors to weigh our vote with the choices available. Even if the Electoral College always ends up voting as expected, there is always that slim possibility they could change their collective mind.
I have vacillated on the issue of the Electoral College over time, from supporter, to detractor, to compromiser.
As a resident of a small state, I am happy that my vote counts for more than a New York vote or a California vote. I am, however, uncomfortably happy, this being the equivalent of electoral schadenfreude.
The populist idea is a straight national popular vote. After the election debacle of 2000, I cringe, though, at any national plan. If there is dispute about the national vote, do we mandate Florida-style recounts in all 50 states? Would this grind the process to a halt?
Undoubtedly we could work something out, where recounts are by precinct or district or state, but still the prospect of needing a national recount is plausible. At least with the Electoral College as it is now, a recount in New York or New Hampshire does not necessitate a recount here.
A promising compromise is an interstate compact whereby, once enough states to total 270 or more electoral vote have signed on, those states would change their laws to select the slate of electors for the winner of the national vote, regardless of the state vote.
In any case, it is too late for change now, so the Electoral College process is going to go forward at least one more time. So, revel in our little electoral idiosyncrasy, and as homework, try to find out the names of the electors you'll be voting for when you cast your vote on Election Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)