Intriguing essay on the CS Monitor by a guy named Tom Regan:
http://blogs.csmonitor.com/my_american_experience/____________________
Tuesday was primary day in my state. It's an important step in the American democratic process, where we voters go to the polls to choose the candidates to run for their parties in the general election. Sometimes the primary battles between contestants from the same party can be as bruising as the Republicans vs. the Democrats.
But I wouldn't know anything about that. I live in Massachusetts.
Monday morning, like a good citizen, I went to the website of the Massachusetts Secretary of State, found my district and began to look for the candidates running for the nomination of each party. Turns out that there isn't a single Republican running for anything in my neck of the woods. And there was not a single challenger to any of the Democratic incumbents, except for one minor state office, for which there were three names on the list.
Needless to say, I did not go to the polls. There was no reason. Honestly, it's feels like I'm living in Communist China or Cuba, where only government-approved candidates get to run.
Now, as I've said before, the very reason I became an American citizen was that the idea of living in a country and not being able to vote was anathema to me. I've never missed a single election in either Canada or the US, when I've been eligible to vote.
I consider voting to be one of the highest duties that any citizen has to fulfill. And my belief in this is only confirmed when I speak to journalist friends in the Middle East and in countries like Uganda and Colombia, where voting can be as dangerous as driving a Humvee through Baghdad's Sadr City on a night patrol.
There's another problem with living in Massachusetts and elections. It's called the electoral college. Massachusetts, as we all know, is a 'blue" state. This election, it's so blue it's almost azure.
This means that we have all but disappeared from the general election. We were put on the Kerry shelf so long ago we're practically covered in cobwebs. (It's my sense that people in Texas feel the same way about being on the Bush shelf.)
There is no "election" here. Neither Bush nor Kerry will campaign here. There won't likely be any visits from members of the Bush cabinet or top Democratic senators. No "controversial ads" on local TV, or in thte papers. The only things taken more for granted are death and taxes.
Now, I happen to be one of those people who has not yet decided for whom I will vote. But let's be honest: It doesn't make any difference. My vote is meaningless. Under current system, I could vote for Vladimir Putin and it would be as meaningful as voting Kerry, Bush, or Nader.
In Canada, I never felt this way. I always had the sense that my vote counted. And I certainly never felt that, almost six weeks before election day, my vote would be meaningless no matter what I did.
And it's all thanks to the electoral college, a system designed by the founding fathers before modern communication evolved, when they believed that there would be no such things as political parties and campaigning. Can you say the word "anachronistic?"
Personally, I like the idea of basing the electoral college, if we must have it, on a proportional system. In this system, candidates are awarded electoral votes in each state based on their percentage of the popular vote. It's not the same as one person, one vote, but it would at least mean that, even in Massachusetts, no presidential election would be meaningless.
Two states, Nebraska and Maine, are already working with versions of the proportional system. Colorado will decide on Nov. 2 if their state will change to a proportional system as well.
On the other hand, I also find myself puzzled why so many pundits want to declare the US election all but over, or say that it's no use for the candidates to continue fighting for votes in states that seem "out of reach."
Today, there are almost 50 days left before the general election. Fifty days. Many elections in Canada (federal or provincial), from start to finish, are 28 days. Forty-five days is considered a long election. On May 23 of this year, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a call for a general election on June 28 – a grand total of 35 days. And that election had enormous swings in public opinion polls during a one-month period.
Here in the US, we've got 50 days, at least two or three debates, and millions of dollars in advertising yet to spend. In the last election, Al Gore was five points behind George Bush in polls two days before the general election, which meant there was an enormous swing in the last couple of days. In the end, Gore won the popular vote, but may have lost the election by one vote, if you take into account the 5-4 Supreme Court decision about the recount in Florida. (And that's not a political comment, it's just the truth.)
So please, don't listen to the media or the pundits who say "we've already got a winner." This election will literally go down to the last day, and don't listen to anyone who tells you differently. Many states are, fortunately for their citizens who want their votes to make a difference, still in play for both major candidates.
Then again, for me, it wouldn't matter if there were 10 days or 100 days before the election. My date with the ballot box is already over.
On election day, however, my wife and I will take our children with us to the polling station, as we do every election. They will come with us into the booth to watch us vote, because we want to teach them how important it is to vote.
We just won't tell them it doesn't mean anything this year.
______________________
The guy also has other excellent articles in his database, check it out.
