Have Our Elections Improved?

George Will in the November 17, 2008 issue of Newsweek traces historically how we have elected our president. Many commentators have suggested that the Obama campaign – extensive grass roots community organization, unprecedented fund raising, focused attention to segments of voters, expansive use of email and websites – may have changed the face of campaigning forever.

Our first presidents did not directly campaign themselves. Electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives allocated to their states, voted for two people for president. The votes were opened in the House of Representatives. The man with a majority because president. The other became vice president. The plan anticipated that notables from state assemblies would be the representatives that voted.

At the time, the Founders didn’t want the selection to be based on oratory or the expenditure of money. Today, candidates spend an inordinate amount of money, deliver thousands of speeches, travel a huge number of miles making personal appearances and use exhaustive television and radio ads. This time the process took two years.

Between 1796-1820 candidates were chosen by party caucuses and later by national party conventions. Today the conventions are primarily media events that ratify the choice.

A candidate’s resume, record of service to the country or even to a political party may no longer be needed if the candidates can market personal qualities, a promise to do better than the other guy and convince those who will vote that he believes in popular ideas: low taxes, an end to war, an improved economy.

I spent months this year in London during the early days of the campaign. The Brits were fascinated, confused, and a bit amused by our political process. It was not easy to explain.

So, the question remains. Are wee better off in our selection of a president than we were in 1789 when we elected Washington (Washington received 69 votes, John Adams 34), or in 1800 when we elected Jefferson (this one took 36 ballots in the House of Representatives before Jefferson was chosen over Burr), or in 2000 when we elected George W. Bush?

Your opinion.

Is It Broken?

Many would claim that the fighting and winning of the American Revolution permitted the framing of the Constitution as the enduring foundation for our government. They point out that this hotly debated document, forged during the summer of 1787, has stood the test of time - 220 years.
Professor Larry Sabato in his book "A More Perfect Contitution" argues that serious surgery is needed to bring it into the 21st centry. Among the proposed 23 changes needed:
permit those not born in the US to become president
limit the president's authority to continue to wage war to 6 months
reallocate the number of Senate seats based on population and double
the membership of the House
limit federal judges to a term of 15 years
reform the electoral college

Should we make the Constitution "fairer and more effective?"

How Far Have Come?

How Far Have We Come?


We like to think we are a sophisticated society enriched by science. The medicine we take, we like to believe, has been thoroughly studied and approved by the National Institute of Health. Clinical trials have provided evidence that these drugs are efficacious and safe.

Why then is our life expectancy lower than that in the UK, Switzerland, Italy and Australia? With all we know, why are we dying of heart disease, cancer and stroke?

Our colonial ancestors believed that the four humors determined our state of health. When black bile was out of balance we acted depressed and irritable. The surgeons of the 18th century prescribed bleeding or a purge to bring the body back into balance. How different is that from thinking that we need to take antibiotics or vitamins?

While a novel and distrusted concept, inoculating healthy citizens with live smallpox proved to stem the spread of the disease. Washington had the whole Continental Army inoculated. Today, we immunize children against diphtheria, tetanus, acelluar pertussis, hepatitis B and meningitis (to name a few). We encourage most of the adult population to get a flu shot.

Once grown outback in the family garden and used as the first medicine for treatment, herbs have had a resurgence of popularity. Not just in health food stores anymore, they are increasingly found in our supermarkets.

Popular as a way to ward off contagion, garlic is taken today to keep people healthy. Chocolate has always made people feel better. Even Harry Potter is given chocolate to counter a Death Eater. Now science says that dark chocolate contains antioxidant flavonoids that lower blood pressure.

In many ways, we have not changed our practice of medicine.

Watch for Part II

Not Over Yet

Monday, August 6, 2007
Not Over Yet
Famed physician, signer of the Declaration of Indepedence, friend to several of the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Rush pronounced, "The American War is over, but that is far from the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed.Some today would say that our republic has run its course, that our respect around the world is in decline, that our military power is not what it once was, and that our commerce is challenged by several other countries. Others would contend that we are the only super power left and that our influence is second to none.Does the American Revolution continue? In what ways?
Posted by Pawtuxranger at 4:55 PM 0 comments
Labels: influence, prestige, revolution
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)