The 2000 presidential election underscored the reality that
outcomes in presidential contests do not necessarily follow from
the votes cast by American voters. Under the Electoral College, a
range of outcomes is possible, and what once might have seemed
utterly remote now is clearly possible. Alexander Belenky has
focused directly on what he calls extreme outcomes of our
presidential elections. This topic is understudied and
underanalyzed. He makes a real contribution in a timely way. -Dr.
Norman Ornstein, CBS election analyst, American Enterprise
Institute Sometimes it takes an "outsider's eye" to see the U.S.
political system clearly, and Alexander Belenky's analysis of the
presidential election system holds several remarkable surprises for
me. Very few scholars have directly addressed fundamental flaws in
the Electoral College's logic. Belenky lays bare several flaws.
-Prof. David King, Institute of Politics, John F. Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University Colorado offers . awarding its nine
electoral votes proportionate to the popular vote instead of winner
take all . Colorado's "make your vote count" initiative seeks to
put power in the popular vote . Could success in Colorado start a
trend? . Electoral College experts aren't so certain . Alex
Belenky, . who has written three books on the topic, including
"Extreme Outcomes of U.S. Presidential Elections," says Colorado
could prompt some states to dump winner-take-all but argues that
the Electoral College is "flexible" and ought to remain in place-at
least as a backup. One scenario he favors combines the popular vote
and the Electoral College. "If there is at least 50 percent turnout
of the electorate, then let the popular vote be decisive," he says,
'If there is not, then rely on the Electoral College." I like it.
It's a good incentive to vote. -John Baer, Colo. Offering Electoral
Change. Winner Wouldn't "Take All." Philadelphia Daily News, Sept.
28, 2004
**************************************************************************************
The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000. Many
people realized then for the first time that we have a system in
which the president is chosen not by the voters, but by 538
electors. It is a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the
majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential
to produce a true constitutional crisis. -(Abolish The Electoral
College, The New York Times, Editorial, August 29, 2004) With
another close presidential contest in store, that hardy if
decipherable oddity of American Politics, The Electoral College is
back in the news. . The Constitution requires someone to win a
majority of the electoral votes; otherwise, the House chooses a
president from the top three finishers. How do you think the public
would react to the discovery that in such a contigent election,
each state delegation has one vote, regardless of its size-the
Democratic majority from California being matched by single
Republican member from Delaware? . . I suspect this whole Electoral
College issue is due for serious debate .. -(David Broder,
Electoral College Alternatives Deserve Careful Scrutiny, The
Seattle Times, Oct 21, 2004) One more surprising features of the
controversy surrounding the 2000 election was its failure to spark
any substantiated effort to abolish or reform the Electoral
College. .The National Commission on Federal Election Reform,
headed by former presidents Carter and Ford, decided early on not
to even discuss the issue. "I think it is a waste of time to talk
about changing the Electoral College," Carter observed. "I would
predict that 200 years from now, we will still have the Electoral
College'. -(Alexander Keyssar, Peculiar Institution, Boston Globe,
October 17, 2004)
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!