[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   COULD WE MAKE ALL THE VOTES COUNT?

                                 ______


                        HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR.

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 23, 1994

  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, Mark Sirkin slammed one home with this 
column which appeared in the Indianapolis Topics newspapers.
  Mr. Sirkin is the news editor of the Washington Township Topics 
newspapers.

                     [From the Indianapolis Topics]

                   Could We Make All the Votes Count?

                            (By Marc Sirkin)

       Can you imagine what would happen in Indiana if the 
     electoral college was trashed? Half the votes would count 
     again.
       I have never been satisfied voting for president. My vote 
     never counts. Instead of voting for the president the first 
     Tuesday in November, what we actually vote for are the 
     electors of the electoral college.
       The electoral college is way too complex to fully explain 
     in such a short space. But basically, each state has an 
     allotment of electoral votes determined by the size of its 
     congressional delegation. On election day voters choose the 
     electors who will vote for the president and vice president. 
     The winning electors then go and vote for the president the 
     first Monday after the second Wednesday during election 
     years.
       For example, Indiana has 12 electoral college votes. If a 
     candidate wins the state by one popular vote, that candidate 
     wins all 12 electoral college votes. The other candidate gets 
     nothing.
       What upsets me the most about this system is that it gives 
     me absolutely no vote in the race for the presidency.
       ``Of course you have a vote.'' I can hear people screaming. 
     ``Everybody has a vote!''
       In the literal sense, I guess. I do have a vote for 
     president. I go to the polls. I sign my name, close the 
     curtain and mark my choice. Being the obvious liberal that I 
     am, my choices in the last two presidential elections (the 
     only two presidential elections in which I have been eligible 
     to vote) I voted for the Democratic Party candidates.
       Now here's the part where I get screwed.
       The last election saw almost a third of the votes cast for 
     U.S. House candidate Michael Bailey--a candidate who built 
     his platform on videos of aborted fetuses. Needless to say, 
     my vote for Bill Clinton registered with the minority.
       I have no problem with being in the minority. It's the 
     price I pay for being an individual. But I do have a problem 
     with the electoral college deep sixing my vote because I 
     dared to vote against the majority. My vote gets turned into 
     a vote for truth, justice and the American way of a thousand 
     points of family-value light.
       So even though Clinton won the election, it was without any 
     help from me or my Indiana. As a matter of fact, Indiana's 
     electoral college votes have not gone toward a Democrat since 
     1964 when Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater.
       I wasn't even alive then to enjoy the satisfaction of 
     knowing I voted for a winner.
       This stinks. Just because I happen to live where I am in 
     the minority shouldn't mean that my vote has no bearing on 
     an election's outcome.
       If the presidency was decided by a popular vote, on the 
     other hand, my vote would have counted the same as someone's 
     vote in California, Georgia, New York, Ohio, Vermont, 
     Nebraska, Colorado or even Indiana.
       As the system stands now, my vote isn't worth diddly, and 
     in a system in which supposedly everyone has a voice, that is 
     wrong.
       If presidents were elected by having to win a true popular 
     vote, neither Rutherford B. Hayes nor Benjamin Harrison would 
     have been elected. Hayes won the election in 1876 without 
     winning the popular vote as did Harrison in 1888.
       The electoral college has to go the way of the dinosaurs. 
     Get rid of it.
       As a matter of fact, under the present system, it is even 
     possible that the choice of president and vice president get 
     thrown to the House of Representatives and Senate 
     respectively. If a third-party candidate enters the race and 
     prevents the electoral college from awarding any candidate a 
     clear majority (over 50 percent), the election for president 
     moves to Congress.
       However unlikely that scenario seems, it is possible. If 
     Ross Perot hadn't done anything stupid to take him out of the 
     most recent presidential race, it probably would have 
     happened in 1992.
       In 1824 it actually did happen. Andrew Jackson was elected 
     by the House of Representatives because he didn't win a 
     majority of the electoral college vote.
       That's a scary thought, isn't it? If Congress can't decide 
     in a timely manner to put a waiting period on the purchase of 
     handguns, how can we expect it to be able to competently 
     elect the leaders of the free world? Hmm.
       Under that same system, it is also possible to have a 
     president and vice president from two different parties. Can 
     you imagine President Clinton and Vice President Stockdale? 
     It sounds stupid, but it could've--and still could--happen 
     unless the system of how we elect our president is changed.
       So what can be done?
       There are a number of things, but the most obvious is to 
     remove the electoral college completely and elect the 
     president by the popular vote.
       That sounds simple and logical, but some people say it 
     would prevent any candidate from receiving a clear majority 
     and would threaten the two-party system by allowing too many 
     fringe candidates into the political fray.
       But would losing the two-party system be such a terrible 
     thing? Many people, including myself, are sick and tired of 
     having to choose between two out-of-touch politicians. Fringe 
     candidates would force mainstream candidates to focus on real 
     issues instead of party bashing.

                          ____________________