OPINION & EDITORIAL
Divided we fall
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Still miffed (May 7, 2008)
- A lacking response (May 6, 2008)
- The block is hot (May 2, 2008)
- Madison's Downtown: The Musical (May 1, 2008)
- The real 'State of the ASM' (April 29, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Electoral college oddities (October 14, 2004)
- Democrats should fight fire with fire (October 25, 2005)
- A deal gone bad (April 16, 2007)
- New bill will undermine UW System (October 7, 2003)
- Dems' maneuver no step forward (September 25, 2007)
Share This:
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Last week, a state representative introduced a bill that would award Wisconsin's presidential electors to the winner of each congressional district. Under the proposal, authored by Rep. Gary Tauchen, R-Bonduel, the winner of a majority of the state's eight districts would be given Wisconsin's final two electors. We urge the state Assembly to reject this bill because it would significantly diminish Wisconsin's ability to participate in the campaign dialogue.
Ending Wisconsin's winner-take-all general election format would almost certainly minimize the state's impact on the presidential race, given the realities of the Electoral College. In 2004, the presidential candidates spent millions of dollars and an extraordinary amount of time campaigning for Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes. The simple fact is that splitting them in a state that John Kerry won by half a percentage point would make campaigning in the Badger State a fool's errand for candidates looking to strategically budget their time and money. Realistically, a candidate could only hope to gain three or four more electors than his opponent by devoting significant resources to Wisconsin.
Such a proposal might be more productive in large states dominated by one party, such as Texas and California, because it would offer the minority party a realistic chance to gain electors. While one could certainly argue that this bill would make Wisconsin's electoral delegation more representative of our state's ideological diversity, it is not worth eliminating the incentive for candidates to visit and address the concerns of Wisconsin voters.
The electoral system as it exists today was meant to promote unity by giving smaller states a substantial voice in national elections and a reason to remain in the Union. Whether this reasoning is still applicable in modern times can certainly be debated, but unilaterally reducing our own influence will not make the broader system more just.
The Electoral College system may well be unfair and unrepresentative for Americans who don't have the good fortune of living in a swing state, but any change would best be taken up on the national level. Partitioning the state's electoral votes would greatly reduce the incentive for candidates to address Wisconsinites in a national campaign. The Electoral College may have its foibles, but partitioning Wisconsin's influence will hurt this state more than it helps.
Anonymous (November 13, 2007 @ 7:18pm):
He's doing it because we're pretty split but will still go Dem, so Dems would pick up only 6 or 7 and Republicans would salvate 3 or 4.
Anonymous (November 14, 2007 @ 4:19pm):
Isn't it interesting that Republicans only care about things like this when it's obvious they'd lose the election in a landslide otherwise?
Susan Mann (December 14, 2007 @ 12:03pm):
I am concerned about future Social Security. It appears to have become a borrowing base for agendas other than what it was meant for. We need to stop this practice. Only Legal U.S. citiens will be eligible. I am also concerned about medical care for every Legal U.S. citizen. The retired seniors already pay Medicare ins. premiums out of their Social Security every month. I think we can have a tax or premium paid like FICA to pay for universal health care much llke is done in Europe. I realize HMO's, pharmacy companies, medical sply, ect. won't like this, but in view of the dimishing middle class, & those people who have been devistated by medical debt, I think this is fair. Too many people pay ins. premiums only to find coverage is not what they expected, or denial until a condition becomes critical.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
