|
Frequently
Asked Questions
Direct Election
Fairness
Danger
Runoffs
Fraud
Wouldn’t direct election keep the
candidates in the bigger states because there are more votes to be
won there? Isn’t that unfair to the smaller states?
Direct election probably would entice
presidential candidates to spend more of their time in larger states
because of the greater number of raw votes they could obtain.
However, there is a positive reaction to time being spent in
those larger places. More
votes equals more voters, which in turn mean more people that are
affected by a new or re-elected President’s policies.
Today, candidates spend most of their time and money in swing
states, convincing undecided voters that if they are elected, they
will fulfill an incredible amount of promises to the voter’s
state. However, because
these states are typically less populous, they are not very
representative of the whole country.
So, in reality, making promises to bigger states because of a
direct election would mean that more of the national population,
which is naturally more representative of the country, would be
listened to. Instead of
promises being made to a small fraction of the nation, they would be
made to a much greater, more representative portion – a much more
appropriate form of campaigning for a national office.
Back to Top
Wouldn’t direct election lead to a
dangerous form of pure or direct democracy?
No. If
our Congressional elections, in which we use a direct election
process, were ever seen as dangerous to our democracy by being too
direct or pure, then this argument would have a leg to stand on.
However, our direct elections of Congressmen, Mayors and
Governors have been very stable with the use of direct elections. As it is, in the last 25 House elections, we have only had
one change in partisan control, even as partisan control of the
White House has changed in six of the last 12 presidential
elections. The Office of the President is actually the only public
office in our country that we don’t vote directly for.
Back to Top
Would run-off elections be more common
with direct election?
Yes. However,
the form of direct election that FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy
advocates includes Instant Run-off Voting.
This type of election gives voters a chance to rank the
candidates by preference, and ensures that the winner of an election
walks away with a majority of the votes.
It also eliminates the need for multiple run-offs, which
result in lower voter turnout and waste campaign and taxpayer
dollars.
Back to Top
Is fraud more likely in a direct election
system?
No. Some
critics of reform believe that fraud is more likely with direct
election because every vote would be competing equally against every
other vote, giving each the potential to be a decisive vote.
Because of this, they say, fraud can be easily spread across
the country by dirty politicians and cause such chaos as to
constitute a national recount.
However, fraud is actually more likely in a system with the
Electoral College, and in fact, occurs on a regular basis in exactly
the way reform critics complain it would happen without the
Electoral College. In
the 2000 election, fraud (as simple as an early closing time for a
poll location) was committed throughout the country.
The reason we did not notice, however, is because it was
committed in such a scattered and random manner that is was
overlooked when the confusion in Florida was concentrated within a
few close counties. The fact is, with a different number of electoral votes for
each state, it is actually very simple to make a big difference in
the Electoral College outcome by recounting one small state.
This is precisely what happened in Florida in 2000, and is
precisely how George W. Bush managed to win the election: by coming
out on top of a recount in a single state.
FAQ Table of
Contents
Electoral
College Table of Contents |
