76-12-A3
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1977
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Electoral College[edit]
Transcript[edit]If the Electoral College isn't on the endangered species list it should be. At least it should be declared a game bird and given a few months a year when it couldn't be shot at. I'll be right back. The move is on to revise the election laws again. High on the list of changes which Vice President Mondale has proposed is elimination of the Electoral College. Now I doubt a very many of us could find an excuse for continuing the ceremony after each presidential election in which appointed electors in each state, one for each senator and congressman, go to the state capitol and re-elect the already elected president and maybe some of you think that's all they're talking about doing. Unfortunately there's more to it than that. The very basis for our freedom is that we're a federation of sovereign states. Our constitution recognizes that certain rights belong to the state and cannot be infringed upon by the national government. This is the guarantee that small states or rural sparsely populated areas will have a proportionate voice in national affairs. Those who want to do away with the Electoral College really mean they want the president elected in a national referendum with no reference as to how each state votes, thus a half dozen rural states could show a majority for one candidate and be outvoted by one big industrial state opting for his opponent. Presidential candidates would be tempted to aim their campaigns and their promises at a cluster of metropolitan areas in a few states and the smaller states would be without a voice. If the would-be executioners of the Electoral College are sincere, let them eliminate the college but continue to tote up the vote by states, based on majority rule within each state. That state's electoral votes, one for each congressman and senator, would be given to the winner of the majority vote. The possibility of an appointed Electoral College member voting on his own would be eliminated but everything else would remain the same. Yes, it is possible under this system to have a president elected with a smaller total vote than his opponent but it's only happened three times in two hundred years. Is that worse than having a president who only carried a dozen out of our fifty states and got all his votes from big urban areas? Would his programs in agriculture be fair to farmers or would they be aimed at helping only consumers in big city markets? The other proposed election law changes are equally flawed. The Hatch Act would be liberalized so as to allow increased participation in campaigns by federal government employees. There are roughly 15 million government employees. Grant that they each influence one additional vote and you have a voting block of 30 million with a vested interest in high taxes, big government and more government programs. A congressman or senator would think twice before launching a crusade to reduce bureaucracy or government revenues. Then there's a part of the reform calling for easy voter registration. Let the voters walk into the polls on election day sign up and vote, the idea being that low voter turnouts are due to the present registration rules. Somehow they skip over the fact that millions of already registered voters don't vote. What's their excuse? And of course, they poo poo the idea that voter fraud might be encouraged, yet in one state right now the count in the last election and one congressional race has been challenged. So far, they found a half dozen oil stations, several warehouses and empty lots, a cemetery and two public parks that voted for the winner. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
