Regarding money spent on campaigns, I completely disagree that it should be limited, or that some committee pick the candidates and allow only those candidates to run. If we think we have a mess now, wait until that idea is adopted. I believe a better way would be to mandate that all contributions be made public w/i a very short period of time. That would allow all to inspect where the money was coming from and whether there was any quid pro quo.

My letters were respectful but firm in my concern that we have only one Senator representing us for a prolonged period of time. To the best of my recollections, he has only made about a half-dozen attempts to vote during his campaign for President. I believe he has made a statement that “I will vote on important issues – or issues where my vote will make a difference”. That being said, I guess the Congress has brought about a half-dozen “important issues up for a vote over the past year or more? In my opinion his attitude “cheapens” the office of Senator and Representative of the People. To date, I have received no answer from the McCain offices.

As I did not receive an answer from the McCain camp, I escalated my concerns to the Republican National Committee. Likewise, no answer has been received.

Presidential elections are not “Of the People, By the People, or For the People”. They are controlled by, and for, the Republican and Democratic Committees. They control local, state, and national elections. Don’t believe me? Look up the current rules for delegates and super-delegates. See if you can find “wiggle room” for an Independent Candidate to fairly win any National election. Won’t happen.

I’m convinced that another decade or two of RNC/DNC chicanery will, little by little, eradicate many of the remaining democratic freedoms we have left. They (look up who the RNC and DNC leadership is) firmly control the economic and judicial processes to a point that an honest, middle class person does not stand a chance. Like other rulers in past history (Rome, Germany, China, South America’s, etc.), we are destined for only two classes of people. Those few that control all the money - and those that have nothing.

The sad thing is, that most Americans don’t pay enough attention to even see it happening right in front of them. Far to many people will chose a candidate this election purely based on gender, religion, or race. Of the three major candidates left, the American people have absolutely no say in future decisions on the “war”, or on Illegal Immigration. Clinton, Obama, and McCain all support maintaining a conflict in the middle-East because it financially benefits the majority of their biggest campaign contributors, and they support amnesty because there is a huge voting block (legal and illegal voters) that can effect their election. Majority rules? Not in this lifetime!

Electoral College favors the interests of the two dominant parties. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the people’s votes and zero electoral college votes.

Isn’t There a Problem Here? Critics of the Electoral College system, of which there are more than a few, point out that the system allows the possibility of a candidate actually losing the nationwide popular vote, but being elected president by the electoral vote. Can that happen? Yes, and it has.

A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in five of the last 12 presidential elections. The second-place candidate was elected in 2000 (Bush was appointed as President by the Supreme Court, although Gore won the popular votes), 1888, 1876, and 1824.

The 538 total electoral votes are a combination of the 435 U.S. representatives and 100 senators from each state. Three additional votes are given to the District of Columbia. The Republican and Democratic parties from each state select their own electors who essentially vote on party lines. “They’re usually party loyalists with pretty strong ties to their party,” said Paul Goran, an SIUC professor in political science.

A negative aspect of the electoral college is that it makes a most state’s vote an all-or-nothing event. This means that if one happens to live in a state where one party is considerably more popular than the other, then minority party votes in that state really don’t matter much.

Many people do not vote simply because they feel they already know the outcome of the state (Electoral College) vote. But a percentage basis would bring these people out, and ultimately increase the woeful national voting percentage.
Political analyst Lou Jacobson today listed 19 battleground states for the 2008 presidential election. The remaining 31 states are listed as either “safely Democratic” or “safely Republican.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

(October 6, 2007 - The National Popular Vote Association announced that its bill has 366 sponsors in 47 states for the 2007 state legislative sessions).

A potential compromise to this would be a percentage apportionment of the state’s electoral votes. For instance, Party A wins a state by a 60-40% majority over Party B. If the state has 20 electoral votes, Party A wins 12 while Party B wins only 8.
This would also create a more widespread interest in the election process, since all states would be kept in play.

Regarding the election process, that is a very complex subject. I do not believe we should have campaign finance laws, such as we now have. In a free society, we should be able to spend our money in ways that we want, not be bound by government laws which infringe on free speech.

Someone like Romney needs to be able to spend to gain name recognition. Professional politicians have spent a lifetime obtaining national reputations on our taxpayer expense. To level the playing field, one must allow for one to spend to gain that regional or national exposure.

Re the electoral process, I believe it is a wise one. It give the smaller states some say in the matters of a national election. The country was not set up to be a direct democracy. It is a republic. Possibly some minor tweaking could be done in the electoral college, such as splitting the electoral votes of a state in direct proportion to the vote cast in that state as opposed to the winner take all as is the case currently.

I’ve been wanting to express views on critical issues such as the current dysfunctional elections process, and sharing others ideas toward solutions to problems or issues, from a segment of America (“the middle class”) that is usually ignored by our current political Representatives.

Your segment on Team America is also well timed for input. I consider myself close to an “average” American. My ancestors came to this country from Scotland and Germany before the American Revolution and have fought in just about every conflict since, to protect the freedoms outlined in our Constitution. I support controlled immigration, and pretty much ignored issues concerning illegal aliens (from Asia, Africa, South America, Russia, etc.). That is, until some of our friends from South of the border (legal and illegal) began to DEMAND liberties that they have not earned. How dare they march by the thousands through our streets waving their flag, (and carrying ours upside down) demanding they be given full amnesty, demanding our teachers teach in their language, that our National Anthem be sung in their language, and on, and on. I can only imagine how we would be treated in their country(s) if we demonstrated like they have here.

I also get a mite hot under the collar when “bleeding heart liberals” together with their ACLU buddies, strip us of things that we have supported in this country for several hundred years. 95% of Americans want “In God We Trust” on our currency. 95% want our flag displayed in school classrooms and public facilities. 95% enjoy religious freedoms and the display of such (whether Christian, Jewish, whatever) during the traditional holidays. Recently we see less than 5% of our population demanding that Christmas trees now be advertised as “Holiday trees”, less than 5% are demanding that displays of our Constitution and Biblical symbols, be removed from all public places. Probably less than 1% demand that all mention of God be removed from our children’s schooling.

Where did “Majority Rules” go to? For myself, I’m darn tired of the 1-5% minority population telling my family what we can and cannot do. I also think we should elect our leaders the old fashioned way. One person - One vote instead of the shameful misrepresentation(s) presented by the Electoral College method of choosing our leaders.

What “Process”? The dictionary defines “Process” as a systematic series of actions directed to some end.

From my viewpoint, I don’t see a “process” – I see a disorganized series of State preliminary balloting for electors carried out under the watchful eyes of the Democrat and Republican State and National Committees.

Who Selects the Electors?
“The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State”. That’s a “Process”??? Taken from: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/selects.html

In just the past couple of weeks we’ve seen on the news that:
1). Some States Electors have been disavowed because the dates of their Primary Elections were changed.
2). In some States, Independents are not allowed to vote at all (unless an Independent is listed on the ballot).

And when we finally get to (what we think is a) One Person – One Vote Presidential Election, We find that our votes don’t really count after all. Say What?

The Electoral College is technically responsible for electing the President. Each state has a particular number of electors, their numbers determined by how many senators and representatives a state has. On election day, as presidential candidates “win” a particular state by accumulating the most votes, they are awarded the number of delegates from that state. The candidate with the highest number of electoral votes (NOT POPULAR VOTES) wins the election. In December, the electors hold their own election to vote formally for President. The winning candidate will have at least half the electoral votes – or 270 delegates.

But Wait – What about:
Fifteen candidates (three of them twice) have become president of the United States with a popular vote less than 50% of the total cast. It should be noted, however, that in elections before 1872, presidential electors were not chosen by popular vote in all states. Adams’s election in 1824 was by the House of Representatives, which chose him over Jackson, who had a plurality of both electoral and popular votes, but not a majority in the electoral college. Besides Jackson in 1824, only three other candidates receiving the largest popular vote have failed to gain a majority in the electoral college–Samuel J. Tilden (D) in 1876, Grover Cleveland (D) in 1888, and Al Gore (D) in 2000. The “minority” presidents are listed below. In 2000, following a rats nets mess in Florida (Where the Republican Secretary of State disagreed with the balloting outcome of the general election), the matter was sent to the United States Supreme Court for a decision, and they APPOINTED a President.

I certainly don’t see that my vote counts toward the election of an individual for President. Current elections are farces dictated by Corporate and Special Interest Contributions.

The only way I see us getting back to “One Person – One Vote” is to have some small increment of money reserved (from our taxable contributions) for Presidential elections. Each candidate gets the same amount of money to campaign with. Popular vote wins rather than an Oil, Pharmaceutical, or Health Insurance Company, etc., swaying the elections process.