say-so | by judy katz

Election Losers

If our presidential candidates continue running neck and neck on Election Day, we may end up with a real bummer: the election of a president who lost the general vote but won the electoral vote.

We're playing 21st century politics with 18th century rules. The electoral system was devised to protect a class society and to prevent the more populous northeast from controlling the government. Only once has it made a difference and that was 112 years ago when Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote, a matter voters quickly corrected first chance they got. Imagine if that happened today.

Imagine the endless recounts in every district in every single city and state and what if they're still being legally contested by inauguration day?

Just imagine, oh dear, the endless panel discussions and expert testimonies, the acres of solid print in newspapers and magazines. We will long for the good old days of O.J. Simpson.

Our citizens, regardless of who actually voted, will scream of disenfranchisement. College kids will schedule rallies and throw voter registration cards on the bonfires. Hippies will spontaneously resurrect. Do we really want to go through this again?

For 200 years, it has been clear that those states with the highest populations have a disproportionate effect on a national election. So what? Numbers determine representation and the 538 electoral votes are apportioned to states on the basis of their representation in Congress.

What happened in 1888 was a fluke and a disgrace. It should not be allowed to happen again.

We each have only one vote. But if you vote for Gore and your state's electoral votes all go to Bush, what has happened to your vote? You've lost it.

The Chinese were merciful when they invented water torture. They could have made their victims sit through an American political campaign.

By now, we're blind and deaf to campaign rhetoric and anyway, everyone says Americans don't make up their minds until six-four-two (take your pick) weeks before the election. Talk about campaign finance and watch the eyes glaze. It's all too big now," people say. "You can't do anything about it."

Nonsense. Of course we can. Open the primaries, limit campaigning.

The structure is in place. The governors, who seem to be able to actually progress while Congress dithers, can choose a commission to determine a new way of selecting presidential candidates, vote on a constitutional amendment and see that it actually gets on the ballot.

Proposals have been kicking around for years for one general primary or for regional primaries. The object is for everybody to have a chance to choose a candidate. Revolutionary, huh? Outside of the fun of watching candidates mush through Iowa snow banks or swelter in Florida, why should these states pick who you have to vote for? And, after this year's nominating conventions, who thinks these have any relevance any more? At last report, the Reform Party even has two presidential candidates.

There will be seven presidential candidates on some of your ballots. Here's a trick question: if primaries had been held nationally last spring instead of in a few states, do you think the same people would be running now and does that make you feel less or better represented? And here's one last thing to mull over as you wait in line at the polls: a new national holiday: Election Day.

Because not every employee knows his employer has to give him time off to vote and not every voter has workday transportation to the polls. And it's too complicated to get an absentee vote. And they don't know where to vote early. And because the polls aren't open when they go to work and close before they come home. If we think it is important to vote, why don't we make it easier? On every level.

Judy Katz is the former editor of Sun Newspapers and previous Roeland Park councilperson and mayor. Contact her at marvoxy3@cs.com