(Words of a popular tune reportedly played at the Surrender at Yorktown, 1781)
1. IS IT CELEBRITY, OR JUST MORBID CURIOSITY??
What is it in human nature that makes the public so interested in the private lives of "celebrities"?The media has always profited by offering gossip about presidents and actors, and we have always lapped it up. But it's become so intense that the main function of most news organizations has now become to "entertain", not to inform. And from their rational, financial perspective, why not -- if that's what the public yearns for, then that's what will maximize market share and ad rates.
But WHY has curiosity reached such a peak lately? And what are the costs to a society that pays more attention to trivia than local, state, and national issues? Seems a bit upsidedown.
2.
THE
CONSTITUTION'S SUICIDE CLAUSE
The election of a President is determined by a majority of electoral votes, which in turn are determined by the PLURALITY of votes cast in each state: ie, who gets more votes than anyone else -- NOT who gets 50.1%.This means that theoretically, a presidential candidate could be elected with 20% of the votes cast nation-wide. Or MUCH less, even.
For instance, suppose there were 5 candidates; and in those states constituting a majority of electoral votes, one candidate received 21% of the vote -- and each of the other four candidates received about 19% of the votes.
The result would be that this "21%" candidate would win all of the electoral votes in those states. And in the other states (eg., constituting 49% of the popular and/or electoral vote), he would not need to receive a single vote. So, 21% of 51% and 0% of 49% means that he only needs roughly 11% of the votes cast to win the Presidency. Even if 89% of voters think him the worst of the five.
So, is this rational? Is it fixable?
Well, did anyone ever hear of runoff elections? Or of second-choice balloting? Sure, we'll fix it -- in another 250 years. Seems a bit upsidedown.
Future Topics?