In a close presidential election, a handful of Electors putting national interest ahead of party interest could help elect a consensus candidate. We could yet unite this nation.

Too few people are aware that a handful of Electors changing their mind could mean that no candidate would win a majority of Electoral votes, and the decision would then go to the House of Representatives, with each state casting one vote according to what their delegation might agree on. They would choose from the three people who received the most Electoral votes.

Could we persuade some, (maybe many) Electors to set aside party interests and vote the national interest?

In an informal survey, I mentioned three names--Walter Cronkite, George Bush, and John Kerry. More people said that Cronkite would be a better president than Bush and Kerry combined. This somewhat random survey had Cronkite at 43%, Bush at 17%, and Kerry at 15%. Twenty-five percent were undecided.

We can ask Electors to set aside their promise to vote for their party's nominee without embarrassing our democratic principles. We could get a president who would be more able to unite, to heal this nation. We could more effectively rebuild our reputation in the world. We need to rebuild our reputation.

John Champagne

If you like this idea, please pass it on.

If you don't like it, please share your critique, on my guestbook or through email. Thank you!

John Champagne

. | newsgroup posts

A Capitalism-Communism Synthesis - long version

A Biological Model for Politics and Economics

Walter Cronkite for President

Would Cronkite accept a draft?

Newspaper columns by Walter Cronkite

Please Sign my Guestbook
View Guestbook 1