Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Electoral College a fossil ?
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pie
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/opinion/...agewanted=print

QUOTE
April 14, 2007
Editorial

Maryland Takes the Lead

As the nation braces for a long and numbing presidential election, the State of Maryland has done voters a favor by rejecting the Electoral College as a fossil in need of a democratic makeover. Gov. Martin O’Malley and the Annapolis legislature made the state the first in the nation to decide that its Electoral College members should someday be required to vote for the presidential candidate chosen by a plurality of the nation’s voters, not according to the state’s parochial tally.

The change would not take effect until it won final acceptance by enough states to amount to a 270-vote majority in the college. (Maryland has 10 votes.) But it is something all Americans would benefit from, particularly the masses of voters routinely ignored when candidates focus on a few battleground states — just 16 in 2004 — that increasingly settle modern campaigns.

The need to scrap the creaky college machinery was made clear in the angst of the 2000 election. George W. Bush lost the popular election by almost 544,000 votes, yet won in a Supreme Court showdown over Florida’s electors that hinged on far fewer disputed state ballots. Four years later, it was Mr. Bush’s turn to sweat as he handily won the national vote yet came close to losing Ohio — and the White House — in the college’s arcane state-by-state fragmentation of the popular majority.

The reform movement, driven by a bipartisan coalition called National Popular Vote, has a long way to go. But Hawaii is close to approval, and hundreds of legislators are sponsoring the change in more than 40 other states. It is an ingenious way around the fact that the alternative strategy of trying to amend the Constitution would require the approval of three-fourths of the states, leaving veto power in the hands of smaller states over-represented in the college.

The objection that reform would mean that rural interests would be ignored is a canard. The change would require candidates to present positions that galvanized all Americans. This is the truer and more certain path of democracy.
Pie
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

QUOTE
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.

The National Popular Vote bill has 305 legislative sponsors in 47 states. So far in 2007, the bill has passed both houses of the legislature in Hawaii and Maryland. The bill has also passed the Colorado Senate and Arkansas House.

The current system of electing the President has several shortcomings—all stemming from the winner-take-all rule that awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state.

Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose. A major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that voters in two thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of “battleground” states. Candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in just nine states; and over 99% of their advertising money in just 16 states. The number of battleground states has been shrinking for many decades. The spectator states in presidential elections include 12 of the 13 least populous states (all but New Hampshire); 7 of the nation’s 11 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia).

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes would have elected Kerry in 2004, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide. 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. A second-place candidate won in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

The Founding Fathers gave the states exclusive and plenary (complete) control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election. Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral votes by congressional districts.

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 legislation (in the form of an interstate compact) 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).

The bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Sacramento Bee, Common Cause and Fair Vote.

70% of the public has long supported nationwide election of the president.

The National Popular Vote proposal is described in detail in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote. The book is available to be read or downloaded, for free, at www.every-vote-equal.com. Additional information is available at www.NationalPopularVote.com.


"Editorial Support

Denver Post editorial
Electoral College is outdated

April 10, 2007
Anderson Herald Bulletin editorial

Popular vote for president worth consideration
April 6, 2007

Westport News and FairField Citizen News editorial
Initiative to Scrap Electoral College Gains Steam
April 6, 2007

Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial
How to drop out of the Electoral College: There’s a way to ensure top vote-getter becomes president
March 27, 2006

The Baxter Bulletin editorial
Popular vote bill gets a reprieve
March 21, 2006

New York Times editorial
Drop Out of the College
March 14, 2006

The Columbian editorial
Opinion - Behold the purple people
JOHN LAIRD Columbian editorial page editor
March 5, 2006

Chicago Sun-Times editorial
We vote for a fairer way to decide national elections
March 1, 2006

Frederick News Post editorial
One person, one vote
February 19, 2007

Kent County Times editorial
Electoral College's time has passed
February 16, 2007

Wichita Falls Times Record News editorial
A better way: We should bypass electoral college to reinvent our presidential process
September 13, 2006

Sacramento Bee editorial
Another chance to lead: Electoral College bill sets reform in motion
September 6, 2006

Los Angeles Times editorial
States join forces against electoral college: A piecemeal approach may be the only way to kill the anachronistic institution
June 5, 2006

Sacramento Bee editorial
Rx for U.S. elections: States can assure the popular vote rules
June 3, 2006"

Advisory Board
John Anderson (R-I–IL)
Birch Bayh (D–IN)
John Buchanan (R–AL)
Tom Campbell (R–CA)
Tom Downey (D–NY)
D. Durenberger (R–MN)
Jake Garn (R–UT)
Desron
On the face of it, it looks like a good idea but i wonder what may happen in the case of a close election such as 1960 and 2000. Would there be court battles all across the US and the outcome of the election held in doubt for many months?
70sliberalism
As I am against mob rule I'm a huge fan of the Electoral College. Pure democracy is a recipe for anarchy. I've never been in a room of 10 people split evenly on an issue that when one changes their mind bad feelings aren't solidified. 4 - 6 = 10 - lousy representation.

The states that are not so populated will never give up the power they have to be "equal" as well they shouldn't. Maybe we are headed towards a more progressive scheme, but I think it is like redirecting traffic through a busy thouroughfare...just a redirection of the problem.

Democracy, is messy. It is supposed to be. The Electoral College is like a checks and balance...

I could go on and on, but for those who want to change the rules there are no arguments that would suffice. Once a mind is set in cement their is no common ground to be had.

A conservative mindset has taken over the progressive movement on this issue.
70sliberalism
QUOTE
Under the winner-take-all rule, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states that they cannot possibly win or lose. A major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that voters in two thirds of the states are effectively disenfranchised in presidential elections because candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of “battleground” states. Candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their advertising money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in just nine states; and over 99% of their advertising money in just 16 states. The number of battleground states has been shrinking for many decades. The spectator states in presidential elections include 12 of the 13 least populous states (all but New Hampshire); 7 of the nation’s 11 most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia).

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes would have elected Kerry in 2004, even though President Bush was ahead by 3,500,000 votes nationwide. 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. A second-place candidate won in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.


Listing all the perceived flaws and none of the pluses of an issue like this is of no help. It is nothing short of a condemnation with a smile, of things as they are.

If any serious thinking person thinks there is a cure for the listed ills of the current system they've never studied how the art of politics and campaigning works.
Pie
"Pure" democracy does not exist- or I am not aware of it. Direct democracy is quite successful in Switzerland, however.


http://www.votescount.com/books/elecoll.htm

Pro’s and Con’s of the Electoral College

In its over 200 year history, the electoral college has received its share of criticism and praise. The following is a list of the most frequently made comments of the Electoral College.

Pro’s:

Requires a distribution of popular support to be elected president- the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern

Strengthens the status of minority groups- the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state’s electoral votes or none of them.

Enhances the political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system- protects that presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities.

Maintains the federal system of government and representation


Con’s:

There is a possibility of electing a minority president- one way for this to happen would be if the country was so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the vote and no one obtained a necessary majority

There is a risk of having "faithless" Electors- Electors who won’t be loyal to their party or candidate

The Electoral College may depress voter turnout- because each state is only entitled to so many electoral votes regardless of voter turnout, there is no incentive for states to encourage voter participation

Does not accurately reflect the national popular will because it does not elect a candidate by a direct popular vote

How many electoral votes does each state have?
AL: 9
AK: 3
AZ: 8
AR: 6
CA: 54
CO: 8
CT: 8
DE: 3
DC: 3
FL: 25
GA: 13
HI: 4
ID: 4
IL: 22
IN: 12
IA: 7
KS: 6
KY: 8
LA: 9
ME: 4
MD: 10
MA: 12
MI: 18
MN: 10
MS: 7
MO: 11
MT: 3
NE: 5
NV: 4
NH: 4
NJ: 15
NM: 5
NY: 33
NC: 14
ND: 3
OH: 21
OK: 8
OR: 7
PA: 23
RI: 4
SC: 8
SD: 3
TN: 11
TX: 32
UT: 5
VT: 3
VA: 13
WA: 11
WV: 5
WI: 11
WY: 3
TOTAL: 538
Desron
While the population of the US has greatly increased over time, the number of Electoral College votes has remained static for close to 100 years now. Every census, the votes are reallocated and the states that have the greatest population increase gain votes at the expense of the states with a slower growth rate who lose votes.

Some time ago, I looked at this and noted the many of the states which have gained are what one would consider to be Red states (a notable exception is California). In the North East and Midwest, where a preponderonce of Blue states are, most have lost votes thus making it more difficult for the Democratic candidate to win an election.
jeffmoskin
Electoral College System was one more "frill" added to the Constitution to get small states to sign on to it. No different than counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for census in the southern states.

Also, when Constitution was drafted, citizens only voted for Congressman and state representatives. The state houses voted for the Senators, and the EC voted for the Pres.

I've heard an opinion expressed that the framers (who never anticipated a two-party system) thought the election would be thrown into the House because no single candidate would get enough EVs to win. And having the House vote for the prez is pretty close to a "popular democratic vote."

I like the ideal of a popular vote, and the proposed bill effectively gets around a Constitutional Amendment which we all know would never pass. I think it is perfectly legal for states to agree to this plan.

California's legislature passed it, but Ahhhhnold vetoed it.

We need a Dem Governor.
70sliberalism
QUOTE(Pie @ Apr 16 2007, 07:17 AM) *
"Pure" democracy does not exist- or I am not aware of it. Direct democracy is quite successful in Switzerland, however.
http://www.votescount.com/books/elecoll.htm

Pro’s and Con’s of the Electoral College

In its over 200 year history, the electoral college has received its share of criticism and praise. The following is a list of the most frequently made comments of the Electoral College.

Pro’s:

Requires a distribution of popular support to be elected president- the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern

Strengthens the status of minority groups- the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state’s electoral votes or none of them.

Enhances the political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system- protects that presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities.

Maintains the federal system of government and representation
Con’s:

There is a possibility of electing a minority president- one way for this to happen would be if the country was so deeply divided politically that three or more presidential candidates split the vote and no one obtained a necessary majority

There is a risk of having "faithless" Electors- Electors who won’t be loyal to their party or candidate

The Electoral College may depress voter turnout- because each state is only entitled to so many electoral votes regardless of voter turnout, there is no incentive for states to encourage voter participation

Does not accurately reflect the national popular will because it does not elect a candidate by a direct popular vote

How many electoral votes does each state have?
AL: 9
AK: 3
AZ: 8
AR: 6
CA: 54
CO: 8
CT: 8
DE: 3
DC: 3
FL: 25
GA: 13
HI: 4
ID: 4
IL: 22
IN: 12
IA: 7
KS: 6
KY: 8
LA: 9
ME: 4
MD: 10
MA: 12
MI: 18
MN: 10
MS: 7
MO: 11
MT: 3
NE: 5
NV: 4
NH: 4
NJ: 15
NM: 5
NY: 33
NC: 14
ND: 3
OH: 21
OK: 8
OR: 7
PA: 23
RI: 4
SC: 8
SD: 3
TN: 11
TX: 32
UT: 5
VT: 3
VA: 13
WA: 11
WV: 5
WI: 11
WY: 3
TOTAL: 538

Hip hip hooray, for Switzerland...and i mean it. If only we were a small homogenized society....sigh.

I don't view opponents as enemies and I don't react with fear to what others may be planning. The idea that the elctoral college is somehow to blame for our ills or abused so we should scrap it is sillyness put forth by academics with too much time on their hands.

The idea of a popular vote is anathema to our history and tradition as a nation. If that is the way to go a true national dialogue is desired...not a specious attack on our current system.

plus, there is this:
QUOTE
Article. V. - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
... many of the arguments against the college is that small states get an equal share or an unfair advantage in election politics to the disadvantage of large states.

We live in a republic. States, are the people in our federalist system.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.