Media Pundits, Stop Talking About the Same Thing: Do Something Useful and Plot to Castrate the Electoral College

Okay, media honchos, so the presidential race is over, mercifully decided quickly with Obama the winner by a substantial margin. Out of 125 million voters, he beat McCain by eight and a half million, a percentage of 53 to 46 of the electorate who took part. In the Electoral College the margin is 365 to 162, with Missouri and its eleven votes still undecided.

After a cursory analysis of all the states it's clear that if some of the razor thin victories (Florida, Indiana and North Carolina) and even the relatively close victories (Virginia and Ohio) were reversed, Obama still would have won -- but here's where I'm headed -- he would have won, but just barely. Even with a very large popular victory, though arguably not quite a landslide.

It's conceivable that had Obama beaten McCain by three or four million -- still quite a chunk but half as much as he accomplished -- McCain might have won the presidency by adding votes here or there, and such a possibility should not be acceptable.

Amazingly, with all the frenetic emotion of the 2000 election nothing was done -- certainly not accomplished -- no effective media outcry -- to abolish our outmoded and increasingly stupid Electoral College. Whatever purpose our founding fathers had in mind has long since gone asunder, just as counting blacks as 3/5 of the population and having our U.S. senators appointed by state legislators.

We have checks and balances in our government -- that's why we have the Senate and the House of Representatives -- but in a federalist government such as ours it makes no sense nor is it particularly honorable to cede the will of the popular vote to the Electoral College.

Al Gore rightly won the 2000 election, as did Grover Cleveland in 1888 and Samuel Tilden in 1876. They each won more votes than their opponents, yet Gore and Tilden never got the White House key and Grover Cleveland temporarily had to turn his over to Benjamin Harrison. In the only turnaround case yet in American history, Cleveland got it back four years later when he bested Harrison again and also in the Electoral College.

Even with a tiny victory, such as that won by Al Gore, the fact remains he beat George W. Bush by half a million votes. Not a huge percentage, but that's a lot of people who were in effect told their votes didn't count.

Media strategists have explained that a constitutional amendment wouldn't work, because fairness is not what politics is all about. That having been granted the right to such disproportionate power in the selection of our president, small states will not quickly hand it over. Since it takes three quarters of the states to ratify an amendment, it would take a heavy dose of ethical soul searching to get the state politicians to do what is morally right.

Which leads me to another solution bandied about, wherein the larger states would agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. States have the right to distribute their electoral votes in the manner they see fit, as Nebraska and Maine have demonstrated this year giving some of their votes to the winner in each congressional district.

Maryland (10 votes), New Jersey (15), Illinois (21) and Hawaii (4) have already enacted the National Popular Vote Bill that would give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote if states with a combined majority of the electoral votes do likewise. Consider the following:

Florida (27 votes) is a swing state, and so is Ohio (20). North Carolina (15), Virginia (13) and Indiana (11) have demonstrated things are clearly changing. Texas' vote (34) was much closer than in past years, as was Georgia's, whose fifteen electoral votes have made it a formidable force. Missouri (11) is still a nail biter. If these states, along with those cited in the paragraph above, joined California (55), New York (31), Pennsylvania (21), Michigan (17), Massachusetts (12), Washington State (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), and Colorado (9) it adds up to 372 votes, more than enough to elect the president of the United States.

Republican leaning states would have as much to gain as Democratic states, because in a close election the tide could turn either way. And even if some states were stubborn and, for example, Texas refused to participate, it's likely that a consortium of smaller eastern states such as Connecticut (7), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), Vermont (3), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), and D.C. (3) would join in, plus possibly Oregon (7), too and their collective 35 votes would more than cancel a possibly non-compliant Texas' results.

Let's do it, media pundits. And what better time than with electoral rage not being at the forefront? Let's plan for the future calmly, recognizing that whatever purpose the Electoral College served its time has passed.

The American people have every right to choose their president. Our system no longer makes sense -- if it ever did -- and should allow our future presidents to be elected based on the simple fact that more voters preferred them than their opponents.

Comments

[potshots]

If there is no electoral college and there is a "close" popular vote, what happens?

Do you recount the entire country? Do you recount with 50 different Sec of States like Kathy Harris?

There is not a question of "whatever purpose the founders may have had in mind". we are a nation of separate states and the electoral college weights the vote in favor of smaller states because the number of electoral votes in a state is based on population plus 2 electoral votes, one for each Senator. So a state with small population like Dakota has one electoral vote for the people in the state plus 2 votes and that gives the less populous state some extra clout which it needs. By focusing on electoral votes, the parties "cater" to the interests in states that they might ignore if the idea was simply to obtain a huge majority vote. Jews are a swing vote in Florida and New York which have huge electoral college vote so they become more important than they would be if they were simply a population of 8 million people. They would no longer be a swing vote.

The electoral college vote is complex question.

[lglglg]

Something also has to be done about the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary (I live in neighboring Massachusetts and can watch the process there closeup). The fate of the WORLD depends upon who is elected President, and the starting guns shouldn't be handed to states that are (in order) trying to maintain agricultural subsidies, and trying to extract hotel and meal taxes from journalists during the off season.

[kellygrrrl]

some day we will look back at this and laugh
maybe it will be right around the same time we elect an openly homosexual or agnostic President

[littlepuffycloud]

I was a political junkie right up through the election, but thankfully, the incessant whining and speculation about what President elect OBama 'needs to do' has ended my habit. With the exception of Keith and Dr. Maddow (that drives David Frum mad!) the others are just plain boring. So long chumps!

[kellygrrrl]

right there with you cloud!

[mvy]

The essence of the concept of a nationwide popular vote for President is that the winner is determined by the nationwide popular vote, not by the separate state-by-state outcomes. The National Popular Vote law is an agreement among the states to award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote, in every state, then would be politically relevant and equal.

It is sometimes asserted that "the voters would rebel" if a state"s electoral votes were awarded to a candidate who did not carry their own state. This argument is based on the incorrect premise that the voters are devoted and attached to the current system. In fact, the opposite is true. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state"s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Arkansas (74%), California (69%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (70%), Missouri (70%), North Carolina (62%), and Rhode Island (74%). In short, the public believes that the candidate that receives the most votes should get elected.

[mvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

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). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators " 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers in small, medium, and large states (size doesn't matter), including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes " 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[mvy]

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[blake510]

It might encourage people to vote more. Think of all the people who think... "well, my state is solid red, there's no point" or vice versa if your state is solidly blue. I think its not a bad idea. I would also add that Voting Day should be a national holiday... I've heard people suggest it, including Hillary in the primaries, and I think its a great idea and will increase people's awareness about voting. I think the media should work on that.

[aussiepollie]

I don't see this happening. You either win or lose the electoral college. That's the system and every presidential candidate knows it. The popular vote doesn't exist. And Al Gore didn't win the 2000 election.

[Michael Russnow - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm well aware of the realities of today's system, but because it's the current system doesn't make it right. It was once the system to have slavery. It was once the system for women not to be able to vote. Those systems were changed for the better, as I urge our nation's leaders to do in the case of the outmoded Electoral College.

[joethevoter]

all the small eastern states are already voting in a block, states have no incentive to leave the electoral college system since dividing their votes would make the states that don't divide their votes the states that would get the attention. Unless you could get several of the Republican states to agree, it doesn't make sense that all the states you mentioned would make much of a difference unless the Republicans won, If a democrat won they wouldn't reallly affect the outcome because more than likely they would have already won those states. convincing the swing states would make much more sense but all the ad dollars they now enjoy might be affected. Voters in whatever state adopted this plan would feel like their voices had been overturned.
After this election I would rather see a test for all the candidates to make sure they are qualified. I don't understand why postal workers have to pass a test but they will let just anyone run for president.

[aussiepollie]

Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. I just think if it aint broke, don't fix it. The question is, is the electoral college structure so bad that it needs changing? What's to say its successor would be superior in procedure? Can you guarantee this? The current system isn't perfect, but historically, more times than not, it has worked correctly and America got the president it voted for. Maybe some change has merit, but the type proposed in this piece places too much emphasis on speculating what may happen in a hypothetical election result. These sort of things are risky and the process of electing the president of the United States isn't the place where risks should be experimented with.