Elect the U.S. President with the Popular Vote

It's time to elect the President and Vice President of the United States by direct, popular vote.

In addition to being given greater proportionate representation in the Senate, individuals living in states with smaller populations are given more political influence than those people living in larger states. That's simply undemocratic. Electing the President by popular vote might also increase voter turnout and most certainly would extend the power of third party campaigns.

Another stark, modern day example of why the Electoral system no longer works, is that Bush became President in 2000. The majority of the American public were bright enough to see how disastrous his Presidency could be and voted for Gore instead. Along with the Supreme Court, the Electoral College system handed Bush's neoconservative minority a victory. A radical minority cannot be allowed to control the country through the Electoral system again.

But putting partisan politics aside (a popular vote could benefit republicans in future elections also), here is a bit of background on the Electoral College from Wikipedia:

The Electoral College is intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system is designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.

Proponents of the system counter that the Electoral College requires candidates to garner more widespread support throughout the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states. The latter candidate, the argument goes, appeals to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist. However, the Electoral College is not guaranteed to favor the latter candidate in that scenario. In fact, given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could win with the support of just the 11 largest states.

Most states use a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's electoral votes. This gives candidates an incentive to pay the most attention to states without a clear favorite, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. For example, California, Texas, and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, have in recent elections been considered safe for a particular party (Democratic for California & New York; Republican for Texas), and therefore candidates typically devote relatively few resources, in both time and money, to such states.

As well as to give more voting power to citizens of less populated states, the electoral college gives disproportionate power to those state interests as well. This can further correspond with national political control, since most states tend to go either Republican or Democrat, and the less populous states tending toward the former. Democrats often complain for this reason that the electoral college favors the Republican party, by boosting the electoral weight of Republican states.

Our forefathers created the Electoral College system during a very different political climate --- as a compromise for state's rights in the industrial age. The world has changed a lot since then; we have entered the "information age." There is no use for the antiquated Electoral College in our modern, mass communication driven, interconnected world.

The recently disbanded Republican initiative to split electoral votes in California shows us that the Electoral College is also increasingly vulnerable to attack by partisan politics.

As a Californian, I might consider such a initiative if every state, including "red states," were divided in the same way. But trying to siphon off electoral votes in one "blue" state to swing an election is not only an unconstitutional ploy that unfairly benefits the Republican Party, but also destroys the balance of power and equal representation among our "Union's" states'.

The initiative's backers said they just want "votes to count." If they really mean that, why not just do away with the Electoral College altogether and have a true democracy where the popular vote elects the President of the United States?

What is your sense? Should we do away with the Electoral College?

Comments

[joreko]

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President arises from the winner-take-all rule (currently used by 48 of 50 states) under which all of a state"s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state. If the partisan divide in a state is not initially closer than about 46%-54%, no amount of campaigning during a brief presidential campaign is realistically going to change the winner of the state. As a result, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of "battleground" states. 88% of the money is focused onto just 9 closely divided battleground states.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

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

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 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 is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has 364 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

See www.NationalPopularVote.com

[badluckntrouble]

I've never understood how the electoral college was a good thing but I never thought I'd live to see the day we'd have a popular vote for president. Seems this effort is well underway. Thanks for the link, I'm going to get in touch with my state rep and push her to support...

[Araucaria]

Another reason for the Electoral College not following the popular vote: The number of representatives in Congress is too small.

When the constitution was ratified, the number of constituents per representative was about 30,000. We now have about 700 thousand people per representative, with small states such as Wyoming (Cheney's home state) receiving disproportionate representation.

If the number of representatives had been allowed to continue growing, instead of becoming fixed back in the early 20th century, we might have had between 800 and 1000 representatives in Congress. With this many representatives, there would be more like 280,000 people per representative, and the small state effect in the Electoral College (in which each state receives one vote for each representative and senator) would be much less dramatic.

So a different question might be, why aren't we receiving our proper representation the rest of the time?

A deeper question might be, why can't the procedures of Congress be improved so that legislation could be as efficient with ~5000 representatives as it is with 500?

[huffnpuffn]

A larger move towards real democracy would be accomplished with proportional representation in the house. Third (fourth, fifth, etc) party candidates would have a real chance. The government would far better represent the people of this country. The only thing that would suffer is localized pork.

[fourex]

Isn't that what the Supreme Court did 5-4?

[jacw20]

The people that rail against the electoral college ignore that in its current form only twice has it produced a different result than the "popular" will.

If we do go toa popular vote, I would like the number of eligible voters from each state to form the "weight" value of the people who actually vote. This would remove distortions by massive get out the vote campaigns in heavilly Democrat or Republican areas and allow the "true" will of the people to carry the day.

[PollM]

What is truly amazing is that no one has ever challenged in court the electoral system. The system in my opinion disenfranchises so many citizens in this country. I hope one day someone with deep pockets takes it upon him to challenge the system. What election system would you be in favor of? ------>

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=611

.

[jgo]

Your logic concludes we must abolish the senate.

[swift goat pet for truth]

I really would hate to see the divisive and gerrymandered House of Reps have power. Maybe if it would be ok if we had a different system of representation. I would not mind 4 or 7 different political parties here in the US.

[joreko]

Take a look at these guys www.nationalpopularvote.com They are working on a state-based solution to get to a popular vote for president. If we didn't need a Constitutional ammendment it would be much more doable.

Thanks for writing this. I agree, the current system has to go!

[codeatolla]

The constitutional scheme was that only the House of Representatives represented the people. The Senate and presidency, and thereby the Supreme Court, belonged to the states. Originally, the Electoral College and the Senate were chosen by state legislatures. The vote of the people to elect senators didn't come for a century later. It is high time that the presidency be given to the People. The states would still control the Senate and the advise and consent for the Supreme Court. (Where the smallest state and the largest state each have only two senators).

[LondonInNY]

YES. Otherwise go tell a half a million Americans, 500,000 plus who voted for AL GORE how their votes actually mattered. That's right forget that the person certifying the Florida election results, Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State was a BUSH campaign operative. The will of the American people was thwarted by the band of Neo-con thugs who seized power in 2000 by an assault on the electoral system. Bush/Cheney should be in JAIL, not the Whitehouse

[realitytrumpsbull]

Um, I think there's enough evidence on the table
to say that, basically, Texaco et. al. have
a LOT more to do with who gets 'elected' anymore
than the voters do...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....

[swift goat pet for truth]

This is true regardless of whether the system is the electoral college or straight popular vote.

[joebhed]

Thanks to Mike Frick for taking the time to write about something that is NOT in the forefront of the thinking of most citizens.
Yes, the Electoral College must go if we are ever to restore even a semblance of democracy to this great nation.
In order to arrive at the one-person-vote, we will have to amend the Constitution(Cx).
The notion that the EC is good protection against demogoguery is laughable on all front. The rest of the free world uses a popular vote, and it is those with the most controlled election process that end up with the worst leaders.
This issue is right up there with the computer-voting-fraud issue, and above the gerrymandering racket known as redistricting.
But because the EC proces is laid out in the Cx, it has been out of reach, of generations of both average and concerned citizens.
As an interim step, and to highlight the problem of the EC, it is possible for citizens in each state to push for a more "representative" form of selection of EC delegates. Yes, let's split em up.
Several small states do this in some form or other now, and the Repugs are pushing for a change in Cal in order to diffuse the great blue wave on the coast.
But ultiately, we cannot have the truly popular election of our country's leader without repealing one of the founding articles of the Cx.
Abolish the Electoral College system NOW!

[charon]

Yes, I think a lot of us have been thinking this for a long time. Like having the early primaries in agricultural, mainly rural states, the electoral college system works to the advantage of the right wing. It is clearly antidemocratic.

[SamThornton]

Most of the resistance to replacing the Electoral College with a direct vote comes from -- surprise, surprise -- politicians. Is it because politicians possess some special knowledge that the rest of us lack? Of course not. The problem is that if our current crop of politicians fears one thing more than terrorism or defeat at the polls, it's Democracy, which they equate with "mob rule," their dismissive slur on true Democracy.

Fair enough. Let them have their slurs. I say it's about time to give "mob rule" it's chance.

[OldManOnFire]

I don't believe I know of another voting system in the US where the member's or constituents votes do not directly count??

The entire Electoral system offends many people in believing, and rightfully so, that their votes don't actually count.

I also don't appreciate the grand selection by the respective two-party system which provides only 'one' candidate from each party to be placed on the ballots. I believe the Dem and Rep conventions are further abuses of the US voting system!

And lastly, why not do away with the current voting system and just let people vote using absentee-type ballots? Let the voters have one month to learn about the candidates, mark their ballots, then drop it in any mailbox. The physical aspect of the current system is bastardized at best!

It's really pitiful that with something as fundamental as national voting, yet so important to our nation, that decade after decade we continue to debate the same old problems...

[JFCooper]

I disagree completely.

1) We have never been in more need of protections against the possible election of a demagogue, which is what the electoral college is theoretically created to protect us from. Mass media plays an overwhelming role in informing people about politics; mass media shapes opinions and is doing so with more intent, less consience, and less adherence to ethical standards today than it has since the inception of the penny press.

2) States are more important political units than the federal government is. We are the *United States* of Ameica, not the Democratic Republic of America. Thus popular voting is counted by state, rather than by individual. This serves also to balance out the effects that demagoguery may have. It is easier to sway large populations via television than it is to sway small opulations wh expect face to face meetings, straight answers, and direct accountability.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Take a look at a calendar. Your comments are at least fifty years out of date. We're trying to build a home for the whole human race, and you're trying to restablish the Original Thirteen Colonies. Both are major projects, but I bet that the left gets finished before the right does.

As for a "demagogue", let's just make it far easier to get rid of the Executive, and well as fairer to select them.

[research]

Right! It's the current electoral system that allow demagogue Bush to win over the will of the people!