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?
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
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?
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.
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=611
.
Thanks for writing this. I agree, the current system has to go!
to say that, basically, Texaco et. al. have
a LOT more to do with who gets 'elected' anymore
than the voters do...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....
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!
Fair enough. Let them have their slurs. I say it's about time to give "mob rule" it's chance.
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...
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.
As for a "demagogue", let's just make it far easier to get rid of the Executive, and well as fairer to select them.