Eliminate the Electoral College

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to write again about the importance of electing the President of the United States with the popular vote.

The Electoral College is an antiquated system. It was created over 200 years ago as part of the "grand compromise" to win over states with smaller populations so that they would ratify the US Constitution. Pro-slavery Southern States wanted as much power as the more populated Northern States.

Some people still say that the Electoral College system provides citizens outside large population centers an equal voice. If small states want even more disproportionate representation than given by having two senators, than let's give states even more rights to determine their social and economic destinies. All politics are local, right?

The Electoral College is meant to give all states influence over national politics. But under the Electoral System today, many states are already tagged "red or blue" and are thus effectively ignored by the candidates. Most campaign energy is being focused on swing voters in key "battleground states."

Over the years, leading national political figures like Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, Ted Kennedy, Kweisi Mfume and John McCain have supported approaches to reform the Electoral College. Why, if it has been the subject of more proposed amendments than any other part of our constitution, has it not been eliminated?

Bottom line, it could reduce the GOPs ability to elect a Republican President. And since Republicans control a large number of small population states, it would be difficult to get it passed by the senate and then ratified by the requisite number of states.

Supporters of the Electoral system say that since the popular vote would have only changed the outcome in three elections so far, it doesn't need to go. But this is about the destiny of an entire nation. If just one election is changed by the popular vote, that in itself is compelling enough to adjust the system.

History was altered forever with Bush's election in 2000 via the Electoral College (or some would say, the Supreme Court, but the contest would have been resolved long before via the popular vote). The mess of the 2000 election is reason enough to change the system. A neoconservative minority was allowed to storm the White House with a radical, unrepresentative agenda.

So, are there some partial solutions to at least bring the system into greater parity for all United States citizens?

We could move to a system where every state partitions their electoral votes. But all states would need to agree to do this -- not just a handpicked selection -- to make this new system fair. Dividing up just California (such as what was proposed in the recently disbanded republican initiative to split electoral votes in California), for instance, would dilute that state's electoral power and skew elections.

In addition to allowing third parties a greater voice in national elections and providing a fairer system where we can all be treated equal, electing the President by popular vote might also increase voter turnout.

There is no use for the archaic Electoral system in our modern, mass communication driven, interconnected world. U.S. citizens think and vote on a more regional and national level now. It's time to elect the President and Vice President of the United States by direct, popular vote. Or, at least, alter the way electoral votes are delegated.

What is your opinion? Should we do away with the Electoral College? Since it seems the political will is not there, how?

Comments

[Dantheman99]

I support the nationalpopularvote campaign for staes with a majority of electoral votes to cast their vote for the national popular vote winner, subject to a majority of electoral vote states agreeing to do this. I support it as a bridge to eliminating the unfair, antiquated, and quite frankly, racist Electoral College.

We should have a national popular vote election on the first Tuesday in November, and a runoff election, between the top two if no candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, on the first Tuesday in December.

Small states receive their protection and influence in their vast overrepresentation in the U.S. Senate. That's all they need and deserve.

If a Presidential candidate campaigns in the metropolitan areas of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, where this country actually lives for a change, and doesn't campaign in Podunksville, Dakota, that is perfectly fine. The Presidential candidate is campaigning where people actually live in this country and Podunksville is overrepresented in the Senate as a consolation.

We are not a rural, agricultural country. We are mostly a metropolitan urban/suburban one.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Yes, it's time to dump the electoral college and go with the popular vote.

[nowaterboardUSA]

My first choice is election by popular vote. My second would be partitioning the votes within states.

[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% (as is the case in Georgia), 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).

A national popular vote is the way to make every person"s vote equal and to guarantee the White House to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states. 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 366 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

[NYC07]

The Electoral College needs to go. It would force candidates to have to go to every state not just so called "Swing states" It's "One Man , One Vote" not "X number of men, X number of electoral votes !!!"

[runswithscissors]

Yeah it needs to go, but it's never going to happen. To amend the constitution, 75% of the states have to go along with it. Alaska, Utah, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Hawaii, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, and several others are all overrepresented. There's no way they're willing to voluntarily give this up.

[Spookcatcher]

We not only should be rid of the Electoral College we should be voting with a voter id card that is similar to our other "credit cards"! There is no reason for aWashington D.C. center of Government. We should be a populous that writes and votes on all of our laws and issues, just as we blog. Our whole system of corrupt governement has been afraid of the people coming to this realization, in fact it was discussed at the onset of the magnetic strip card system when banks (Mastercard especially) began to gain popularity. The idea that a powerful worshipped Senator or Congressman that can throw money to a business in your home town or state would not be able to make these deals quickly stopped the public (and MSM) from a National discussion. The very idea of a fluid working Democracy fully engaged by the populous, not in this Country! Voter ID cards, mark of the Devil.

[mgloraine]

The electoral college needs to be eliminated altogether. Unfortunately, our Congress doesn't have the political will to pass non-binding resolutions, let alone amend the Constitution. So dream on!

While we're dreaming, let's dream of campaign finance reform, too!

[larry278]

Since her Hillaryship is in the process of being annointed as POTUS-now is the time to junk the electoral college and other quaint institutions from the time when the USA was attempting to become a democracy. The legislative branch has been eviscerated and make useless by W's use of the signing statement in which he states he won't enforce the law and why he won't do it.
The USA will end the expensive practice of holding elections and campaigning for election. The USA will now be ruled by Presidentian Fiat. The USA now has no need for a Legislative Branch.
The USA now has a regularly scheduled rotation of royalty. Bush, 41 was followed by Clinton, 42; Bush, 43 followed Clinton, 42; Clinton, 44 will follow Bush, 43. The establisment has ordered that each royal family will reign for 8 years. It was an unfortunate fluke that Bush, 41 only reigned 4 years. There will be a Bush, 45 to take over from her Hillaryship. We need not worry that the Clinton dynasty will end when her Hillaryship leaves office and Bush, 45 replaces her. The establishment has found blood relatives of both Slick Willie & her Hillaryship to replace Bush, 45 when he/she/it leaves office.
The Supreme Court, while it has no reason to exist save to approve laws and give the oath of office to the POTUS, will become a secular priestly body and serve aa a sinecure for sychophants.

[auberon]

yes, the electoral college needs to go. it's bizarre that some citizens' votes count many times more than others. i wonder also, about the racist aspect here---are these small states mostly white?

[badluckntrouble]

States can get to a popular vote by working together. Check out this effort: www.nationalpopularvote.com. Looks like they are having some success around the country. Who knew it was possible without an amendment?

[PensiveObserver]

What is your opinion? Should we do away with the Electoral College? No.

[peterg76]

The electoral college is not the popular vote, and it is not defective if it fails to produce the same outcome as a popular vote. If you believe the presidential election should incorporate some element of geographic distribution, then the electoral college, although not perfect, is a pretty reasonable system. If you believe that the presidential election should be by popular vote, then support refrom, but that is not the same as demonstrating that the electoral college is flawed.

[AdamHolland]

Racism and the legacy of slavery are the only reasons this country has an electoral college. It was created when states did not allow blacks to vote, but still counted them in the census as 3/5 of a person. The electoral college was the means by which these states' votes were weighted with the extra 3/5 per each slave. It was a slavery bonus in effect.

After slavery ended, blacks were still disenfranchised, but counted as a full person in the census. This provided an additional bonus for the racist states. Today, states in the south routinely disenfranchise prisoners, ex-felons, those erroneously accused of being ex-felons and others targeted by dirty tricks such as the Ohio scheme to deny blacks serving in Iraq their ballots. But that's no problem when it's time for the electoral college to go to work! The weight of the state's voting power in the electoral college is based on the census, not the number of votes cast!

That is why we have an electoral college.

[RedInGeorgia]

I believe you have your history wrong. The Three-Fifths Compromise had nothing to do with the establishment of the Electoral College. Instead, it was related to establishment of the House of Representatives and proportional representation. Slave states would only agree to the Senate being 2 per state IF their power were increased in the House by allowing a portion of their slaves to be counted in the census that determined the number of representatives in the House.

The Electoral College is, quite frankly, the result of our Founding Fathers realizing that most of the populace were uneducated and ill-equipped to be able to make the informed decision of who should run this country. The "learned" men in the State Legislatures would use the popular vote as a guide and then cast their ballots for President based on their educated, rational ideas.

Funny, though, we still don't have a populace capable of making an educated and rational decision (instead, we choose a president based on who we want to have a beer with).

All that said, I believe the Electoral College should go.

[snaggster]

We should be done with it. I think it would almost certainly increase turnout.
It's all a pipe dream. (R) will not lose big enough next year (or ever) to allow for any changes.

[Dem02020]

Any given State's influence in the election of our President, is limited to that State's representation in Congress, for a reason: To prevent that State from tilting the results of a presidential election, by way of stuffing the ballot boxes, or otherwise over-reporting an inflated vote count.

Example: Were we to have elected our President by a popular vote in 2000 (Gore versus Bush), what would have prevented the State of Texas from over-reporting an inflated vote count for Bush, so as to tilt the national vote tally in his favor?

Nothing.
They (Texas) would have claimed as high a tally for Bush, whatever the number, in order to put him over the top nationally, in the national vote count; they'd have doubled or tripled or whatever it takes, their reported "popular vote" for Bush, if it meant capturing the administration of our Federal Government.

Who could stop them from doing that?
Someone in the Federal Government, in a DOJ in transition?
It would be a nightmare of a struggle for that DOJ and Federal Government "in limbo".
Think you would stop Texans from stuffing their own ballot boxes, and inflating their reported popular vote for Bush in that instance, think you would do this from outside Texas, in your State?
Dream on.


The Founding Fathers anticipated such a nightmare as ballot box stuffing and false tallies in an attempt to tilt a presidential election: "Let no State ever have any greater influence in a presidential election, than is their representation in Congress."

The determination of that Congressional representation is a perpetual thing, and falls under the jurisdiction of Congress.

It will always be a more certain determination, than whatever inflated popular vote any State might report, in a presidential election.

Let Texans stuff their ballot boxes and lie their heads off about what Bush received for a popular vote in Texas: They'd be limited to 34 Electoral Votes and no more, thereby preventing them from tilting the results of a presidential election.

[JennyThinksSo]

So, you think voter fraud would be worse with the popular vote? Obviously there would have to be some oversight.

Do you think the Electoral College system is any better? Look what happened with voter fraud in Florida and Ohio.... only "a bit" of voter fraud is needed to turn an entire state's valuable Electoral votes over to a candidate. I think that is much more scary then having a popular vote.