Abolish the Electoral College: House Joint Resolution 36

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in the laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

--Thomas Jefferson

The conventions are over, and the major tickets are set. The race is no longer about delegates, determined by party rules, or even ultimately about the popular vote, it's now about electoral votes. And because the race is close, once again a major Constitutional flaw is exposed--the Electoral College.

The late Tim Russert used a chalk board to educate the American people about the Electoral College. John King of CNN has been using his computerized map to provide the nation with a crash course in swing states, with his red-to-blue and blue-to-red analyses.

As we learned to our dismay in 2000, it takes 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 cast by D.C. plus the 50 states, to win. Imagine how the past 8 years might have been better had Al Gore taken office on the strength of his more than half-a-million popular vote win, rather than the man selected by the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore abuse of our outdated Electoral College system.

The Electoral College is a relic, a throwback largely due to the slave-owners who dominated the politics of our new nation at its beginning. There were lots of reasons put forward for the Electoral College, but basically the Founding Fathers were suspicious of a mass popular vote that included everyone, and a significant number of the "states rights" Southerners worried about the more populous Northern states outvoting them and restricting or eliminating slavery.

One compromise between Northern representatives and Southern representatives at the Constitutional Convention was the Electoral College, setting up a system where the winner would determined by state vote pluralities, not by the national popular vote.

Because whites in the South were not as numerous as in the North, and feared being outvoted by anti-slavery activists, the slave-owners insisted on another compromise, a particularly ugly one. Despite not being allowed to vote, slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of Congressional representation and the Electoral College. But like Thomas Jefferson, who "trembled for his country" when he thought of slavery while also reflecting "that God is just," I worry about the unjust nature of our Electoral College, a legacy institution that should make all of us tremble.

Subsequent Constitutional amendments have increased access to suffrage for African-Americans (15th Amendment), for women (19th Amendment), for the poor (24th Amendment), and the young (26th amendment). Yet even as the abolitionists, the suffragists, the unionists, and the civil rights martyrs all struggled and built a more perfect union, the 18th-century legacy of the Electoral College continued to haunt future generations.

Ironically, U.S. foreign policy demands one-person, one-vote in the Balkans, Africa, South America- where the popular vote winner is supposed to win the election--but we don't make the same demand on our own country. Ignoring the flagrant hypocrisy of our 2000 election results, the U.S. has chastised and boycotted countries where popular leaders were elected but not seated, sent in observers to make sure elections were fair, and insisted that every vote be counted. Yet we do not live up to these standards in our own elections, and the violation of one-person, one-vote due to the Electoral College is Exhibit #1.

While the popular vote should serve as the democratic expression of the "will of the people," the race for electors is the Founding Fathers' unfortunate gift to us. The 21st century--our future--is still determined by 18th-century rules, which make some votes and states worth far more than others, and leave far too many voters irrelevant in the fall campaigns every 4 years. It is conceivable this year, for instance, that one candidate could carry the popular vote by millions of votes, given the density of New York and California, yet still not win the majority of the electoral votes.

Abolishing the Electoral College is a worthy goal, which would require amending the U.S. Constitution--precisely why several years ago I introduced House Joint Resolution 36. H.J.Res. 36 would provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President. I will continue to push for the passage of H.J.Res. 36 in the next Congress.

Between now and November 4th, however, we must follow the current Electoral College system rules, even though they degrade the power of the popular vote. We must adjust our efforts and strategies accordingly. The goal now is to win enough individual states (plus D.C.) to amass 270 electoral votes. I personally want to see Senator Obama roll up a record number of electoral votes all across America while winning the popular vote by a large margin, to give him a political boost when he takes office next January.

But we all need to understand that the most important goal is to win at least 270 electoral votes. Thus, extra voters in New Mexico or Nevada or Colorado, three Southwestern swing states, mean a great deal. An extra new voter in Virginia, a swing state this year, may mean even more. And, of course, we know from bitter experience how important new voters are in the eternal swing states of Ohio and Florida.

We want all the votes we can get, everywhere in America. But we want our extra volunteer efforts, our phone calls and door-knocking and voter registrations, to be focused on the key swing states that will determine this election, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa & Minnesota in the Midwest; New Hampshire in the Northeast; Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana & Colorado in the West; Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida in the South.

Al Gore "lost" in 2000 by a very few votes in Florida, and a small number of votes in New Hampshire. John Kerry would be president now if he could have come up with a couple percent more in Ohio, or in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Every vote counts and every vote in a swing state counts more. So let's keep our eyes on the prize, and work extra hard in the states where the election will finally be decided. With only six weeks left till election day, we can all do something to help overcome the "peculiar institutions" that still distort our democracy, like the Electoral College--and the time to start is now.

Comments

[Aldyth]

Let's make the concept of one man, one vote mean something!

[ELRider]

Mr. Congressman,
Your party not only uses "Superdelegates" but also uses caucuses that allow about 15% of Democratic Convention delegates to be elected by approximately 3% of the Democratic Party, the caucuses also take away any private ballot and allow open pressure to be placed on caucus goers. I won't even go into the dishonest and fraudulent tacticts used by Barack Obama's campaign, a campaign that you are a prominent part of. Your party is also pushing to take away the private ballots of workers during any union vesting in legislation with the Orwelian name of Employee Free Choice Act. I also have a vivid remembrance of the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami during which the votes of my parents (both life long Democrats) were ignored and in essence stolen by the "progressives" of the Democratic Party. Your father was seated at the convention and my parent's votes were thrown out by your party. Having lived in your hometown of Chicago I know how the local Democrats cheat in elections, one method that was popular was the "double-punch fraud" in which a rod is run through the desired candidate's hole in a stack of ballot cards thus invalidating any opposing vote as a doulble punch. I am also aware of the thuggery employed by local Democrats and frankly by your father. This strikes me as simply another way for members of the Democratic Party to steal more votes. A pox on your idea.

[rjmiller]

Do not forget the other initial intentional of the Electoral College: to fail at electing the President. In the late 18th century, there was no mass media. It was believed at the time that the Presidential election would have several regional winning candidates with no candidate achieving a majority of electoral votes, and then the House would vote to decide the President.

The Electoral College is an attempt to withhold democratic power from the uneducated masses. With public education and mass media, it is simply an anachronism.

[Kristen16]

"The Electoral College is an attempt to withhold democratic power from the uneducated masses. "

And thank goodness for that. Phew.

Where's the proof that people are any more educated today? And by "educated," I mean knowledgeable, not simply "persuadable" by effective media campaigning into thinking their opinions are actually well-reasoned.

[rjmiller]

You missed the point. The Electoral College failed. There have been nearly no cases where a candidate didn't get a majority of votes, so Congress didn't end up choosing the President every time as it was intended.

In any case, voters today at least know how to read. They are given every opportunity to know the policy position of any candidate on practically any issue, and would have to do very little work to find out everything they need to make an informed decision.

[Kristen16]

"If you want to have an actual democracy...." standard says.

Well, no. Actually, I don't want an "actual democracy." Which is why I'm glad we have something called "representative government," and not just "majority rules." I mean if we had an actual democracy (majority rules) you might get lots of unfair things .... well, like maybe people with little money "voting" to take money from people with more money. That's a little unfair, right, but only to the ones with more, who don't count.... And, of course, that never happens nowadays (haha).

And you know what else? It really annoys me that my vote is worth the same as an 18-year old's! I mean, come on, how ridiculous is that? Totally unfair, in my book.

Standard also said, "Rural America would still have its disproportionate number of Senators, a matter to be addressed at another time."

Wow. You don't like senators either? What next? Do you don't like the Judicial branch... maybe regular judges are ok but not the Supreme Court. How about the fact that there are even states at all? Why not just have one big country, no state borders?

I say a prayer of gratitude for the electoral college every night during election season. And I also thank God that America has our Constitution, as it stands, with the ability to change it if WE ALL vote to, written right into its framework..

[UUDDLRLRBASelectStart]

Mr. Jackson,

Your argument would be more compelling if the Democrat Party practiced what it preached.

If you really want the vote of ALL Democrats to count, end the use of superdelegates. Simple as that.

Superdelegates decided the fate of Obama vs. Clinton. Not the Democrat voters.

[way2muchsense]

How political parties choose nominees for public office only concerns the party doing the nominating, not concern-trolling outsiders like you. Democrats, to their detriment, let residents of territories and ex-pats vote and send delegates to their convention. Republicans, as far as I can tell, do not. Democrats at least try to allocate delegates proportionately based on the vote totals. Republicans allocate them winner-take-all. Which is more "democratic"?

So before you start pointing out the "problems" with the "Democrat Party," you might consider the whole picture, not just the one piece you found laying on the ground that your mommy told you not to touch.

[UUDDLRLRBASelectStart]

The Republicans don't have it right either. They should eliminate their smaller number of superdelegates as well, and adopt proportional tallies -- although the latter really should be up to each state to decide for itself. If the state wants "winner take all," so be it -- but such decisions should be made by the voters of a political party, not their state chairpeople.

The national primary idea is an excellent concept, but I think the "one-year" registration rule is discriminatory, as it would exclude new young voters and legitimate converts. I understand your concern about "poisoning" the vote, though. I have no practical solution to that.

[way2muchsense]

While I'm at it, what would really be cool is if the Democrats went to a national primary held online, with login/passwords only mailed out to people who have been registered Democrats for at least one year. That way, Dems For A Day like you would be excluded, and we'd get a far more accurate measure of who Democrats would actually prefer as their candidate.

[mvy]

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation 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 under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

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).

susan

[JohnKelly]

Thanks Mr. Jackson. The current existence of the electoral college is very much about the geographical prejudices that exist in our country. The idea that somehow one vote should be worth less than another is justified by such terms as "the heartland". The obvious inference being that country folk are more American than city folk. There are alway going to be pathetic bigots who argue for the electoral college using retarded mental gymnastics to get to a flawed conclusion.

John

[JoePalooka]

You bring up exactly why we *need* to enshrine the Electoral College as it is. Why should California and NYC have the power determine what's good for the rest of the country? Since when should metropolitan needs take precedence over the needs of the "flyover" states?

[MrWinky]

Nice post, and I think you are probably right. There was a time that I agreed with you and thought it was silly we still used the electoral college system.

The one thing that really changed my mind was the 2000 election. We all saw what a mess FL was, now imagine that times 50 if one candidate won the popular vote by a few thousand. There would be contests in every state and it would be chaos.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it did strike me at the time.

[postman606]

Very antiquated system of chosing a President. Under the current system my vote at the National level (I live in Ill.) has much less value than if I lived, say in Ohio.

[brody4bho]

While I do not like the results of the last teo elections, I fear that removing the Electorial College would reduce the need for politicians to campaign in the middle states as much.

[standard]

That wouldn't be such a bad result. If you want to have an actual democracy, then why should actual farmers and cowboys have a greater say in running the world's most complex nation and largest nuclear power than their often better-educated and certainly more diverse, more tolerant and more numerous city cousins?

Put the scholars, professionals and others accustomed to using sidewalks on a par with their rural cousins and there's no telling how much better off we'd all be. We don't need to put them AHEAD of rural folks, mind you, just on a genuine, egalitarian par with them: one person, one vote.

Rural America would still have its disproportionate number of Senators, a matter to be addressed at another time.

[UUDDLRLRBASelectStart]

I agree with your one person, one vote stance, but I have to disagree with you about the "disproportionate number of Senators."

The reason why the Senate exists is because the founding founders wanted to protect the idea that all states are created equal -- that is, Rhode Island has an equal say as Texas. (Of course, the founding fathers also understood the need for accurate representation of the people, which is why the House of Reps exists.)

If you think that Senate representation is really disproportionate, then it should be abolished because the House of Reps more accurately reflects the demography of voters. But that would effectively remove the level playing field when it comes to states' rights.

[postman606]

This is 2008, most people never actually see a Presidential candidate in person. In this 24/7 cable news, internet age the vast majority of voters have no need to be the back drop of a photo shoot.

[standard]

Rep. Jackson--

According to my calculations, Alaskans control roughly one electoral vote for every 223,000 residents while Californians have one electoral vote for every 1.5 million residents. Thus, as to Alaska and California, the Electoral College is undemocratic in a ratio of 6.7:1. Please: check my math and add the correct numbers to your argument. Gore's loss was a result of our having the Electoral College. This ratio explains what causes that kind of result.

[PDXKevin]

Won't happen until Republicans have an election stolen from them.

[DontEvenThinkIt]

Exactly, just as here in Illinois Repubs wanted straight ticket voting, until it began to work in the Dems favor, then, bye bye straight ticket voting.