28 Comments - Leroy - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:37 am: I think they should change the rules to the world series. Instead of the team that wins four games out of seven, it should be whichever team scores the most total runs across all seven games. So if the scores between team A and team B are 3-1, 2-1, 2-0, 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 and 2-11, team B outscored team A by a total of 16 to 15, and is clearly the better team. And if I were running for president and was elected by popular vote, I’d spend all my time in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and the big cities of Florida and Texas. I would tyrranize the farming states. What is Wyoming and is paltry 380,000 votes going to do about it? Auroa, Elgin, Joliet, Schaumburg, Palatine and Arlington Heights have more voters combined than Wyoming. - No Friend of Alexander Hamilton - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:52 am: This provision in our constitution is an embarassment, and an example of how the bargain of federalism has forever tied us to an anti-democratic system which “small” states will never give up. How can we preach democracy to the rest of the world when the popular vote means nothing, and “state’s rights” are used to justify the creation and maintenance of this anti-populist system, while in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court used the supremacy of federal power as justification for overturning the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to demand a recount. It’s a noble, but futile effort. Perhaps a requirement that states allow for a proportional distribution of electoral college votes, based on the popular vote in each state, would be more realistic. How are you going to get all the small states to agree and give up their power to NY, IL, CA, TX etc. - anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:04 am: Damn fine idea, and while we’re at it, provide for all inclusive primary elections as well. The turnout at primaries is small because most people believe that how they vote is private and should not be scrutinized by anyone else or laid bare for all to see. A statement was made a couple of days ago about the new voting machines being so much more efficient and the person speaking, I think it was the Springfield city clerk, said there is no excuse for people not voting now. Just goes to show how out of touch our political system is with the average voter. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:41 am: Leroy is right on target. If you want to make rural states utterly irrelevant and irrevocably make big TV markets the only places presidential candidates are responsive to, go at it. And if you want, in a very close election, to make sure all recounts have to be national in scope, turning the entire nation into Florida 2000, go right ahead with this plan. Bad idea which, fortunately, the small states will never go for. Wyoming has a much better chance of occasionally being a battleground state than it has of becoming New York, Chicago or Los Angeles. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:44 am: The current electoral college system is a violation of the one person - one vote concept and, thus, the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Leroy is an elitist who thinks that his vote should be worth more than someone who lives in the foul cities. - Experience and Reason - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:21 am: States that adopt this will be giving fewer electoral votes to the candidate who won last time around, so if the party who won last time around also controls the legislature, this ain’t gonna pass. Why would the Dems who run the legislature want to throw a few electoral votes at the Republican candidate for President? Look for states where the legislature is solidly controlled by the party who lost that state for President (if there are any) and that’s where this might take hold. But not here. No how, no way. - the Patriot - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:24 am: The elecotral college is was created in the 12th amendment and therefor cannot violate equal protection clause. By definition, the amendment was passed to correct a defect in the equal protection clause. The equalizer of each state getting the same number of votes as representatives in Congress was one of the greatest compromises of our nations history. If you think the bafoons in Congress now are wiser then our founding fathers then your nuts. Eliminating the college is a bad idea, esp for the midwest. We don’t have the density in population that the coasts do. If you eliminate the college, candidates will stop for a gas and go in Chicago, but the rest of the midwest would not even be considered by the President or candidates. - FrustratedRepublican - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:40 am: I think it’s a ridiculous idea. Why should all of Illinois votes last election have gone for Bush when Kerry won the state overwhelmingly?! That a lot less sense than the current system! I might be convinced to have the states allocate electoral votes by congressional district winners, but I’m really not dissatisfied with the system we have now. Taking the states in play now and reducing that number even further to the major population centers of the country would make the problem even worse. How about we leave it up to the individual states like the Founders set it up - for a reason no doubt - and get over the 2000 election. - insider - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 9:33 am: Nice to see that so many folks actually checked up on this proposal before commenting. To participate, states agree (via binding state statute) to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. No state would be disadvantaged by this, because it wouldn’t go into effect until states having more than 50% of the votes in the Electoral College sign on. One more time: this is a proposal that a coalition of states should voluntarily agree to abide by the popular vote of the American people, a proposal that would only come into effect 1) once it has actually been passed into law in numerous states, having been scrutinized by legislators, the executive branch, and the public in each state prior to passage, and 2) only once states comprising an absolute majority of votes in the Electoral College sign on. How is any of this BAD? I also find the pearl-clutching about rural states getting less attention from candidates nonsensical. First of all, rural states in general are overrepresented in the Senate; overrepresentation in one important federal body is enough, thanks. Second, rural, non-swing states receive no attention from presidential candidates at present–just as is the case for populous non-swing states like Illinois. ONLY swing states truly receive attention during an election year. A national popular election would almost certainly result in an active two-party campaign in many, many more areas of the country than is the case in the present system. As for the other absurd argument–that a nationwide popular vote would make Florida in 2000 look like a picnic–actually, the exact opposite is true. With a national popular election, it will be much more difficult to conduct voter fraud on the massive scale needed to affect the results; right now, it’s sufficient to meddle in just a few swing states and thereby decide the whole election (i.e. Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004, etc.). Something has to be done to change the way we elect our presidents. This is the best idea to come down the pike in a long time. - Leroy - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 9:39 am: This article from Discover magazine back in 1996 gives a good analytical justification for the electoral college. It is also where I stole the baseball analogy from. “Math Against Tyranny” by Will Hively, Discover magazine, November, 1996 http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm - Back to sleet - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 9:55 am: Thanks to Insider for clarifying that the proposal is for Illinois to issue its electoral votes based on what voters in Texas, Florida, California and New York do. Now that I see it that way, I’m far likelier to support it. - HoosierDaddy - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 10:09 am: Actually, the Electoral College was created by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution itself, and was modified by the 12th Amendment. It is amazing how many people have never read the Constitution and argue about Constitutional rights. As a practical matter, can you imagine a NATIONAL recount? You thought Florida was bad… Think it can’t happen? Look up the 1960 presidential election results. 1976 and 2000 were pretty close, too. Our founding fathers never intended for this country to be a pure democracy. In fact, they were, for the most part, opposed to the idea. The French Revolution a few years later confirmed the fears many of them had about pure democracy. This country is supposed to be a federal republic. The states are becoming less and less relevant nowadays. We might as well just call them provinces. - Forecast - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 10:11 am: This idea is going to take the same path as John Anderson’s political career….nowhere. - cermak_rd - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 10:46 am: I hope that this is not necessary–i.e. that the popular vote and electoral college vote will align like they have except about once a century. Once a century is probably a liveable screw-up. However, if we were to see a case where it became common for the votes to be out of alignment, I think it would cause harm to the nation–both in foreign relations (who are you to preach democracy to us Mr. minority president) and within our own nation as minority presidents would increasingly find themselves without a mandate to govern. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 10:47 am: Every time we elect an idiot or a crook, someone wants to blame the system. Don’t get me wrong, the Electoral College wasn’t the best idea. But the problem is Bush, not the Electoral College. - charlie johnston - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 11:04 am: When I was doing radio I was once frustrated by the usual gripes about the electoral college. I had an idea. Deciding to illustrate the difference between an informed and an uninformed opinion I opened up an hour on the subject. Anybody was welcome to say anything they wanted about it, provided they would first give me a brief summary of why the founders put it there in the first place. Otherwise, I would shut them down. There are a few people on this thread who would have gotten past the threshold, but not one of that hour’s callers did. It constantly amazes me that people call the founders geniuses, but consider the electoral college those geniuses’ mistake or a practical joke. It says something about the amazing lack of intellectual curiosity. One would think more people might be moved to ask, “Why did these geniuses set it up that way” rather than just to gripe on in ignorance. - ISU REP - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 11:13 am: A good compromise to this whole problem would have the electoral votes by Congressional districts, this way it could be divided and the rural areas would still be very much in play. The two electoral votes from the senate seats would then go to the candidate who wins statewide, I think if there was ever a revision that would be the most likely or atleast reasonable way to do it. - Map It - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 11:45 am: There’s enough pressure on how congressional boundraries are drawn, and they’re already drawn for partisan purposes, but if the winner of the White House hung in the balance, you’d see a lot more pressure to draw congressional maps that dictated partisan outcomes. Moreover, candidates would still spend more time in big cities, where a single media appearance can hit the local news in 8-10 congressional districts, than in rural areas. - ZC - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 1:39 pm: I don’t think the “50 Floridas” objection flies. In 2000, Al Gore got about 500,000 more votes than George Bush. That could have never triggered a national call for a recount. Trying to find 500,000 votes … That’s a lot of votes. They tore each other to pieces trying to move around 500 votes in Florida. The GOP might have raised some concerns about tampering, but it would have gone quietly in the end. Mathematically, the probabilities of there being a nation-wide close call is far, far less than the possibility of a single swing state winding up on the knife’s edge. The current system is much more likely to end in calls for a recount than a nationwide vote would be. Yeah, theoretically we could have the whole nation teetering on a 500-vote margin, but a) it’s just really unlikely; b) in that case, we would still be facing calls for statewide recounts in lots of places, so it’s not like we’ve given up much. Most of the other countries in the world have a popular vote system. You don’t see them constantly going to recounts. It wouldn’t happen here either. One of the attractions to a national vote is that it _reduces_ the risks and the hazards of these recount nightmares. That all said … I don’t see the system going anywhere soon. Not until there are a couple of wrong winners in close succession, and it happens to both sides (and the system nearly did benefit Democrats in 2004). Until then - we’re stuck with the thing. - insider - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 2:14 pm: Back to sleet, if you’re not already a GOP flack, you should go sign up–you already know how to twist words at the “Bush Pioneer” level. Well done. Apportioning electoral votes by Congressional district would be far, far worse than the current system. You think the overwhelming (and logical, given the system) focus on swing states is bad now? Wait until we’re talking about swing districts. The Founding Fathers were very smart, and their choice of representative democracy is still sound today, but treating their every opinion as holy writ and implying that the Constitution is infallible gives them god-like authority which they themselves would most certainly reject. The Constitution has been amended to adapt to changing circumstances 27 times before; the Electoral College may have been a good idea at the time, but it isn’t now. I hope those who are so concerned about keeping the Electoral College in the nation’s charter are just as concerned by the Bush Administration’s total disregard for the rule of law, the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers established by the Constitution. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 2:22 pm: The Electoral College is a mirror image of the Congress. If the former is undemocratic, and in violation of the spirit of one person –one vote concept, then so is the later. Why should a Senator from Delaware who is elected by 750,000 people have the same power as one from Texas who is elected by over 20 Million? - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 2:27 pm: The Constitution has been amended to adapt to changing circumstances 27 times before; the Electoral College may have been a good idea at the time, but it isn’t now - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 2:28 pm: “The Constitution has been amended to adapt to changing circumstances 27 times before; the Electoral College may have been a good idea at the time, but it isn’t now” - insider, I am curious – what exactly has changed since the Constitution was written that makes is a no-longer-good idea? - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 2:43 pm: Whats a loser party to do? They’ve lost the US House, the US Senate, the White House and now the US Supreme Court? How else can they catch a break? What they do is declare that the elections are unfair. They protest every presidential election that results in their loss. They demand recounts and court injunctions. They smear the victors. They pull down their pants and crap on US voters; calling them ignorant hicks, claiming they live in “Jesusland”, claim that these people are too stupid to vote correctly. Then they take off after the Consitution, demanding we change it in order to create a more perfect election system, you know, one that helps them win. What a bunch of crybabies. There is absolutely no way for a party with such a poor political future to demand that the victors change the game. What they are out to do however, is simply spoil the election system and claim a moral victory. Folks, 2000 was six years ago, get over it! - donchicago48 - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 3:28 pm: We must avoid the lure of this seemingly sound idea until we have thought it through completely. Relying upon Popular vote elections promotes sectionalism. It favors densely populated cities over rural regions, and larger (Blue) states over smaller (red) ones. (Now it’s popularity among post-200 hand-wringers becomes clear) Popular vote elections also increase the number and influence of fringe parties. Expensive, time-consuming runoff elections would become commonplace, or the majority would have to abide by election results favored by only a small minority of voters. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. 225 years later, we remain a constitutional republic, one of the oldest in world history. The controlling election principle in America is one man, one vote, but political decisions may not always be imposed by majority rule. For example each of the fifty states, however large or small, has two senators. A three-fourths majority of the states is required to ratify constitutional amendments. A president may use the veto to halt legislation, but a presidential veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. As we have recently witnessed, our federal judiciary is appointed by the elected president, not elected outright. In other areas of law, a supermajority is required to approve foreign treaties, remove a congressman, or impeach a president. - donchicago48 - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 3:55 pm: More thoughts for the post-2000 handwringers: -in late 2000, The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the subjective vote recounts in Florida did not comply with the equal protection guarantees afforded by our Constitution. -The US Supreme court voted 5-4 to accept the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling that the Florida Legislature’s election plan was essentially designed to secure a slate of Florida electors who were immune from challenge by the U.S. Congress. The slate of electors had to be chosen by Dec 12, 2000 To qualify for immunity; a date that could not be achieved if additional recounts were allowed. So allowing additional recounts would contravene the original intent of the Florida legislature and therefore violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, that gives state legislatures absolute (plenary) power to devise presidential election rules. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 2, 06 @ 7:13 am: G. O. P., You are exactly right. The U. S. Senate composition is also a violation of one person - one vote. - No Peotone Airport - Thursday, Mar 2, 06 @ 10:17 am: Perhaps some critics of the Electoral College have been unduly influenced by the BCS? Gee whiz, if we can change the way we select a national football champion every year because of the complaints of the annual victim-of-the-system, why not change the way we elect the President every four years, as well? (The World Series? The BCS? Enough with the sports analogies already.) What makes a system in this case “fair” are clearly articulated rules that are uniformly enforced. Candidates for President understand the rules and plan a strategy accordingly. They would do exactly the same thing if the system were a national popular vote. They would plan an election strategy based on the new rules of the new systems. There would still be hotly contested “swing” areas that would receive disproportionate attention from all candidates due to their perceived strategic importance, while other areas would be ignored. Too often one points to the 2000 election with the flawed assumption that if that election was to have been decided by a national popular vote, the popular vote tally would have been that same. In fact, if, through whatever course of events, the United States had determined to have the 2000 Presidential election decided by a national popular vote, Gore and Bush would have had different tactical campaign plans, and we would have had a different popular vote total. What can you say about John Anderson? He had some great ideas in 1980. He turned 84 last month and his statements seem to reflect the effects of aging - specifically how the hardening and constricting of blood vessels to our head reduce the flow of oxygen to our brain. His statement, “the current system…dampens voter participation by concentrating campaign efforts on a shrinking number of battleground states and can have the disheartening effect of trumping the national popular vote,” is nearly equal parts unverifiable and verafiably incorrect. I hope I live to be as old as John Anderson, but I am old enough to remember Presidential elections going back to LBJ & Goldwater, and the stuff he’s talking here reminds me of his Secret Service code name during the 1980 campaing, which was “Pixie Dust,” or something to that effect. One would think Anderson would be more concerned about improving the prospects for third-party candidates. And finally, a shout-out to “Anonymous,” who said, “Just goes to show how out of touch our political system is with the average voter.” Uhhhhhh, I don’t think I want the political system making any (more) accomodations to an “average” voter who, as we have learned this week, has a better grasp on The Simpsons than their own First Amendment rights. Let the onus be on the “average voter” to get more in touch with their political system. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.