Why is the national election being held on a state level?

[trailmonkee]

We are electing the president of United States of America not the president of the swing states?

We have the House and the Senate being decided by the states already... The National Office should be decided by the country as a whole, with each vote counting... but the National Office, is still being held as a state election with the electoral college...

This election will be decided by OH, FL, CO, etc.... doesn't seem right to me?

The electoral college system needs to go

[hack89]

1. Why do you want the national election held at the big city level? nt

[Sekhmets Daughter]

2. A Romney supporter?

[kysrsoze]

3. Why would we want that? That would mean states will millions of idiots, like Texas, could flip

the election. I'm just fine with the electoral college, thank you.

[justabob]

12. that happens with the Electoral College already

I think the "all or nothing" nature of the current Electoral College is the issue. It is that part that should change. Keep every thing as is, but tie the Electoral votes to the party split in the popular vote. That simple adjustment would help a lot.

[marsis]

26. Right,

it saved us from a real loser like GWB, oh wait...........

[ProdigalJunkMail]

4. because states matter

or just get rid of states altogether... whatever...

sP

[longship]

5. Probably not going to happen.

Requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 3/4 of states to approve.

The only reason the presidential candidates campaign in swing states like Nevada is the electoral college. At least that is the common wisdom on the issue.

Our best chance was during Dubya's first term but we were distracted by 9/11.

A possible compromise is for the whole country to go like NE and ME, and assign EVs by congressional district. Maybe that can be done without amending the constitution. (???)

[trailmonkee]

6. Even by going the way of NE and ME, we still has a system that does not count every vote...

it would be an improvement... but imho, it would still not be a real national election...

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. Because the Constitution requires it...

The founding fathers were burned by strong centralized national governments, and wanted to keep control in the states. Their first attempt at a founding document, The Articles of Confederation" was a disaster that created an unworkable government. The Constitutional Convention created a more centralized government but zealously kept control of how that government was elected with the individual states and the electoral college. The changes brought about by the Civil War led to a more powerful central government, but did not change the mechanism for electing national representatives (the U.S Congress, U.S Senate, and the President).

In order to go to a national election, we would need to change the Constitution, and there is little will to change it in that way.

[obamanut2012]

8. Because of something called "The Constitution"

[Comrade_McKenzie]

9. Absolutely. There should be no complicated systems to democracy...

Simple up or down vote with the majority winning.

And major legislation should be decided by a referendum.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. and THAT RIGHT THERE

is why we are not a democracy...

sP

[joeglow3]

23. We have always been a Republic.

In other news, Rmoney is a rich asshole.

[porphyrian]

10. What are the possible problems with eliminating the electoral college?

The reasons I was taught that we have an electoral college in the first place are avoiding disenfranchisement of smaller and less-populated states in elections and because the populace is largely uneducated and easily swayed against its better interest. Have these conditions changed?

[Proud Public Servant]

13. No Democrat should be "fine" with the Electoral College

The Electoral College was a compromise the Founders made that was designed to get the small states on board with the Constitution. It's not a brilliant mechanism; it's a naked bit of political compromise and pandering, not unlike counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. Why should we be okay with that?

Furthermore, the EC effectively voids the principal of one man-one vote by over-representing the votes of citizens in the big empty states and under-representing the votes of citizens in large states (California has 66 times as many people as Wyoming, but only 18 times as many electoral votes). Why should we be okay with that?

And really, does no one remember 2000?

The EC is a farce. The OP is right. I don't know what it's defenders here are smoking, but I wish they'd share.

[FreeJoe]

20. OK, now what?

OK, you see it as a farce. Now what? The founders made a deal. It's in the Constitution. We need an amendment to change it. I'll support it. I doubt that it will get through Congress or the states. As bad as it is, I prefer it to some scheme to try to "fix" it without amending the Constitution.

It's not all bad, btw. I live in a non-swing state and I really enjoy the lack of political ads.

[Proud Public Servant]

21. Exactly: amend the Constitution.

It wouldn't be the first time we admitted that the Founders got it wrong when it came to the nitty-gritty of government.

[ipfilter]

14. As an Oklahoman, I'm happy we have the

Electoral College. Roughly 70% of the state is a solid R in presidential elections, enough votes to perhaps sway a close popular vote, but not enough electors in the Electoral College to have much of an effect on the outcome.

[trailmonkee]

15. it's no so much about winning, it seems imbalanced?

[oldhippie]

16. Maybe because we are the United STATES of America?

We are a republic founded by the federation of a number of STATES under an agreement called the CONSTITUTION. That's the way it was set up.

If we don't like that anymore we can agitate for changing the Constitution thru the amendment process, which sounds like what you want to do. But your basic question has been answered a brazillion times in as many threads on this forum.

Start a petition, lobby your reps, raise hell on DU, but please stop asking the question that has been answered so many times.


Thank you.

[HopeHoops]

17. Because of a pesky little thing called "The Constitution". But I agree about the electoral college.

There was a very good reason why it was put in place, but its time has passed. Popular national vote is all that should matter now. But as it stands, the states determine the election process and the electoral college being either winner takes all or proportional. It seems stupid (and is now), but when delegates had to travel long distances to represent their local districts, it did make sense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. The Senate Is Anti-Small d Democratic Too

.

[HopeHoops]

19. Kill the filibuster and things will improve. OR, make it a requirement to ACTUALLY filibuster.

Either would work. Right now, all it takes is a single Senator to threaten a filibuster and the vote goes from 50 to 60 in a split second. That is NOT how it was intended to work.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Meant In Regards To Population To Representation

Rhode Island gets one senator per 500,000 people and California gets one senator per 17,000,000 people.

[HopeHoops]

24. Yeah, but that's also in the Constitution. But the HOR was put in place to balance that.

Then again, there's gerrymandering. At the Congressional level I don't know how to solve the problem, but at the presidential level it should be strictly popular vote. The electoral college is way past its expiration date.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Well, The Founders Didn't Want A Democracy. They Wanted A Republic.

[HopeHoops]

30. Agreed, but they curiously called it a "Democratic Republic". It worked for a while.

Keep in mind that they also didn't expect The Constitution to be in place for more than twenty years, and we've well extended THAT time. At least they put in place a mechanism to alter it, but I doubt I'll live to see another amendment become a part of it. The system has been broken for a long time, and Citizens United may just have been the last straw.

In keeping with that theme, the founders could not have predicted the Internet or AK-47 type weapons. They did the best that they could at the time and handed it off to those who followed. I'd like to say we've done a good job of carrying on, but it's a hard argument to support. I'm afraid that the best we can hope for is the media to challenge stolen results. It's failed in the past, but they're more aware of it now.

I've heard arguments from both sides in support of a Constitutional Convention. I'd rather adjust the one we have. It may come down to that, but I'm not optimistic about the potential outcome. What we really need to do is get money out of politics. That would go a very long way toward solving our problems.

[slackmaster]

25. The EC isn't going away. There will always be at least 13 state legislatures that believe...

...it gives them a slight advantage. (13 states is sufficient to block a Constitutional amendment.)

[Skink]

27. Reagan won in a landslide

It can be done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. He Couldn't Do It With Today's Electorate. He Couldn't Even Be Elected Governor Of California

To be elected governor he would have to win near seventy percent of white voters which would put white voters in California somewhere between Mississippi and North Carolina.

In fact, Ron Brownstein at the National Journal demonstrated that if the 1984 electorate looked like the 2008 electorate Reagan's 59%-41% landslide looks like a more mundane 52%-48% victory.

[Skink]

31. So dems compete better now in swing states

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. California Hasn't Been A Swing State Since 1992

The entire political landscape has changed due to demographic shifts in the composition of the electorate.


Back to California. There is a senate race and of course the presidential race. I have been in L A since March and I have not seen one ad for Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama except for the Barack Obama ads I see on cable tv which are part of national buys.

[onenote]

33. Because the United States is a "union" of states

If you want to change that, or at least change how the presidency is determined, you need to amend the Constitution. Of course, under the Constitution, the power to amend lies primarily in the hands of the states.

So, if you have an argument that you think would be compelling to the states as to why they should give up the role given to them in electing the president, you should proffer it. Remember, you're not trying to convince us, you have to have an argument that would be convincing to the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states.