Is it Time we get rid of the Electoral College and go to popular vote?

[Snoutport]

I got an email today asking me to send an email asking that my state pass the popular vote act. I figure the electoral college was set up back before there was a media that could get the word out to every nook and cranny in the US. Now that we have media saturation it seems some of the reasons for the electoral college are gone. I'm a fan of the popular vote. What do you all think?

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[dkf]

1. I wonder how that would change campaign tactics?

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Mass blitz of ads and smears in urban centers

Small states ignored.

[Retrograde]

19. As opposed to media ad blitzes in swing states

Populous "safe" states (like New York and California) ignored, which had been the case for the last several national elections.

I'd like to see the electoral college eliminated, but since changing the constitution requires approval of 3/4 of the states I doubt it will happen.

[cemaphonic]

28. Yeah, it's not really a small-big thing these days

Although small states do still benefit in terms of citizen/EV.

And along with the big states in your post, plenty of small states are pretty much ignored too - the Rocky Mountain states, and the Mid-Atlantic and New England are full of these.

[ret5hd]

2. the EC was created to get the less populous states to buy into the constitution.

Now you would have to get these same less populous states to give up power to the more populous states.

How likely do you think that is?

[Snoutport]

4. I don't know to be honest.

But I wish the senate was by population and not state...that's for sure.

[RedCloud]

5. Why not a national Senate with 51 senators?

Every 6 years 17 are up. We all get five votes nationwide. That would really mess up the corporation brainwash scheme as folks get a chance to vote for say, a consumer's rights activists, an environmentalist, etc. It would drive the Koch brothers crazy and I already know the Tea party would be baffled beyond belief.

[Skidmore]

8. Give that Senator to DC, along with the right to vote in the House.

[One_Life_To_Give]

44. Then where do we move the Seat of Gov't to?

If the whole point was to build Government outside of any State. Perhaps an artificial island 50 miles to the east?

[Skidmore]

51. Leave it where it is. There is no reason why the residents of

DC should not have representation and a voice in our government. If appointees and elected officials come from other areas, they should not be allowed to vote anywhere but the home states.

[H2O Man]

40. It was tied in with

that goal, in the sense that in the original EC, each state's number of votes was based on population. But there was much more to it than that.

[KittyWampus]

6. I would prefer run-off voting be implemented first.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

7. National Popular Vote is not quite what it sounds like

I did a study of this proposal for my local League of Women Voters. Its name is SO appealing, how could anyone question it?... But if you look
at the details it requires states to enter into a compact with one another to ignore what the voters in their state say If it does not match the
NATIONAL popular vote. This is ugly and non-intuitive. And there is no timely enforcement method if a state does not keep its promise. I think it
is big potential trouble with a nice slogan.

[ret5hd]

10. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing? What voice does a "state" have...

in a national popular election of the president?

Maybe i'm missing something.

[Shrek]

12. Click the link in the OP

The proposal is not to eliminate the Electoral College, but rather to use it to elect the winner of the national popular vote.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 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).

[PBS Poll-435]

16. From what I have seen, it forces States where the national popular vote winner

Didn't actually win the State have the State's EVs go to the National winner.

That means Al Gore would have had 535!


I would have settled for 271. I think this is a really bad idea and distorts the voice of voters.

[drm604]

32. Do you think that eliminating the electoral college would distort the voice of the voters?

If not, then you shouldn't have a problem with this because mathematically it achieves exactly the same thing.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. When CA,NY,NJ,MA,MI give Democrats the bulk of what they need to win

Using a national number might distort the process.

40% of California votes for whatever stooge the Republicans put up.

[drm604]

43. So you're against a national popular vote altogether?

Fair enough, if I'm understanding you properly.

[Renew Deal]

18. You're talking about the same thing.

He's saying that the change would be made voluntarily through the states without a constitutional amendment.

[drm604]

How is it not what it sounds like? How is it "ugly and non-intuitive"?

It sounds like whoever gets the most votes nationally wins. And that is what it does. So it is exactly what it sounds like.

As for your concern about a state not keeping it's "promise", read the link, especially this page (a PDF): http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/Withdrawal-V6-2010-3-13.pdf. That issue is discussed in detail. It's not a "promise", it's a law passed by the state legislature, and they are constitutionally bound to follow it once an election has occurred.

We can argue about whether or not a popular vote is a good idea and whether or not it's fair to smaller states, but you can't really say that it is not what it sounds like.

It sounds like you may have bought into some talking points that distort the issue. Certainly there are arguments for and against but, in all respect, your arguments are misguided.

Anyway, Welcome to DU! :hi:

On Edit: This was in response to IphengeniaBlumgarten's post # 7. I hate it when the board software screws that up. I wish they could fix that bug.

[tammywammy]

9. I think if we moved to a popular vote only the large states would matter

That's the only place people would campaign in. I like that they're 'forced' to campaign in less populous states.

[notesdev]

11. The EC spares us national vote recounts

You've seen the mess that occurs when a single state's results are disputed. Imagine going through that every election, on a national scale, forever. Because that's what you will get if there's no EC to firewall off the results of one state from the next.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. That requires a Constittional amendment...

So, though it is a good idea, it will never happen.

[Cleita]

15. So get a movement going to amend. That's how

women got the vote.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. It took them almost a hundred years, and the equal rights amendment died.

And it has been tried more than 700 times.
Two-thirds of the House must approve the plan, followed by two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states. Since the electoral college is in the Constitution, it would take a constitutional amendment in order to change it or repeal it. Over 700 proposed amendments to modify or abolish the electoral college have been offered to the House and some have even got the two-thirds vote to proceed before the Senate. But they have all died in the Senate and they would be absolutely crushed by the stats if they ever got that far. Since three-fourths of the states have to ratify the proposed amendment, this means that it takes only 13 states to kill it. There are easily 13 states with small populations who do not want to give up the enormous power that they have. The electoral college is here to stay.

I agree it sould be abolished, but the 2/3rds Hosue / 2/3rds Senate / 3/4ths States challange is likely to prove as insurmountable as it has proven over 700 times before.

By all means try, but you better pack a lunch.

[Cleita]

26. You have to start somewhere and as far as I'm concerned

ERA isn't dead yet. There is talk of getting it out there again.

[Ozymanithrax]

49. And I would support it again.

But a quick whip count of the House and Senate shows me that the 2/3rd will not be met.

[Shrek]

20. Actually it doesn't

There's a way to do it within current constitutional constraints.

Click the link in the OP.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. You mean the national popular vote bills.

Where in may be in the powers of the States to decide to shitcan the decisions of their citizens when it comes to voting for the President, I don't consider it either big D or little d democratic. And it doesn't get rid of the system, it just puts electing the President in hands of the State Congressess.

[drm604]

29. How does a national popular vote shitcan the decisions of the citizens?

It doesn't. At least no more so than the current system does.

[Shrek]

59. Self-delete

Replied to wrong post.

[Hosnon]

52. The Supreme Court would likely rule such a thing unconstitutional, in my opinion.

It might be close, but it seems to violate the purpose of the constitutional provision establishing the electoral college.

[Shrek]

60. On what grounds would the USSC make such a ruling?

Article II explicitly authorizes the states to choose their electors in whatever manner they like:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[Hosnon]

63. Because the purpose of the electoral college is specifically to keep the election of the President

out of the direct hands of the population. And, of course, state legislatures cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution.

I think the argument is sound; however, the fact that the Constitution does give the states the authority to decide how electors are chosen would weigh in favor the proposal. It'd be a great case.

[drm604]

24. No it doesn't.

Read the link.

[Ozymanithrax]

25. You should read the link. It just sets up a law that requires the electors...

to cast their votes in accordance with who ever has the national vote. It doesn't get rid of it.

So instead of this heirarchy

Voter votes
Government counts and certifies the votes
Electors are told they are supposed to vote in accordanced with the wish of the voters

We add an extral leverl that kicks in.

And that doesn't even address the fact that in most states the electors at the electoral college are not even bound to vote as required. They can and have chosen to cast their electoral vote for someone else.

If people want 1 peson 1 vote, get rid of the electoral college. Otherwise it isn't one peson one vote.

[drm604]

31. I read the link. The result it achieves is that the President is chosen by national popular vote.

How often do electors change their mind? Has an outcome ever been changed because of one or more defecting electors?

If you're concerned about defecting electors, that's already a problem. This wouldn't add to it.

This achieves exactly the same result as eliminating the electoral college would, but it's much easier to achieve. You're concentrating on process rather than outcome. In all respect, you're buying into a bunch of meaningless talking points.

[Ozymanithrax]

48. So the Constitution is meaningless talking points?

I did not know that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. No, but it is flawed

and this is possibly the major flaw; others being the system of 2 senators per state, thus giving power to state borders rather than people; and, of course, the method of altering the constitution, which, again, gives the power to land rather than citizens. And it's that last flaw that, ironically, prevents the constitution being corrected about this. It only takes 13 states to block an amendment; which could constitute just 5% of the US population.

[jeff47]

30. Not really.

The end-around that people have been pushing for is to have a state's electors vote in proportion to the popular vote in their state, instead of the current "winner-take-all" system. Do that with enough states, and you effectively have a national popular vote.

[Hosnon]

53. The constitutionality of that is suspect, in my opinion. nt.

[jeff47]

68. The constitution does not specify how electors can vote.

Thus, it's perfectly constitutional.

[Cleita]

14. YES!!!!n/t

[reggie the dog]

17. yes

keep the house and senate as they are so all states have equal voice in one chamber and bigger populations give more votes in the other and make the presedential election a straight up popular vote. votes from everywhere would matter. no more saying "i am republican and vermont will not vote republican anyway" or saying "i am a democrat and mississippi votes republican anyway". plus other parties would have a chance to win. make elections 2 rounds. round one to see if someone gets 50%+1 or more votes. if not then have a run off between vote getter 1 and vote getter 2. you could have a green or libertarian surprise in the second round that way which would make politics more interesting.

[wilt the stilt]

21. The electoral college is a device to take the rights of the voter

It is an anachronism and it suppresses the voter. If one live in a state that has no chance of being what they believe in then the result is possibly someone will not vote. It also gives way too much power to small states. As far as anyone saying people will only go to the big states well now look at what we have. About 6 States decide the election. No one goes to NY or California. No one goes to the south. It is one of the most F'ed up systems around and completely anti- democratic. I have been against it ever since I took political science courses in college in the sixties. It is a bad system.

[get the red out]

27. Yes

Past time.

[LynneSin]

33. If we went with the popular vote Gore would have been president in 2000

nuff said.

[PBS Poll-435]

35. And in 2004. Bush would have actually had a mandate. Let's admire the wisdom of the EC

[LynneSin]

39. IF Bush had tried running again for President - he wouldn't have been an incumbant

So who knows what the results would have been.

[Bill McBlueState]

46. Bush thought he had a mandate in 2004

Whatever you might have concluded, Bush thought he had a mandate in 2004. The fact that his EC victory was by less of a margin than his PV victory was pretty irrelevant.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

36. Don't tamper with it. nt

[Uncle Joe]

37. No, I believe it would lead to electoral monopolies in the same manner as conglomeration

leads to trusts in business.

I believe it's better to have the power dispersed among the disparate states and regions of the nation.

I could be happy with the splitting of a state's electoral votes based on % of popular votes garnered within said state instead of winner take all, but not the entirety of doing away with all electoral votes.

Thanks for the thread, Snoutport.

[ItNerd4life]

38. Your whole premise is wrong on why we have Electoral College

You could do a quick Google and learn that it was to protect smaller states from being overwhelmed by the more populous states.

[H2O Man]

54. While you are certainly

not "wrong," that is only part of the original intent. The original EC, of course, did not last that long .... four elections, if I remember correctly. And it had far, far more to do with allowing a qualified person from a small state the ability to be elected, than simply allowing small states from counting less than large ones.

[inna]

41. the Electoral College is anti-democratic and belongs in the garbage pile of history.

one person, one vote, period.

[Nye Bevan]

42. NO and here is why. I don't trust the red states.

With the existing system, it is a given that the Republican will win all of the electoral votes in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. and so there is no incentive for anyone there to commit election fraud. But imagine a close popular vote election where the Republican is maybe 50,000 votes behind. Think of how tempting it would be for Sheriff Jimbob deep in the heart of Nowheresville, Texas, to suddenly "find" a few thousand votes that had been "forgotten". And this kind of thing would be much easier for Republicans (with their large rural vote) to perpetrate, compared to Democrats whose base is in the cities and where the count can be more easily scrutinized.

DUers in favor of abolishing the electoral college who don't think this kind of thing will happen are more trusting than I am.

[Dr. Strange]

47. That's one of the most impressive features of the EC.

It neutralizes the incentive for cheating in precisely the places where cheating would be easiest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. It neutralizes the incentive ... by guaranteeing the Republicans will win there

Oh, what an impressive feature. Hand rural states to the Republicans, and then you don't have to worry if they'll cheat to win them. What a relief.

[Nye Bevan]

66. And the Dems are pretty much guaranteed CA's 55 electoral votes.

It's not a one-way street.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. So it gives Republicans some power without them having to cheat, and Democrats always get all CA

electoral college votes ... except, say, in 1988, when Bush Sr. beat Dukakis. But the important thing is that, mostly, Republicans in California needn't bother voting for president, because they know they'll lose. Yes, as an electoral system, it does make a big impression on me.

[Bill McBlueState]

45. yes

The EC was cobbled together as a compromise to get the Constitution ratified. At the time, I doubt anyone even pretended that this was a logical way to elect a President.

[H2O Man]

55. There are a couple of

answers on here that, while not "wrong," aren't fully accurate. The original EC (the structure of which lasted only about 20 years) was to help encourage small states to join the union. However, it was not to put them on equal footing with the large states -- the Senate representation did that. The House, of course, was based on population, which still gave large states a larger say in the original EC.

The actual reasoning was far more about allowing qualified individuals the ability to be elected as President. The media, as much as anything, played a significant role in this decision. Men from small states tended to remain unknown in larger states, hence unlikely to be considered for office.

The anticipated response is "those from small states who distinguished themselves in either House of Congress would be known nation-wide." That simply was not the case in that era. More, the concept of "career politicians" was not in line with the thinking of what, for our sake here, we might call the Jeffersonian Founding Fathers. The Hamiltonians believed in the elite class. The EC was, in large part, to prevent an elite career politician from having the unfair advantage over someone in the mold of the later Abe Lincoln.

[Paper Roses]

57. Overdue! n/t

[Cascadian]

58. YES!

One man/woman = One vote!

I have been saying this ever since 2000, it is time to lose the Electoral College!





John

(The Cascadian is back!)

[Rex]

61. Politicians would not go for that! It would make things too competitive

great idea that will never happen.

[Motown_Johnny]

62. Political Impossibility

you may as well invite the moon to sunday brunch, that ain't gonna ever happen either.


You need 3/4s of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. So you will need smaller population states to vote to reduce their electoral clout


Ain't never gonna happen.

[Angry Dragon]

64. I have been for that for many years

it would force the president to go to the voters vs just figuring out what states they needed to win............

[Throd]

65. As a Californian I say "yes".

First of all, I believe he/she who gets the most total votes should win.

As it stands now, both parties tend to ignore California in national elections.

The Rebuplicans don't want to waste any money or time where they won't get enough votes.

The Democrats show up just long enough to collect money for campaigns in more competitive states.