Electoral College Reform Movement Unveils New Argument

A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 11 April 2009 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

National Popular Vote (NPV), a California-based group formed in 2006 to persuade states to join a compact to award their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote tally for president, unveiled a new and potent argument on behalf of the proposed reform.

“An overlooked benefit for many so-called ‘battleground states’ will be the reduction of candidate visits to their states,” said John Koza, chairman of NPV. “If the popular vote were the decisive factor, candidates would spend more time in the denser parts of the nation. Other communities wouldn’t be worth a visit. They’d be spared the nauseating presence of these loathsome hucksters invading and disrupting their lives. Surely that’s more of a benefit than the hope that their state’s piddling few electoral votes might sway the outcome.”

[gman992]

The whole purpose of the electoral college is that every state is in play...not just the ones with large populations. What’s the whole point of campaign in Rhode Island or Vermont where your vote doesn’t count?

[Puppage]

“If the popular vote were the decisive factor, candidates would spend more time in the denser parts of the nation.

And New York City's vote would trump the entire state of Wyoming, among others.

Other communities wouldn’t be worth a visit. They’d be spared the nauseating presence of these loathsome hucksters invading and disrupting their lives.

Awwww, isn't that precious? They're just looking out for us. That's SOOOOO thoughtful.

BS!!!

[seatrout]

Keep the Electoral College, but PROPORTIONALIZE it. The only flaw in the Electoral College is that by being a winner-take all system: 1. It gives false mandates. A POTUS with 50.1 percent of the popular vote could theoretically win an electoral vote “landslide”, thus making his victory appear bigger than it really is. 2. It suffocates third parties, turning them into nothing more than spoilers if they get any real votes at all. 3. If you are a Republican in Mass. or RI (for example), there’s little point in even voting for POTUS, as your lonely “red” vote will drown in a sea of “blue (talk about forlorn).” I suppose ‘rats living in TX or some southern states may have a similar problem (in reverse). A PROPORTIONALIZED elctoral college would remedy all of this. 1. False landslides would be eliminated. 2. It would breathe new life into third parties. They would no longer be spoilers, and, if neither “demopublican” candidate hit 270 EVs, the third party candidates could be empowered as “kingmakers” (”I’ll turn my EVs over to the candidate who pledges to push at least some of my platform”) 3. The forlorn voters I mentioned earlier would have a reason to get out of bed on election day, since their votes would actually count (i.e. dem might get 61 percent of votes in RI, but Republican might get 37 percent�quot;with 2 going to indy candidate). Problem is, what formula do you use? Going by Cong. district has its own problems.

[taxcontrol]

I favor the district system where the candidate that receives the majority of votes in a district receives that districts vote. If no majority winner, the the top two candidates of that district have a run off election within 30 days with no additional voter registrations being accepted.

The remaining two state electoral votes would be decided by one candidate receiving the most of the districts receiving one vote and the candidate that receives the majority votes in total (popular vote) receiving the other state electoral vote.

If there is a tie with the number of districts, the Governor decides which of the two receives the vote. If there is no majority in the popular vote, the legislation of the state meeting in unicameral session by majority vote of the delegates and without review by any other body, votes by roll call vote to determine which of the two candidates receives the popular vote.

[LibertyThug]

I sure hope people see past this and look at the fact that it is a "direct democracy" movement like Venezuela. The people who founded this country deliberately put in measures to keep direct democracy at bay. Direct democracy isn't better, it is more open to media and groups swaying the population.

The masses shouldn't decide anything.

[seatrout]

—Other communities wouldn’t be worth a visit. They’d be spared the nauseating presence of these loathsome hucksters invading and disrupting their lives.
—

It’s a royal PITA when these candidates come to visit out in Podunk and disrupt traffic. Besides, Presidential candidate visits to the “hustings” are relics of a time when there was no mass media. They don’t tell people anything they don’t already know.

[cvq3842]

One good thing about “winner take all” in each state is that it compartmentalizes votes into relatively few “elections” - one for each state (plus DC).

If there were a proportional system based on, say, congressional districts, there would be incentive to challenge and “game” every district in which the vote was close. We could have a potential 535 Florida 200-type disputes instead of 50.

And the national popular vote would probably take years to litigate, unless the election were close to a blowout. There’d be incentive to manufacture votes in virtually every precinct in the US.

The “interstate compact” idea is ridiculous on so many levels that I don't have the patience to discuss it.

[cvq3842]

Florida 200 = Florida 2000

[MplsSteve]

My plan is simple.

Actually, it’s not my plan - but it’s one I agree with.

Take a look at Minnesota, a state that most Republicans write off every four years.

If we changed it so that electoral votes are apportioned by who won congressional districts, then in 2008, McCain would have won 3-4 electoral votes because in the state he won 3-4 congressional districts out of a total of 8.

The overall winner of the state popular vote would get the two votes that are normally representative of the two Senators.

In this particular case, Minnesota would have given 6-7 electoral votes to Obama and 3-4 to McCain. That’s a hell of a lot more equitable than the current method.

[ctdonath2]

The only flaw in the Electoral College is that by being a winner-take all system:

We are the United States, remember? Each state decides how its votes will be allocated, which naturally leads to the state throwing all its votes behind who the majority/plurality of its residents choose. If that's not what the state wants, it can cast votes differently.

Only makes sense for Wyoming to throw all votes to one candidate when Manhattan alone out-votes it by 4-to-1.

[seatrout]

The bad thing about “winner take all”, though, is that it is death to third parties. The way the EC is now, the only impact a third party can have is as a spoiler. In a proportional system, a third party can be a kingmaker, as a strong third party might prevent either “demopublican” candidate from getting 270 EVs, thus, one or the other candidate would have to promise to push some of the third party person’s demands, if they wanted his EVs.

[cvq3842]

Understood. Thanks.

[seatrout]

Please see my post directly below yours. The winner-takes all-system only promotes political stagnation, as dreary “demopublican” candidates suffocate other candidates. Federalism is all well and good, but not if the nation suffers as a whole via an outdated system.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I favor the congressional district system.

Each district in the country gets one vote. Whoever has the most votes wins.

[seatrout]

I like it too. It’s neat and simple. Some people would whine, however, that it’s “unfair” because some congressional districts have more people than others.

[justiceseeker93]

...to persuade states to join a compact to award their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote tally for president...

Barring a constitutional amendment authorizing such a scheme, the goal of "National Popular Vote" is flagrantly unconstitutional.

Aside from flouting the very foundation of the Electoral College system, where each state appoints its own Electors, interstate compacts - without the consent of Congress - are in violation of Art. I, Sec. 10:

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ....

[griswold3]

What’s next? President for life?

[Star Traveler]

Ummm..., forget about the “popular vote” and keep the Electoral College...

[uncommonsense]

The EC has issues (like CA can have a difference of 1 vote and all the EC votes go to the "winner").

But at the national level, I'd rather see voting integrity and campaign finance be shored up.

We need a mechanism that ensures only qualified voters vote one time and is counted one time - electronically captured and physically auditable.

Also make sure donations are legit, unlike BO accepting money from any source that had a balance, accumulating nearly $1 billion.

Once this is fixed, primaries need to be cleaned up so we don't get the lowest common denominator candidates like Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, and McLame. Also, 3rd party candidates have enormous hurdles with the contrived 2 party system.