The Few Decide For The Many (Huge BusinessWeek report calling for abolition of Electoral College)

BusinessWeek ^ | June 14, 2004

[Dont Mention the War]

Demography, as the saying goes, may be destiny. But an archaic system of representation that includes a winner-take-all selection of electors and eschews proportionate representation at the local level is denying a voice to political minorities. Are you perchance one of the 2.4 million hardy Democrats living in Texas? You might as well hang up your political spurs. Since the Reagan era, Texas has become solidly Republican. Or perhaps you're a GOPer in New York or California, home to a combined 8.5 million members of the Grand Old Party. Tough luck, pal.

---

Many of the distortions can be traced to the Electoral College, set up by the Founding Fathers partly to shield against unfiltered democracy -- then equated with mob rule. The College was also designed to preserve the power of small states by giving them a higher percentage of electoral votes than their populations would warrant. Finally, the College was a sop to Southerners, who were given credit for each slave at the rate of three-fifths of a free voter, magnifying the power of white property owners in Dixie. "These compromises were the basis of the Electoral College," says George Mason University Professor James P. Pfiffner. "But they are not relevant any more."

Today, the Electoral College still benefits smaller states by giving each of them two bonus votes in the Presidential balloting. Because most of these states are becoming increasingly Republican, that hands the GOP a built-in edge of 10 to 12 electoral votes -- more than the margin of victory in 2000.

---

There is a way to avoid such destabilizing contests: The candidate with the most votes wins -- no ifs, ands, or buts. Experts such as Pfiffner would like to see a national dialogue over a direct-election system. Such a debate would, of course, be intensely controversial since it entails a deviation from the Founders' design. But so did abolishing slavery and granting women suffrage. After 216 years of Presidential elections, it seems as if the time is right to reaffirm a basic tenet of democracy -- the one that says everybody's vote counts.

[Dont Mention the War]

BusinessWeek must be excerpted, so the above are just a few choice paragraphs from the opening editorial of a huge "special report" calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. You may be asking, "What does this have to do with business?" The answer, of course, is "Nothing." But BusinessWeek is the most liberal business magazine out there, so they're doing their part for the Democrats.

Here are the other stories that make up the full "Special Report on Democracy In America":

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

Does Your Vote Matter?
Is an election crisis looming this year? It's a distinct possibility, since little has changed since 2000. The good news: The process can be revitalized

The Few Decide For The Many

A Partisan Game Of Gotcha!

No Way To Pick A Nominee
Kerry was selected in 29 days -- by states with just 22% of the population

Why Florida Can Happen Again
In 2000, up to 2 million votes were lost because of confusing ballots or malfunctioning machines

How To Fix A Rigged System
In 2002, 98.2% of House incumbents, raising an average of $900,000 apiece, were reelected

Online Extra: McCain: The FEC Is a "Total Disgrace"
The Republican senator says campaign-finance reform has progressed some, but the election watchdog is shunning some of its duties

Online Extra: Election 2004 Photo Essay

[sinkspur]

I haven't subscribed to Business Week since they endorsed Clinton in 1992.

[NavySEAL F-16]

The Electoral College must stand. The reason the Founding Fathers wanted it is still the same reason we need it today. Just take a look at California and see where the dems live and then see where the republicans live. This is fair representation. I only wish the Senators were still elected by each state's legislatures and not the popular vote. The Founding Fathers were amazing and brilliant men. They also knew the what evils lie in the hearts of those who want to be powerful.

[sergeantdave]

Only a left wing demagogue would equate slavery and sufferage with the electoral college.

Thirty years ago Business Week cared about business. No more. Now it's just another whining left wing rag. Go to hell or go to France. Your choice, Busybody Week.

[Hodar]

I wouldn't sweat it.

I believe a super majority is needed for Congress to amend the constitution, and that ain't gonna happen.

[DManA]

Why "HUGE"? Think Business Week is that influential?

[Xenalyte]

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, realized that 99% of people are abysmally stupid, and that's why we have an Electoral College, thank God.

[Diogenesis]

Their plan is to 1) allow illegal aliens to vote after registering THAT day
2) allow dead Democrats to vote
3) prevent any military vote, and
4) encourage Democratic voting by individuals, criminals and aliens in multiple states
especially by mail.

and did we forget .... Lawyers.

[KC Burke]

Perhaps an adoption of the French Enlightenment Revolution scheme of promoting the central general will to the supreme issue to be utilized in deciding every national question would pass muster with the muddle headed, but not on this forum.

Tyranny of the many is still tyranny.

[antaresequity]

Can you say Florida X 51?

A National recount is a sure recipe for revolution...

[cricket]

They lose and want to change the rules. This was not the tune they sang when Clinton won his two terms.

For sure, if effenkerry were to make it; or eventually Hillary; our electoral college would be gone by executive order.

[Rodm]

We have an electoral college because we are the United " States" of America not the United People of America

[BenLurkin]

You nailed it exactly: "The Founding Fathers were amazing and brilliant men. They also knew the what evils lie in the hearts of those who want to be powerful."

[Political Junkie Too]

Why not just do away with the entire concept of states and governors. We already made the Senate irrelevant with the passage of the 17th amendment. Let's finish the job and eliminate the state governments entirely now that they have no representation in the federal system.

That way, the federal government in Washington can refine their plans to fool all of the people all of the time.

-PJ

[FreedomSurge]

"it entails a deviation from the Founders' design."

Why don't we do away with the whole system.

[JOE6PAK]

"F" - Business "Weak". Just a Bunch of lefties.

[sittnick]

Utter drivel.

With a straight popular vote, all we would get is somebody promising New Yorkers and Californians and rust belters that the rest of the country will be taxed, enslaved, whatever to serve their needs. The populous states then go 95% or so for such programs and the states that go the other way by the same margin don't get beat and rolled.

By the article's logic, the Senate should be done away with, as well, since small states are over represented there.

BTW, who said that "unfiltered democracy" is NOT akin to mob rule?

The president is the president of the COUNTRY, not of 50.0001% of the people. As such he must show that he has support in more than one region.

The mag's stand still allows for the possibility of someone winning the popular vote with well under 50%, and hence still isn't truly the choice of the whole people. (Lincoln got under 40% in a four way race ... war breaks out among the states!)

By the way, I live in one of those big states (Illinois), and I know that Kerry will likely carry it. I will still vote for the other offices, and can vote Constitution Party for Prez knowing it won't help Kerry. Keep the Electoral College! We need the Montanans, Utahites, and Alabamans to save the Californias, New Yorks and Illinoises from themselves.

[Torie]

Putting aside the partisan stuff that doesn't matter much really - no candidate losing by two percentage points has much chance of carrying the electoral college - just think if the popular vote system were in place and Bush beat Kerry by 2,000 votes in the national popular vote. We would get to redux FLorida all over again times 50, with 50 trial courts, maybe 150 if Florida is any guide, then 50 state appellate courts, then 50 state supreme courts, then multiple federal appellate court appeals, and then SCOTUS gets to wade through the litigation in 50 states. Think of all the billable hours for lawyers. Maybe we would get a president sometime before his term ends. In the meantime, who would serve as president? Does anybody know? I don't.

The scheme is a recipe for meltdown in a really tight election. That is the bad news. The good news is that it will never happen. The small states won't vote for it, for starters. And it "fixes" a system that is not broken. As I said, it is practically near impossible for a candidate to win the electoral vote, while losing the popular vote by say by more than 51.5 to 48.5 of the major party vote, and even that is a stretch.

In such a scenario, the number of posts at FR would however increase, for better or worse.

And there you have it.

[citizenK]

US Presidential election consists of 50 separate state elections for the office - winner of the most states (weighted by population) wins the office. Without the Electoral College, California, Texas, New York, and Florida basically choose the President. If that's the case, why would the smaller states want to remain in the Union?

These calls for the abolition of the Electoral College are just more of the same arrogant people who think that they are smarter than men who formed our system of government.

Couldn't agree more with the "What does this have to do with business?" sentiment.
BusinessWeek is so bad, I wouldn't use it to train a puppy, let alone rely on its reporting as a basis for making decisions.
They should change the name to DemocratWeak.

[Torie]

Damn, you stole my lines. You should be banned for doing that.