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.

[Family Guy]

I read on Free Republic within the past few days that Dems were trying to get some usually Republican states to split their electorates according to the popular vote in that state. That would be much easier for them to accomplish since it could be done at the state level and would be worse than a nationwide popular vote because the Dem voters from Republican states would get electoral votes but the Republican voters from Dem states would not.

[clintonh8r]

That's the kind of stuff that will turn the current culture war into Civil War II. It will be much uglier than the first one.

[A Jovial Cad]

You forgot to mention the "Oklahomans," so I will. :-)

[GATOR NAVY]

I admit I may be missing something but wouldn't making the Electoral College vote proportional be the same as just taking the popular vote?

[Family Guy]

That's exactly right. That's why the Dems are trying to make the electoral vote proportional in only Republican leaning states. Instead of getting votes based on the popular vote of the country, they'd skew it even further in their direction. And they're fighting for it by claiming that voters are being disenfranchised in those states.

[Vision Thing]

McCain: "Sixty days prior to the election, you will not see the flood of [negative] advertising you saw before. "

Instead you will see a flood of negative editorials and news articles that Bush will be prohibited from answering.

After this election, McInsane will clearly be the fool. His name appears prominently on the McCain-Feingold CFR bill, which will prove to be a laughingstock.

We must use it against him after November. We must point out how impotent a law it turned out to be. We must use it to show how incompetent a lawmaker McCain is.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[A Jovial Cad]

*That's the kind of stuff that will turn the current culture war into Civil War II. It will be much uglier than the first one*

But much, much shorter (assuming it ever comes to that): the folks in the Red States have all the guns.

[Vision Thing]

But much, much shorter (assuming it ever comes to that): the folks in the Red States have all the guns.

And the testicular fortitude to use them.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I see the mod cleaned up after you. Now, maybe he can do something about my post, where I used the curious phrase "withheld abstained," intending but failing to delete the first of those words.

Electoral College reform comes up repeatedly on Free Republic and elsewhere, of course. Business Week does have a quasi-point, I guess: the votes of residents of 30+ states won't matter. Here in NC, for example, either a) President Bush will win by a bunch, or b) if it's close, it'll mean that Kerry has won a national landslide, and NC won't have been the critical determinant anyway. But the cure they propose is far worse than the disease. In addition to the merits of Federalism and the power held by the individual states, the electoral system tends to isolate, and therefore minimize fraud (vote-stealing in Chicago would swing only Illinois), and, as an even more practical matter, it helps determine the winner more quickly. How would we like to see a national recount? Florida 2000 would pale in comparison; the outcome could be in doubt, or at least contested, for months -- or years.

We've discussed proportional electoral votes (such as now exist in Maine and Nebraska) before. Such a scheme, implemented nationally, might bring more campaign attention to states previously regarded as locked up one way or the other. But I recall that you argued persuasively that such a system, if based on Congressional Districts, would make the current gerrymandering look like child's play. I can't dispute that. Another possibility which has been floated is to award electoral votes in proportion to each state's popular vote (e.g., if Bush receives 60% of North Carolina's vote, and Kerry receives 40% [a bit optimistic, granted], Bush would receive 9 electoral votes to Kerry's 6). That doesn't do much for me, either. It would tend to focus the race on major metro areas rather than swing states, but that doesn't strike me as an improvement.

So we're left with the old maxim: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, except for those pesky human electors.

[ImaTexan]

ping

[dvwjr]

Well, the other possble route would be if the Congress sends any proposed Amendments to the States to be ratified by State Conventions, if three-fourths of State Ratification Conventions vote in the affirmative then a proposed Amendment may become law as happen in the February to December 1933 period for the 21st Amendment. This was the only time that the State Convention method has been used to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution and it has the advantage of allowing the People of the several States vote for Convention delegates in an election to carry out the will of the 50% + 1 voter majority of each State.


Maybe this approach could be used for the "Defense of Marriage" amendment proposal...


dvwjr

[Torie]

I agree with almost everything you said. Almost exactly right. Proportional allocation of electoral votes by states by popular vote (not by CD's which sucks for the reason you mentioned) does have its merits though (it would not lead to massive litigation, maybe in a couple of states if the electoral count were near even). Granted, it would lead to the candidates spending most of their time in the high population states. That seems appropriate to me. In short, swing states versus metro areas is not very persuasive as a policy argument. Why should swing states be so special, just because the geography happens to lead to a close partisan split? But it is not worth the bother. The electoral college as constructed in close enough. The idea is to get a quick result, by the rules, provided the popular vote is not way out of line. Close is good enough in horse shoes and electing a president.

[elbucko]

The scheme is a recipe for meltdown in a really tight election.

Yes it is and your 50 state analysis of the chaos of a popular vote election is right on. That's the point of the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers were wise to include it in the Constitution to vaccinate us from anarchy.

[Torie]

Splendid looking pups by the way. A different ring color collar for each pup. How cute. I was not familiar with the breed. Does the breed avoid the downside of the long adolescence of labs?

[elbucko]

Remember, those determined to undermine the constitution won't ever stop, it requires eternal vigilance on the part of the citizenry,...

Very true. The Left are at work like termites, night and day, in power or out, to render the Constitution meaningless and establish themselves as aristocracy.

[DoughtyOne]

Yeah, what he said... exactly right on ALL points IMO.

[Destro]

To modify - I think it should be proportional if there is no winner over 50%. Secondly I have zero respect for those people appointed to be in the electoral college. They are party hacks and their appointments make a mockery of the college system. Make it a point system at least.

[dvwjr]

Originally posted by Torrie:

"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..."

But a candidate losing by two percentage points carrying the electoral college (or House) has happened twice in the last 54 Presidential contests, in 1824 and 1876. Historically that works out to be about a 3.7% occurrence.

Originally posted by Torrie:

"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."

That exact occurrence happened in 1876 when Hayes(R) beat Tilden(D) in the electoral college while losing the "popular" vote by 3.02%. That makes the current odds of a possible recurrence around 1.85%...

Presidential Election Data
in ascending "popular" vote order

                                  Winning Percentage
     Year      Winner      Electoral Vote     "Popular" Vote    Notes
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     1824     Adams(6)         32.20%             30.92%       Lost "popular vote" by 10.43%
     1860      Lincoln         59.40%             39.82%
     1912      Wilson          81.92%             41.84%
     1992      Clinton         68.77%             43.01%
     1968       Nixon          55.95%             43.42%
     1856     Buchanan         58.80%             45.28%
     1892   Cleveland(24)      62.39%             46.02%
     1848      Taylor          56.20%             47.28%
     1888   Harrison(23)       58.10%             47.82%       Lost "popular" vote by 0.80%
     2000     Bush(43)         50.37%             47.87%       Lost "popular" vote by 0.51%
     1876       Hayes          50.10%             47.95%       Lost "popular" vote by 3.02%
     1880     Garfield         58.00%             48.27%
     1884   Cleveland(22)      54.60%             48.50%       Was 22nd and 24th President
     1996      Clinton         70.45%             49.23%
     1916      Wilson          52.17%             49.24%
     1844       Polk           61.80%             49.54%
     1948      Truman          57.06%             49.55%
     1960      Kennedy         56.42%             49.72%       Questionable "popular" vote victory
     1976      Carter          55.20%             50.08%
     1980      Reagan          90.89%             50.75%
     1836     Van Buren        57.80%             50.83%
     1852      Pierce          85.80%             50.84%
     1896     McKinley         60.63%             51.03%
     1908       Taft           66.46%             51.57%
     1900     McKinley         65.32%             51.64%
     1868       Grant          72.80%             52.66%
     1840    Harrison(9)       79.60%             52.88%       Was grandfather of Harrison(23)
     1988     Bush(41)         79.18%             53.37%       Was father of Bush(43)
     1944   Roosevelt(32)      81.36%             53.39%
     1924     Coolidge         71.94%             54.04%
     1832      Jackson         76.00%             54.23%
     1940   Roosevelt(32)      84.56%             54.74%
     1864      Lincoln         90.60%             55.02%
     1952    Eisenhower        83.24%             55.18%
     1872       Grant          78.10%             55.63%
     1828      Jackson         68.20%             55.97%
     1904   Roosevelt(26)      70.59%             56.42%       Was cousin to Roosevelt(32)
     1956    Eisenhower        86.06%             57.37%
     1932   Roosevelt(32)      88.89%             57.41%       Only four term President
     1928      Hoover          83.62%             58.21%
     1984      Reagan          97.58%             58.77%
     1920      Harding         76.08%             60.32%
     1972       Nixon          96.65%             60.67%
     1936   Roosevelt(32)      98.49%             60.80%
     1964      Johnson         90.33%             61.05%
     1789    Washington        85.20%              n/a         No Opponent
     1792    Washington        97.80%              n/a         No Opponent
     1796     Adams(2)         51.40%              n/a         Was father of Adams(6)
     1800     Jefferson        52.90%              n/a         Jefferson tied with Burr in EC.
     1804     Jefferson        92.00%              n/a
     1808      Madison         69.30%              n/a
     1812      Madison         58.70%              n/a
     1816      Monroe          82.80%              n/a
     1820      Monroe          98.30%              n/a         No Opponent

Note: The "popular" vote only tracked since 1824.

Source: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

dvwjr