Unpopular vote: If you dump the Electoral College

ALBUQUERQUE TRIBUNE ^ | 8-11-2004 | Jeffry Gardner

[suzyq5558]

Next time you hear some free spirit say she wants to rid us of the Electoral College take her outside, look skyward and try to spot a big jet flying high overhead. Traveling east or west - it makes no difference.

Have her close her eyes and imagine her favorite presidential candidate on board the plane napping or reading a fascinating article in Newsweek or maybe plugged into an iPod listening to the whining lyrics of John Cougar Mellencamp

[Arkinsaw]

I'm going to go against the grain here. I believe that the EC is outdated and a handicap.

Lets say that the Yankees and Red Sox play a World Series. The Yankees get 25 runs in game one. They never get another run during the series and the Red Sox win games 2, 3, 4, and 5 by a score of one to nothing.

Do you believe that the Yankees should be the winners because they got "more overall runs". Do you believe that this is somehow unfair to the Yankees? If you made the change to reflect this you would not have baseball. Baseball would be dead.

The fact is that we have a federal union of 50 states. The President is selected by the people ACTING AS CITIZENS OF A CONSTITUENT state.

This is EXACTLY how the Constitution was ratified. By the people ACTING AS STATES. Do you believe that the Constitution should have been ratified for all of the States including Maine and Georgia if 100% of the people in Philadelphia and New York had voted for it but Georgians and Mainers didn't? Was allowing all States to ratify for themselves fair?

This is how our Constitutional Amendment process works. Through the States. Suppose all of the people (100%) in urban areas want a Constitutional Amendment requiring farmers to give free food to cities. Would it be fair to pass that amendment because the majority of people wanted it? Or would it be more fair to have the majority of States, both urban and rural to want it?

Its the exact same thing for the Presidential election. Is it fairer for the majority to choose, or is it more fair to have the raw majority of geographic, cultural, and political entities across the breadth of the country to choose it.

If we get rid of the Electoral College, the Presidency as we know it will die. We will instead have something that I am afraid would be unacceptable and a symbol of derision for anyone outside of urban areas.

[Long Cut]

See post #55.

[Long Cut]

The "red/blue" map went by COUNTIES, not Congressional districts. Besides, EV's are allocated one per district plus two extra for the Senators of a state.

Given that some districts are predominantly Republican or Democrat, it is patently unfair that their EV's should go to candidates they DIDN't vote for.

[7.62 x 51mm]

Ya dun good, suzyq5558.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Incorrect, I understand perfectly how the EC works.

What I would like to see is an EC where vote are distributed in 500 equally sized areas. Each area must be as compact as possible so that small (area wise) heavily populated cities can outvote huge rural areas.

[Paladin2]

Looks like Cancer.

[Jim Noble]

Thirteen states are needed to block a Constitutional amendment.

There are thirteen states with three or four electoral votes.

End of story.

[Congressman Billybob]

Of course the District election of Presidential Electors would make the national results come out closer to the popular vote results. Of course it would give relevance, and campaign attention to, pockets of Republicans in a Democratic state (New York), or the reverse (Texas).

But this reform, unlike the abolition of the EC, does NOT require amendment of the Constitution. Two states have district election of the Electors today: Maine and Nebraska. A total of 21 states have used this method in the past at one time or another.

State legislatures are constitutionally free to adopt district election of Electors at any time, including today.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Says the Wuss: Ma, He's Touching Me"

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.

[Paladin2]

The colors obviously need to be reversed. Other than that It's fine.

[raccoonradio]

If, God forbid, Kerry were to win the electoral vote and Bush the popular vote you won't hear a peep from libs/Dems
about getting rid of the Electoral College. They just whined about it because it didn't go THEIR way...and their
views just don't cut it in "flyover country" (aka the Real
America).

I still believe in the Electoral college even though my home state happens to be the People's Republic
of Mass.--and you know who'll probably win there. (BUT a reminder to those of you who live in states that "will probably go Democratic": don't be so sure! YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT. YOU NEVER KNOW!! Ask the folks in N.H. who came out to vote for Bush in '00. If more than a few of them stayed
home, figuring Gore would win the state, it would have pushed Algore over the top. It's the "little states"
(population-wise) than can push W over the top.

[supercat]

The "red/blue" map went by COUNTIES, not Congressional districts. Besides, EV's are allocated one per district plus two extra for the Senators of a state.

I am aware of that. Some counties contain multiple districts, while some districts contain multiple counties.

The red-blue map does not accurately suggest how many congressional districts voted for each presidential candidate. My recollection is that most did, but not by nearly the margin the county map would suggest.

[supercat]

But this reform, unlike the abolition of the EC, does NOT require amendment of the Constitution. Two states have district election of the Electors today: Maine and Nebraska. A total of 21 states have used this method in the past at one time or another.

In practical terms, it would require an amendment. There is no way California would split its votes unless compelled to do so; if California does not split its votes, it would be bad for smaller states to do so.

[Long Cut]

Nebraska! Thanks, that's the one I was trying to remember.

Of course, the states can allocate their EV's as they see fit. What's the reason all but two went to the "winner-take-all" system?

Maine is, ironically, regularly made fun of in editorials for its "crazy" or "incomprehensible" system, as is Nebraska. I often wonder about the writers when I see that, and I've seen both comments in editorials about the EC.

[StoneFury]

I argued this same issue with a friend of mine (one who voted for Nader in 2000!). The argument I used was:
Lets say you have 1 big state with 10 million people, and they all vote for Kerry.
And you also have 9 small 'insignificant' states, each with 1 million people, and they all vote for Bush.
Going by the popular vote, Kerry would have beat Bush soundly, but since the electoral college represents the interests of the STATE (which our founding fathers had the insight to understand), and not the INDIVIDUAL, Bush would win in a landslide. Our Constitution never would have been approved by all 13 original states if the smaller states knew New York and Virginia alone would really control things, thanks to their huge population.
Incidentally, that's also the reason we have 2 houses in Congress.

[Long Cut]

I'd like to see a district-by-district breakdown of the 2000 election, with notations made as to the overall winner of each state. That'd show the results of the "alternate" system, were it in place.

[StoneFury]

I unfortunately live in one of those very few upstate 'blue' counties.

[Ramius]

Yes, the apportionment of electoral votes within a state is an interest idea, whether by county or by district. Frankly, I'm not convinced it would be better or worse, but it is a worthwhile topic to explore.

I am impressed that the electoral college concept, however, is really an inspired design. I really do like the idea that it forces the "gaming" of otherwise irrelevant blocks of the country. This is valuable, and is not to be dismissed lightly.

[jackbill]

What idiots today can't seem to comprehend is that the Founders came up with a solution that allowed the country to be formed. If the small colonies had not been given certain powers, like the Electoral College and two senators each, there would never have been a United States, as we know it.

Unfortunately, our educators don't understand this themselves and therefore don't pass it along to their students.

As for getting rid of the Electoral College - it will never happen. Fortunately there are enough "small states" to keep a Constitutional Amendment from ever happening.

If some activist judges try to overturn the Constitution, there will be a full-scale rebellion, and I will join it.

[Congressman Billybob]

Originally, most states used the district election method. At the beginning, Virginia had nearly one-third of the nation's Electoral College votes. Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, it had held out for district voting.

But finally, Jefferson reluctantly agreed that Virginia had to switch to winner-take-all because other states with that process were overcoming Virginia in their influence in Washington. A joint method of action, where states act conditionally depending on the same action being taken by states with a total of 75% of the Electoral College votes, would do the trick.

I wrote this reform up in Contingencies, the Journal of the American Academy of Actuaries, in their September-October issue in 2000. The math is all there.

John / Billybob

[R W Reactionairy]

Our forefathers were brilliant to put the electoral college in place. Without it, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, LA would choosing the President.

The electoral college is evidence of a belief that the states are actually states and not some sort of grossly subordinate subdivisions of political power.

The founders were indeed wise. "States rights" as something other than a code for racism should be a rallying cry. Then again maybe "Honest Abe" was just as much responsible for the current lamentable state of the Republic as FDR.