Abolish the Electoral College

NY Times ^ | August 29, 2004

[Former Military Chick]

When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.

Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.

Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/makingvotescount.

[weegee]

"more than 500,000 votes" or another way of talking, 0.52% more of the votes than President Bush.

It was the equivalent of a coin toss landing on the edge instead of either side. Why is it so hard for DUMMYRATS to believe that coin leaned a little more in George W. Bush's favor in one close state?

That figure was also well within the margin of error (nationally). We would have had THOUSANDS of lawsuits as a county by county NATIONAL recount was conducted. We know that there was some democrat vote fraud (multiple residence voters - 2 states, college kids who went through the line several times, etc.).

0.52% (half a percent) doesn't impress me. The Goebbelsesque drum beat says that there was no mandate for President Bush. Albert Gore JUNIOR would not have been able to make such a claim either. Also, both candidates got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did and I didn't hear his leadership questioned by Big Media. The 2002 election also firmed up the nation's support for President Bush with Republican victories.

[Dont Mention the War]

Actually, with the port of Oswego only 35 miles directly upwind, port security does get some thought here in Syracuse.

Point taken, but you know what I mean. :)

[TeleStraightShooter]

This a constitutional republic.

What you say!?
You mean they actually delineate that in our Constitution>
</sarcasm>

[geopyg]

"Screw the rest of the nation."

I imagine the folks in the U.P. of Michigan and New Petersburgh, Ohio are feeling pretty good about the Electoral College during this campaign season.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The Senate was formed for a reason. It came after the HofR existed. The Senate was formed so that each state had 2 Senators, or in other words, equal representation and a counterbalance to the House Of Representatives which is heavily slanted toward states with higher population density.

[Bonaparte]

"...why should the President be different?"

Because the leftists at the NYT don't like federalism. They want centralized government, relegating the states to little more than administrative units of the federal government. Nobody in America votes for the President. We all vote for electors representing our respective states, which is exactly as it should be.

[rock58seg]

In this day and age of container shipments, residents of Syracuse would be wise to be concerned about port security.

Unfortunately, Terrorists can reach and touch someone no matter where they feel safe. All the more reason to vote for someone who is series about defeating them.

BUSH AND ANYBODY IN 04

[Melas]

When did the senate pick the president?

[Former Military Chick]

Thought you might be interested in this thread.

[Melas]

The NYT should check into states rights. If New York wants to apportion its vote, it's free do so, as a couple of other states already do.

[Paleo Conservative]

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote.

The really easy way to win the popular vote without winning the electoral vote is to win very high margins in a few states. Each state has two senators, and the electoral vote for each state is the number of senators plus congressmen. If a candidate wins big in the large states while losing small states or just wins big in one region, the extra votes allocated to for senators will add up rather quickly. That happened in 1888 when Grover Cleveland ran for reelection. His main issue was free trade which was very popular in the South but unpopular elsewhere. Cleveland racked up 60-80% of the popular vote throughout southern states. I might also add that the black vote was suppressed in those states. If it had not been, would Cleveland have won the plurality of the popular vote? In fact only in 1876 did a candidate winning a majority of the popular vote lose the electoral vote.

In 2000, Al Gore won just 20 states plus the District of Columbia. Bush won 30 states. That means Bush won nine more than Gore yielding 18 more senatorial electoral votes. That's the same number of electoral votes as Michigan in 2000. It was as if Bush had won an additional medium large state. In the 20th century only two winning presidential candidates won the presidency while not winning in the majority of states, Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976.

[R_Kangel]

Yup...... And then in the end Mr. Kerry wins with the electoral votes and GWB gets the popular vote....... Suddenly in a strange twist of fate........ the electoral vote would become a sacred institution.... never to be touched until the end of time....!!!!!!!

Hey DEMs......... da rules is da rules!!!!

[Paleo Conservative]

(Native New Yorkers forget 9/11/2001. Texans remember the Alamo, 3/13/1836)

Check out this Freeper's tag line.

[weegee]

The left will use "any means necessary" to accomplish their goals, the consequences (and precedence) be damned.

[GeronL]

I am going to copy this thread and read it later.

I kind of like the electoral college. Now especially since the NY Times says otherwise.

[TLI]

I juz luv that map. Say! Does anyone remember when the colors reversed? It was with clinton / Dole I believe, but might have been clinton / Bush. I distinctly remember seeing the pubes represented in red for the first time. Could not forget, I am in TEXAS don't cha know!

[Bonaparte]

"...there is no incentive to increase that margin by pandering to the extremes within that state."

Madison would agree with you. Guarding against demagogues was one of the reasons the Electoral College was proposed at the Convention.

[Paleo Conservative]

This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy.

This should shock the New York Times The USA is a republic not a democracy.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu...
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote!!!"

Benjamin Franklin

Getting rid of the Electoral College would abolish the republic.

[Patriot_from_CA]

If New York wants to be more "democratic", they're welcome to split their electors in proportion to the popular vote totals. A couple of states already do this.

BTW, all of us need to keep a sharp eye out for stealth initiatives placed on state ballots in strongly Republican states ONLY to split the electors in proportion to the popular vote count. I heard outside liberals have already placed such a measure on the Colorado state ballot and their gunning for other Republican states. It's another scandal in the making. Nothing is beneath these people and they never give up. So we have to just keep fighting them as a part of our lifestyle. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence."

[Patriot_from_CA]

You're right on the money. If the EC goes, the United States can become another Venezuela in just a few years. We need a Bush landslide to silence this talk (at least for a while.)