Vote may sway future of electoral college

Yahoo News ^ | 10/30/04 | Mark Sherman

[CThomasFan]

WASHINGTON - It could happen again: One candidate captures the popular vote, but his opponent wins the presidency in the Electoral College (news - web sites).

AP Photo

Such a replay of the 2000 election is an outcome of Tuesday's balloting that many Americans dread. It also could be the one that finally would drive the nation to a serious debate about the future of the Electoral College.

Proponents of changing the way the United States elects its presidents say another mixed result would help build support, particularly if the parties' roles were reversed.

There was no groundswell to abolish the Electoral College in 2000, perhaps because of the partisan standoff that continued more than a month after Election Day.

Several Democrats eagerly proposed scrapping the Electoral College in favor of direct election of the president, but Republican-controlled congressional committees wouldn't schedule hearings.

When a national commission led by former Presidents Carter and Ford explored voting changes in 2001, they focused on balloting and voting machines and omitted any discussion of the Electoral College.

Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) won a half-million more votes nationwide than President Bush (news - web sites), who nevertheless became president by virtue of getting a majority of electoral votes.

This year, the possibility exists that Bush could be denied a second term despite winning the popular vote if Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) were to come up with enough narrow wins in battleground states, proponents of change in both parties said.

"That might cause Republican reconsideration just as there was Democratic angst in the last election," said GOP Rep. Jim Leach (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa, a longtime supporter of an overhaul of the Electoral College system.

Or, as Rep. Gene Green (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, said: "That would be like having the shoe on the other foot."

Called outdated and antiquated by its critics, the Electoral College has endured despite four elections in which candidates have become president despite finishing second in the popular vote.

Most polls find majorities favor getting rid of it. "People think of it as somewhere between bad and stupid," said Harvard University history professor Alexander Keyssar. "But that's been true for 50 years."

Because it is enshrined in the Constitution, the Electoral College could be abolished only through a constitutional amendment, and more than 700 attempts have failed. Amending the nation's basic law requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states — no easy feat, especially because the Electoral College gives small states disproportionate influence. States have a minimum of three electoral votes, no matter their size, as does the District of Columbia.

Defenders of the college say the protection of small states is a good reason to keep it. Do away with the Electoral College, they say, and candidates would campaign exclusively in states with large populations, where vote totals would swamp those of small states.

"The Electoral College embodies two kinds of principles in electing a president: proportionality based on population and equality of states," said John Samples, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government.

But the small states' argument runs headlong into the 2004 election campaign, said Leach. Polling techniques are so advanced that candidates ignore states large and small in the current system. "They are only going to states where the margins are razor-thin, whether that's New Hampshire, Iowa or Ohio," Leach said.

The latest effort to abolish the college — purely symbolic as it came in Congress' final weeks — was introduction of a constitutional amendment from Green and Rep. Brian Baird (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., to elect the president directly through popular vote.

Proposals generally fall into these categories:

_Abolish the Electoral College and institute direct election of the president, perhaps requiring the winner to gain 40 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff.

_Keep the college, but have states abandon the winner-take-all formula and allot electoral votes proportionally, as is under consideration in Colorado this year.

_Give the statewide winner two electoral votes and award one vote to the winner of each congressional district, the system used in Maine and Nebraska.

_Give an electoral vote bonus to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, which would eliminate most split decisions.

The closest the nation came to abolishing the Electoral College came after the 1968 election, when George Wallace's third-party candidacy raised fears that no one would win an electoral vote majority, said Keyssar, the Harvard professor.

In the end, Richard Nixon won the election, despite Alabama Gov. Wallace's 46 electoral votes. The next year, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College with direct election. President Nixon endorsed it, but Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., led Southern senators in a filibuster that doomed the amendment.

Despite the difficulty of changing it, Leach said the argument against the Electoral College is plain.

"We're advocating democracy around the world," he said. "Are we suggesting to anyone they have an electoral college?"

[Howlin]

Several Democrats eagerly proposed scrapping the Electoral College in favor of direct election of the president, but Republican-controlled congressional committees wouldn't schedule hearings.

Baloney.

This author doesn't know what he's talking about, plus he offers no proof of his claims.

Most polls find majorities favor getting rid of it.

And that is an absolute flat out lie.

[cyncooper]

Several Democrats eagerly proposed scrapping the Electoral College in favor of direct election of the president, but Republican-controlled congressional committees wouldn't schedule hearings.

I did not read past this. These same dems were out before the 2000 election informing us of how the Electoral College worked and getting us prepped to accept Bush winning the popular vote and Gore getting the electoral votes.

Their objection with the system didn't arise until the outcome was the opposite and so is not based on principle but opportunism.

Typical dem "thinking".

[OldFriend]

In Colorado BOTH parties are against the splitting of the electoral college votes.

At least in that state they see the folly of messing with the rules.

[OldFriend]

Typical dem LYING is more like it.

[Radix]

Unless you change it to give each county in the US one vote regardless of population.

Smaller states would just add more Counties.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Amending the nation's basic law requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states — no easy feat, especially because the Electoral College gives small states disproportionate influence."

That gave away the approach of the author right there. Without the electoral college, large cities would effectively disenfranchise huge swaths of the rest of the country. Of course, that is what the socialists would prefer.

[Blast_Master]

It can be debated until hell freezes over, the system will never be changed. Yes, 2/3rds of the states would have to ratify such an amendment and that means that 38 states would want to give away their electorate influence which would never happen in a million years.

[The Hound Passer]

Stupid article. The small states, of which the sum could block a Constitutional change, have no incentive to abolish the EV system. The hard cold fact is they have a disincentive to to so: loss of power.

Abolishing the EV is the liberal elite's wet dream because it would mean candidates would only need to pander to the large liberal population centers. There is a book "The Great Divide" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0976062100/qid=1099154700/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-5939932-1295123?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 written by a Dem hack that suggests this is how the Dems must proceed if they are going to survive.

[Tax Government]

The electoral college is the only thing preventing localized, intense voter fraud from swinging an entire national election. It must be preserved at all costs. Forever.

[Friend of thunder]

Democracy = Mob Rule.

Popular vote = Mob Rule

A lynch mob is a democracy.

[mombrown1]

It costs a lot of money to create a county. Each would have to have it's own government. Can you see NYC or LA breaking up into 10 or 11 counties? There are approx. 1000 counties in the US of those about 900 are red. If I knew HTML (which I will learn after Nov. 2) I would post the county map from 2000.

[Radix]

 

"If I knew HTML (which I will learn after Nov. 2) I would post the county map from 2000."

You do not need to learn HTML. I have a few books for sale though if you do insist on learning though.

Most of the graphics and images are posted using very simple programs. The photoshop images take a bit more. I have puter troubles and so I cannot do certain things, but I am just a puter away from remedying that problem.

Here is an image of the counties in my State. It took me less than 30 seconds to post this image for you.

[mombrown1]

I have the map saved on my MS word program. How do I copy it to post it?

[okie01]

And who can blame them? Who wants NY, CALI, TX bossing around the whole country?

I wouldn't trust New York or California with that kind of power.

But Texas...?

[Beckwith]

I heard on Public TV that there have been more than 700 attempts to do away with the Electoral College since the Founding Fathers included the process in the US Constitution.

[jocon307]

"But Texas...?"

LOL, I actually thought of that after I posted.

What the heck, we're all getting bossed around by Florida, Ohio, and Pennsy this year. If not Hawai'i!