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.

[risk]

That's part of their grand "third way" scheme: convince Americans that we really have direct democracy. Then they'll be able to buy our votes directly, as much as they've been trying to do indirectly for years -- in all parties. This is not a direct democracy, and it won't last for 20 years once it has been converted to such. But the anti-EC people want that. They want it to be "more democratic."

It's a Republic, if we can keep it! --Benjamin Franklin

[DuncanWaring]

...lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes...

And how many of those 500,000 "votes" were actually fraudulent ballots, ballots by Deceased-Americans, ballots by Felonious-Americans, etc?

[JOE43270]

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST STAY!

[Rightly Biased]

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant and had a wonderful understanding of where this nation was going,and what would be the best way to run a country and best suit its citizens.

Our representative form of government has proved itself these 228 years surviving a civil war and some changes to its constitution. There ain't no way some whining liberal crybabies are going to change our form of government any time soon. Even if the "slimes" endorses doing away with the EC all that rag is and will ever be anymore is a mouthpiece for the clintons.

[MeekOneGOP]

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.

Translation: The New York Slimes is still bitter their algore lost the election in 2000.

How algore almost stole an election .....

Bug-eyed Chad Search

I'm betting Bush takes the popular vote this year, and the electoral college vote, of course !

[risk]

I agree. I also think we have to rise to meet challenges that are presented to us. We need to learn the history of western civilization the way the Founding Fathers knew it. We have to master the philosophy developed during the Reformation and Enlightenment. We also need to study -- and often reject -- the relativist ideas of the 20th century. It's important for new generations of free thinkers to establish better understanding of the core principles of freedom. As I've said about the Greatest Generation: the mistake of the baby boomers was to believe it. They reasoned that they didn't need to do anything important because their parents already had "done it all." They were like ostriches sticking their heads into the sands of time. While the Constitution isn't a living document, it may be amended. I just think this idea of amending it by abolishing the EC is loathsome and disingenuous.

[Cacique]

Pravda on the Hudson once again proves that they are a bunch of morons.

[MeekOneGOP]

haha! Yeah, that's a great tagline ya got there Rock!

[risk]

The IPS has been campaigning for the erradication of the EC. I saw them on CSPAN ranting about it over the weekend. See their Voter's Bill of "Rights."

The word "rights" is now the most abused political word in the whole dictionary.

[Uncle Vlad]

Once again, another marginally educated New York Times pinhead who think s he's smarter than the Founding Fathers.

[blanknoone]

I for one agree with the NYT. We should abolish the electoral college and each state should be equally represented. After all, we are a federation of states.

The EC was a compromise between big states and small states. It has been a functional compromise. If the Slimes wants to break the compromise, they should be reminded what the other side wanted too.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Groan.

[metesky]

A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong.

IIRC, the NYT favored this when they thought their boy OwlGore was going to win the EC and lose the popular vote. Besides the fact that we'll never know the true vote count nationwide for 2000, due to the dead and other DNC repeat voters, etc.

The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests.

Who has the graphic of the BS meter? Repeal the 17th Amendment.

And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.

Bwahaha! Stop it! You're killing me!

[Graybeard58]

I was just setting up a scenario where a candidate could win a majority in 49 states and still lose the election under a popular vote system.

I still believe that the Pres will win this election in a land slide and if even more damning info continues to come out on kerry it will be the biggest land slide in history.

[Paleo Conservative]

The DemocRAT party opposes any effective reforms that would prevent voter fraud, while actually mandating policies that make it worse.

In 1993 just after Bill Clinton became President the DemocRATS in Congress forced the "motor voter" bill through. It requires every state to have voter registration at the same places where states issue drivers licenses. Every applicant for a drivers license must be asked whether he or she wants to register to vote too. The problem is the qualifications for voting are different than those for driving. Quite a number of illegal aliens end up being registered to vote this way.

While drivers licenses are used as picture IDs for many purposes, they aren't not usually required to be shown to prove one's ID when voting. In fact quite a few DemocRAT demagogue lawyers file civil rights suits against states and localities that try to require picture IDs as proof of ID. Observers who ask people for IDs are often served with civil rights lawsuits or even physically intimidated. There are a number of precincts in some inner city strongholds that regularly vote 90%+ for DemocRAT candidates where poll watchers are afraid to go for fear of their lives.

Another thing is that different states have different standards for voting, although much less different than 150 years ago. While there have been constitutional amendments mandating suffrage for men over the age of 21, then women, then citizens over the age of 18, etc. there are still differences between states. The states jealously an rightfully guard their prerogatives to determining those policies. Some states ban convicted felons from voting after serving time in prison. Other states allow convicted felons to vote after they have served their sentences. A handful allow felons still in prison to vote. The Electoral College eliminates the incentives for states to competitively lower their standards. If a prisoner is not allowed to vote for president in one state but is in another, the state with lower standards effectively has a larger impact on the election if it is determined by the popular vote. There are some politicians in California who want to lower the voting age to 14. Without the Electoral College, California would be given a bigger voice in the outcome of presidential election due to the expansion of the proportion of the population eligible to vote.

Finally, you should look more closely at the EC institutions. The EC does not elect it's president by popular vote. In fact there is no EC wide vote of any kind that determines who the next president is. The presidency rotates every six months among the heads over government of the member states. The rotation is on a schedule that is sometimes manipulated for political advantage. One interesting effect is that small countries control the presidency out of proportion to their population in the EC. I wonder why the EC doesn't elect its president by direct election?

[nicollo]

From the article, The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system.

The only place the Times can go with this argument is total and forced franchise for all humans - hell, why not include dogs? (cats no!) -- who inhabit not just the States but the territories, of the United States. By its argument, the Times has democracy, that is, majority vote, the goal of government.

It is not. The purpose of government is to secure happiness for the individual. History has shown over and over that pure democracies do not secure this end. Our Founders were very, very clear on history.

We do not have a democracy. As stands, half or less the registered voters vote in national elections. That means, even with the 14th and 15th amendments, making citizens of the former slaves and securing their rights to vote, even with the 19th amendment, giving womins the vote, even with the 23rd amendment giving electoral college representation to the District of Columbia, even with the 24th amendment and the abolishment of polling taxes, and even with the 26th amendment, which lowered the age of the right to vote to 18, even with all these extensions of democracy, we have no majority rule. A majority of the minority yet decide national affairs.

Now, the Times, thinks it's unfair and unbecoming of a democracy that the electoral college splits this majority into historically-defined geogrphic divisions. Why draw the line there? For true, pure democracy, we must not just allow, we must require human resident of the country (and dogs!) to vote. There must not be a single national decision that is not approved by the people.

Temporal representation, such as the 4-year presidential, 2-year House, and 6-year Senate terms, is another barrier to pure democracy. This, too, must not stand. Democratic government must respond to the people's will -- a majority of all of them, or it fails.

Such nonsense.

Back in 1912, when these stupid ideas of direct democracy were rampant, pushed ahead by the wildly popular and wildly-dangerous ex-President, Theodore Roosevelt, his Republican opponent, William Howard Taft had to argue against the same sort of stupidity as the Times is giving us today. Taft said,

It was long ago recognized that direct action of a temporary majority of the existing electorate must be limited by fundamental law; that is by a Constitution intended to protect the individual and the minority of the electorate and the non-voting majority of the people against the unjust or the arbitrary action of the majority of the electorate.

He wasn't speaking of the electoral college, but it yet stands as a bulwark against precisely those dangers.

[Paleo Conservative]

I'm getting tired. let me correct this paragraph. I meant "EU" rathter than "EC"

Finally, you should look more closely at the EU institutions. The EU does not elect it's president by popular vote. In fact there is no EU wide vote of any kind that determines who the next president is. The presidency rotates every six months among the heads over government of the member states. The rotation is on a schedule that is sometimes manipulated for political advantage. One interesting effect is that small countries control the presidency out of proportion to their population in the EU. I wonder why the EU doesn't elect its president by direct election?

[Travis McGee]

Heck, they could offer all of the voters in your ten counties 100 acres of vacationland out in fly over country.

[tom h]

Good insight. And there is several more points to make, subtle but true.

1) No one will ever win the EC but lose by even a significant though small margin, say 3-5%. It's never happened and never will.

2) The Founding Fathers basically wanted close elections, or electoral ties, to be won by the candidate that won the most states. In baseball, ties go to the runner. In Presidential elections, ties go to the candidate with the widest appeal across all states, large and small. This means that any close election, with each candidate within 1-2%, can go either way.

3) There has also been a longstanding sense that voting standards are different in every state. You can't have a national election without a common standard for eligibility, determination of flawed ballots, etc. The Constitution defers to states much of the right for determining eligibility -- of course this was modified by the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s to eliminate disenfranchisment of Blacks.

By the way, analyses have been done that prove your point. Without his huge majorities in two single cities -- Los Angeles and New York -- Gore would have lost the popular vote by 2,000,000. That means effectively that LA and NYC would have determined the election outcome.

[William Martel]

These libs can whine for abolishing the EC all they want. It's never going to happen.

Abolishing the EC will require a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the support of the very states they wish to disenfranchise through their action. It's a pipe dream.