Posted on 03/17/2006 6:23:33 PM PST by ncountylee
In a recent article entitled, Flunking The Electoral College Once Again, Daniel Sobieski writes about a proposed election reform, “The Campaign for a National Popular Vote” in which, “a group of states would agree to award their state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carried their state.” Sobieski effectively dismantles any justification for this “scheme to improve” the electoral process by pointing out that if this was actually implemented, it would be the, “ultimate in voter disenfranchisement.” By asking the question, “How can it be fairer for a state’s electoral votes be given to the loser of that state’s popular vote?” I should think that he puts an end to any more discussion about this.
If anyone wants to continue arguing about it, he throws out a few more bones to chew on.
“If a presidential election is considered illegitimate because the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral vote, is legislation passed by the Senate also illegitimate because it was passed by senators representing a minority of the population? Wyoming’s two senators can cancel out California’s senators, who represent 69 times more people. Is that “fair”?
It seems like yesterday that Al Gore and the Democrats called foul after President Bush won his first term in office, based on the electoral vote. With all of the attention drawn to the issue of being able to win an election without a majority of the popular vote, I would have thought by now, in 2004, there would have been some substantial election reform in the offing.
(Excerpt) Read more at magic-city-news.com ...
“a group of states would agree to award their state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carried their state.”
-----
That is a terrible idea. I say the states should cast their electoral votes in their states interest, not in the interest of everyone else. People who want the popular vote to win all of the time, want tyranny of the majority.
In first half of the 19th century a few legislatures chose the electors themselves without a popular vote. In other states they were popularly selected by the citizens, but they were supposed to choose wise/esteemed men whose judgement they trusted. When the Electoral College voted, it was much like the College of Cardinals where the electors debated the needs of the country and then each elector chose the person whom he thought had the best qualities to lead the country. The reasoning behind the electoral college was that no branch should be elected the same way because the founders thought that the best way to keep the branches separate was to make them represent different interests. If two branches of government represent only one interest then you will have tyranny of bare majority. The House was elected popularly, the Senate by the States, the President was not directly chosen by either but rather by the Electoral College. In this manner no one group could completely monopolize power and this would thus prevent tyranny by any single segment of society.
Repeal the 17th amendment it was silly. The Progressive argument for the 17th was to prevent corrupt state legislatures from sending corrupt Senators to Washington. But I say that it is harder to corrupt a whole legislature than a single man. It is harder to buy two houses of a state legislature than it is to directly buy a single Senator.
And now, they're the cheerleaders for increasing federal power.
And now, they're the cheerleaders for increasing federal power.
But with winner-take-all statewide, it effectively gives more representation to big cities. A district by district allocation would take power away from highly concentrated urban machines and give upstate New York, downstate Illinois, and inland California representation.
How about a trade? Popular election of the President in return for repeal of the 17th Amendment.
>> Large cities have many representatives, so I don't think your proposed change would necessarily have much effect.
Look at the county map for California in the 2004 election. Assigning electors for each district, just in Cali, would have been worth about 19 or 20 EVs switched from Dem to Republican. After the 2004 election there were a lot of calls for re-working the electoral college in Cali, the pubbies missed a grand opportunity to propose something like this.
Your diplomacy skills are honorable, but NO WAY.
The more I understand how our government was originally designed the more I appreciate the genius and brilliance of our Founding Fathers.
The electoral college balances the power between rural areas and big cities. The election of Senators by the state legislatures as originally intended balances the power between the big states and little states and gives power back to the states where it belongs. Nope. Non-negotiable. We keep the electoral college and we repeal the 17th.
:-)
But you would lose electoral votes in Texas and Florida - some votes would go democratic. Same with Ohio, and other states too.
I'm not saying everything would even out. Applied nationwide, it might work in the Republicans' favor. And it might not. Be careful.
See my post #50.
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
Actually applied nationwide, George W. Bush would have won rather comfortably in 2000. It would have avoided the drawn out fight over the recounts in Florida. There would have only been 2 electoral votes in doubt not 26. While the statewide count was very close, the district by district results weren't. There would be incentives for presidential candidtates to campaign not only in close states, but in close districts in states that would currently be completely bypassed.
Several states with DemocRAT legislatures that voted for the Republican presidential candidate considered legislation to go to a district by district system. The DNC opposed it. They have large pockets of votes concentrated into a few congressional districts that often vote 90% or above DemocRAT.
I have done research on the 17th amendment, and I am aware of the problem with the Railroads having the state legislature in their backpocket. My point in the previous post was it is harder to corrupt both houses of a state legislature than it is to corrupt only one senator. Another problem that many of the progressives cited as a reason for the ratification of the 17th amendment were frequent deadlocks in the state legislatures, where one house of the state legislature would block the election of any Senators. On several occassions some states went without Representation in the Senate for months. The popular election was in part a remedy for that problem. I, however agree with you that the 17th amendment was a bad idea and that many will realizing that they can control the entire system will not be willing to give that power up.
Thank you for that excellent analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.