Dukakis calls for end to Electoral College

The Boston Herald ^ | July 8, 2008 | Dave Wedge

[buccaneer81]

Dukakis calls for end to Electoral College Dave Wedge By Dave Wedge Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Calling it “critically important” to eliminate the Electoral College system, former Bay State Gov. Michael Dukakis called on lawmakers to join a growing number of states supporting a switch to a national popular vote to elect the president.

“I think it is high time we got rid of the Electoral College and elected our presidents the way we elect every other elected official in the country - by a vote of the people,” Dukakis wrote in a letter e-mailed to state lawmakers yesterday. “The overwhelming majority of the American people do, too.”

So far, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii have supported electing the president through a national popular vote. A bill to add Massachusetts to that list is pending on Beacon Hill.

In his missive, Dukakis, who ran for president in 1988, admitted that he focused mainly on swing states during the stretch run of his race.

“Under the current system, running for president means just one thing: focus on the so-called swing states,” he wrote. “I did it. Al Gore did it. John Kerry did it, and our Republican opponents did it, too.”

“A big turnout in Massachusetts and many other states is irrelevant to winning the election. Only winning the swing states matters.”

Dukakis said a national popular vote would help a smaller state like Massachusetts have a bigger impact on presidential politics. States get one electoral vote for each member of their congressional delegation but under the new initiative would give all those votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

[Virulas]

He isn't complaining that the Electoral College is outdated and outmoded. He's complaining because it's working. It's working perfectly, in fact. It's preventing him and his ilk from subverting the Republic through demagoguery and deceit. That's the general reason why it's there, it's a firebreak as someone else said, and it's no surprise that a big-government socialist has a tremendous issue with it.

[HoosierHawk]

Why are democrats always against processes that the Constitution lays out?

They can't win otherwise.

[tx_eggman]

Dukakis calls for end to Electoral College

Put some ice on it Mike.

[Clemenza]

C’mon! We need this because all elections must reflect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! We also need NATIONAL BALLOT INITIATIVES!!! That’s how we pseudoconservatives in California prefer it. We need MOBOCRACY! WILL OF THE PEOPLE! WILL OF THE PEOPLE! /sarcasm

[kabar]

Dukakis said a national popular vote would help a smaller state like Massachusetts have a bigger impact on presidential politics.

Just the opposite will happen. The candidates will focus on the bigger states in terms of population concentrations. Urban areas will receive greater emphasis.

Dukakis: The Constitution already has a procedure to amend it. We all know that you can't pass such an amendment so now you are using state compacts to circumvent the Constitution.

[DBrow]

If the EC goes, then so should the Senate.

How often does it happen that a bill passes the House, representing the Will Of The People, only to be shot down in the Senate, with votes representing a minority of the people but majority of the States?

The Seanate is more antidemocratic than the EC by far.

Could it be that we don’t have a democracy here at all?

[Tarpon]

Then illegal immigrants can vote, and make a difference.

Yeah, what did Dukakii do? Wasn’t he the goofy guy in a tank?

[Badabing Badablonde]

In his missive, Dukakis, who ran for president in 1988, admitted that he focused mainly on swing states during the stretch run of his race.

So Duke, how'd that work for ya?

[Michael.SF.]

focus on the so-called swing states,” he wrote. “I did it. Al Gore did it. John Kerry did it,

And look how well that worked out for those three stooges.

Typical Democrat, if you cannot win by the rules, change them or cheat, or both!

[DBrow]

“The current policy of “winner take all” for each state”

These are state policies, not federal, this is one element of a republic of independent states with sovereignty.

[RexBeach]

Mr. Dukakis is not only stupid, politically, but he is also cheap.

Wow. What a superb combo.

[TexasGunLover]

Why are democrats always against processes that the Constitution lays out?

Because the very definition of a liberals like "Dorkus", Hussein, and McCain means they want to change the constitution on only apply it when they feel like it.

[kabar]

This does not require ANY action by the US Congress. Each state legislature would choose the method by which the Presidential electors were selected.

The only problem is that doing it the way you suggest would be resisted by the party having the edge politically. Why would the Dems in CA or the Reps in TX agree to a system that would split their electoral votes and in essence, decrease their influence on who gets elected? Maine and Nebraska have decided on a different way to allocate their electoral votes, but they really are not that significant in terms of their impact on the election process.

[Dilbert San Diego]

True. Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes based on congressional district. Every other state could do that if they wanted to. Each state decides how to award their electoral votes. 48 of 50 states do it winner take all, but there no requirement that they do so.

It would be nice if people knew what they were talking about and how the system works before they call for getting rid of it.

[djsherin]

Yes. Benjamin Franklin told us that the convention gave the United States a Republic, only if we could keep it. I fear we have not kept it.

[Bob]

The only logical change to the law would be to apportion electoral votes by congressional district. A presidential candidate would receive an electoral vote for each district he won and the statewide winner would receive two electoral votes representing the state’s senators.

Even that change would require a constitutional amendment. Article II, Section 1 specifies that the method for appointment of electors is to be determined by each state's legislature.

States are already free to do what you propose. I believe that there are two that do. The states can't, though, be forced to do so without an amendment.

[Michael.SF.]

Mike Mondale?

[Doohickey]

As soon as the President is elected by popular vote, and it may happen, this country is kaput. Done. Over.

[Will88]

Maybe Dukakis forgot, or maybe he never knew, but the states formed the Union, nor the other way around.

And the agreement to have a Senate with two from each state, and a House with representation from districts based on population, that agreement was necessary for the Union to be formed in the first place.

And, from that the Electoral College was formed with the same number of delegates as each state had Senators plus Representatives. So simple, and an arrangement that was necessary for the USA to come into existence.

So, while you’re at it Dukakis, start a campaign to also turn the Senate in representation based on population. Hardee har har.

[MissouriConservative]

““I think it is high time we got rid of the Electoral College and elected our presidents the way we elect every other elected official in the country - by a vote of the people,” Dukakis wrote in a letter e-mailed to state lawmakers yesterday. “The overwhelming majority of the American people do, too.””

I think that line of thinking should have died when they made Senators a direct vote instead of having the State Legislatures do it, like the founders set up. The founders knew what a runaway federal congress could do and set the Senate to be elected by State Legislatures so that the states would have a say in the federal government...a check against a tyrannical fed. Now the the states have lost that power, look what we have.

It would only be worse if this comes to pass.