Change the Electoral College?

[DocDiggs]

Ex-Congressmen Urge Electoral College Reform

A group of former congressmen is launching a campaign to reform the Electoral College system, saying presidential election results should rely on the nationwide popular vote rather than on the outcome of a handful of swing states.

The group's plan would seek to eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election, as happened to Al Gore in 2000.

The Campaign for the National Popular Vote is backed by former Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., former Rep. John Anderson, R-Ill., and other ex-members of Congress.

Democrats may stand to gain more from such reforms because candidates could increase their margins in heavily populated urban areas that typically favor their party, the Chicago Tribune reports.

But both Democratic and Republican candidates consistently carry certain states, and with the current winner-take-all system regarding electoral votes, voters on the losing side are effectively disenfranchised in those states.

What's more, in the last two campaigns candidates rarely stopped in Illinois, California, Texas or New York, four large states that were deemed a lock in the Democratic or Republican camps.

"We shouldn't make irrelevant 10 out of the 13 most populous states," Anderson told the Tribune. "Why should people feel they should even vote if they are irrelevant to the process?"

Previous attempts to change the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have failed in Congress, so proponents of the Campaign for the National Popular Vote seek to change laws through individual state legislatures.

The effort begins in Illinois, where legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly, followed by California and other states.

The Illinois legislation calls for each state to join an interstate compact. When the states that have joined comprise 270 electoral votes - the number needed to win the presidency - the laws would simultaneously take effect, according to the Triune.

The initiative does not seek to abolish the Electoral College, but rather it would award the electors from each state to the candidate who wins the country's popular vote.

Supporters say the last two elections illustrate the need to change the system.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 ballots, but lost the election in the Electoral College after George Bush narrowly won the popular vote in Florida and all of its 25 electoral votes.

In 2004, President Bush won the popular vote by 3 million ballots, but would have lost if John Kerry had carried Ohio.

Critics, however, say changing the Electoral College system would reduce the influence of smaller states.

And even supporters of the new plan concede that reform is an uphill battle.

NewsMax.com
26Feb06

[Snowden]

Where is Bluehawk when this subject - one dear to his heart - is brought up!?

"We shouldn't make irrelevant 10 out of the 13 most populous states," Anderson told the Tribune. "Why should people feel they should even vote if they are irrelevant to the process?"

Of course, this is the exact same reason for having the Electoral College. Without it, those living in the so-called "flyover" states would have no say in national elections.

Previous attempts to change the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have failed in Congress, so proponents of the Campaign for the National Popular Vote seek to change laws through individual state legislatures.

The effort begins in Illinois, where legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly, followed by California and other states.

If this isn't illegal, I believe it should be! The Constitution is getting less and less respect, it seems. It's held this nation together since it was written, but suddenly it's become "politically incorrect." It should be maintained, supported and followed as originally written. It was never, never meant to be a "living document." I know it's being treated as such now - and look what a shambles our goverment is in.

Senators are now professional politicians, something that was never meant to happen. They were to have been appointed by the state. Congressmen were to receive small enough incomes that representing the people was a sacrifice - this was to keep them mindful of their responsibilities. But lobbyists have enriched them; they are not limited to a specific number of terms, which has become desirable. They are, again, a passel of politicians getting rich at the expense of our nation and all it is supposed to stand for and to be.

Supporters say the last two elections illustrate the need to change the system.

Yes. Back to what it was originally - other than being limited to men only voting. The voting machines can be manipulated too easily, too - and they should go. Cheating is always possible. How to stop that is beyond me, but there seemed to be considerably less of it before this past century.

Critics, however, say changing the Electoral College system would reduce the influence of smaller states.

It most certainly would - to the extent that some would never have a chance at being represented at all in national elections.

And even supporters of the new plan concede that reform is an uphill battle.

This is the most encouraging sentence in this entire article, IMO.

[Woodmonkey]

That way, 5 or 6 densely populated states will have all the say in the presidential election. People in states like Wyoming, N and S Dakota etc. might just as well stay home cause they won't have a say.

Nope, bad idea and dilutes the power of the States.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

Where is Bluehawk when this subject - one dear to his heart - is brought up!?

Bluehawk wants it abolished. He and I have gone round and round on this in the past.

The Constitution has to be changed and either 3/4th or 2/3rd of the states have to agree to that. I cannot imagine that many states willing to hand over all the power to a handful of states.

[Woodmonkey]

Here's what I posted a long time ago about the electoral college:

Removal of the electoral college would insure that a few densely populated areas of our country (California, New York, Florida etc) would be the ones which got to select the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because the smaller colonies wouldn't join in the new country without the protection it offered. They wanted to have a say in the selection of the President. Without it, they knew that they would be shut out by the larger colonies.

The Electoral College insured then that the smaller colonies were allowed a voice in the selection of the President. It insures, today, that less populated states like Wyoming, Montana etc get that same voice. Without it, people in most of the states might just as well stay home and not bother voting for President because a handful of heavily populated states would make the decision.

Frankly, I don't care that someone in a more populated state is miffed because they don't get to make those choices for the rest of us. It will take a constitutional amendment to abolish the college and 3/4ths of the states have to ratify it. Can you imagine that many legislatures dumb enough to give away all that power to a mere handful of states?

The College evens the playing field.

[DocDiggs]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Here's what I posted a long time ago about the electoral college:

Removal of the electoral college would insure that a few densely populated areas of our country (California, New York, Florida etc) would be the ones which got to select the President of the United States.

The Electoral College was put into the Constitution because the smaller colonies wouldn't join in the new country without the protection it offered. They wanted to have a say in the selection of the President. Without it, they knew that they would be shut out by the larger colonies.

The Electoral College insured then that the smaller colonies were allowed a voice in the selection of the President. It insures, today, that less populated states like Wyoming, Montana etc get that same voice. Without it, people in most of the states might just as well stay home and not bother voting for President because a handful of heavily populated states would make the decision.

Frankly, I don't care that someone in a more populated state is miffed because they don't get to make those choices for the rest of us. It will take a constitutional amendment to abolish the college and 3/4ths of the states have to ratify it. Can you imagine that many legislatures dumb enough to give away all that power to a mere handful of states?

The College evens the playing field.

Yes you did post this, I remember it well. Also at that time I explained it from the practical, historical aspect that it was intended as it exists even now, but that it is now obsolete because it is no longer necessary to meet those early needs when most of the population was agrarian and could not easily get to polling places even if they chose to go.

The Electors were elected or appointed (I don't recall which) by the state as the actual voters in elections. There was little nationwide communication in those days and the Electors were charged with the responsibilty of informing the populace as to the relative merits of those who were running for office. By way of example: People in a local area in Massachusetts quite likely didn't even know who within their own state was running, if anyone, and they certainly would not have known candidates from other regions in other states. It was the job of Electors to to see to it that candidates were made known to the people. In essense they were the "Great Communicators" of the time.


Again I submit that this archaic system is essentially non-functional in this day and age of county or precinct individual voting using more reliable methods and far better methods of educating voters as to the stand of the various candidates on issues. If we are to keep the Electoral College, we should simply eliminate the popular vote, designate or elect the Electors from each state and relinquish the right of the people to vote at all. Conversely, if we are to keep the popular vote, we need to abolish the obsolete Electoral College and use that popular vote definitively. Ultimately thre would be no advantage to either states with large populations OR states with small populations. What the popular vote would do is eliminate the concept of states as self-contained units, integral entities that could decide by Electors who wins and who does not. Rregional politics would still have the same power to influence or fail to influence, but on a national level rather that the state Electoral level. Republicans could still vote Republican and conversely, Dems could still vote Democratic. It certainly seems to me that this would actually be more representative of the clear will of the people. It would also eliminate the political polarization by state w/o depriving anybody of their own personal or regional preferances. The current Red/Blue hassle needs to be put behind us. There are political dissenters from the majority in both colored states that I'm sure resent being catagorized as being something they are not.

I for one simply do not trust the Electoral College as there is too great a possibility (probability?) for Electors to vote their will as opposed to that of the people they are supposed to represent...actually by signed "contract". I fail to see how a popular vote could "disenfranchise" small states in favor of more populous states when the Electors exist in proportion to the number of citizens in a state. It's simply an unnecessary and potentially hazardous extra step in an already complex process. The fact that a president can be elected by Electoral vote against the will of the people as expressed in the popular vote is unconscionable regardless of who is elected.

I'm a great believer that we need to learn the lessons of history. In this case it seems to me that this lesson is that it is time to abolish the Electoral College as impractical and redundant.