TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The forces of darkness are gathering to strike a blow against liberty, justice, the American way, and…and…THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
The Electoral college?
Yes, it’s true. Not content to simply posit conspiracy theories about how Republicans steal elections, liberals have now set their sights on stripping America of one of her oldest and most cherished institutions. Now, gentle reader, before you scratch your head and ask the obvious question of who cares if we give the Electoral College the heave-ho, perhaps a little history lesson is in order. And who better to give it than I, Professor Moran, BFA, MS, and VAH (Very Amateur Historian).
WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND DO THEY HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM?
I’ll take the second question first, Mr. Trebek. Not that I’m aware of although I understand they’ve had some pretty wild keggers over the last 217 years. And starting in 1920 when the college went co-ed, it’s rumored that Toga Parties became all the rage.
Notwithstanding such juvenile shenanigans, the Electoral College is a product of one of the more divisive debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention. For a very educational and thorough examination of this history, I recommend you go here since I’ll be dealing with only the bare bones of what the institution is all about.
The College consists of electors, chosen by the states in various ways, that (ideally) reflect the outcome of the popular vote for President in that particular state. The number of electors is what’s important. That number is determined by how many Senators (2) and Congressmen (proportionally awarded based on most recent census) the state has. So Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes because they have 2 Senators and how many Congressmen? Class? CLASS? WAAAAAKE UUUUP!. Thank you. Nineteen Congressmen is the correct answer.
The kicker is that it’s a winner take all competition. Whoever wins the popular vote gets all the electors from that state.
ISN’T THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE KIND OF ARCHAIC?
Depends what you mean by archaic. Given that liberals have voted against every major weapons system currently in use by the military (an exaggeration, but hey! We don’t call this site the RIGHT WING Nuthouse because we’re impartial!), perhaps they wants us to fight terrorism using bows and arrows…or spears. Do you mean archaic in THAT sense?
The answer is no. And like my sainted father used to say “Old things are best.” Many of the reasons for the electoral college are still valid today. Look at the election of 2000. Al Gore would have been President if he had carried one more state. That would have given him a grand total of 18 states voting Democratic. George Bush would have won 32 states and gotten nothing, nada, zip-i-dee-doo-da. This is exactly what the electoral college was set up to prevent. Al Gore, if he had won Florida, would have captured 8 of the 10 largest states and won the election by appealing mostly to urban and coastal constituencies. George Bush demonstrated broader support in the electoral college appealing to states in the north, south, east, and west. Bush, even though narrowly losing the popular vote, proved himself a much more national candidate.
And there are other issues to consider when thinking of ditching the electoral college:
First, the direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. In 2000 Al Gore won 677 counties and George Bush 2,434, but Mr. Gore received more total votes. Circumvent the Electoral College and move to a direct national vote, and those 677 largely urban counties would become the focus of presidential campaigns.Rural states like Maine, with its 740,000 votes in 2004, wouldn’t matter much compared with New York’s 7.4 million or California’s 12.4 million votes. Rural states’ issues wouldn’t matter much either; big-city populations and urban issues would become the focus of presidential campaigns. America would be holding urban elections, and that would change the character of campaigns and presidents.
Recently, California passed a law that would award the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the most popular votes nationally rather than the winner of the state’s individual race for President. This is apparently part of a national movement to marginalize the electoral college and give the larger states (mostly liberal and Democratic) a bigger say in who is President.
To say this would be catastrophic to American democracy would not be overstating the case one bit. Done under the guise of the “one man, one vote” battle cry which is largely responsible for the permanent incumbency found today in the House of Representatives, the so-called “direct election” of the President would radically alter not only the way we choose a President but the presidency itself.
WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WITH DIRECT ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENT?
Pete Du Pont sums up a couple of the major arguments:
Second, in any direct national election there would be significant election-fraud concerns. In the 2000 Bush-Gore race, Mr. Gore’s 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country’s 175,000 precincts. “Finding” three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing, or as former presidential scholar and Kennedy advisor Theodore White testified before the Congress in 1970, “There is an almost unprecedented chaos that comes in the system where the change of one or two votes per precinct can switch the national election of the United States.”[snip]
Third, direct election would lead to a multicandidate, multiparty system instead of the two-party system we have. Many candidates would run on narrow issues: anti-immigration, pro-gun, environment, national security, antiwar, socialist or labor candidates, for they would have a microphone for their issues. Then there would be political power seekers—Al Sharpton or Michael Moore—and Hollywood pols like Barbra Streisand or Warren Beatty. Even Paris Hilton could advance her career through a presidential campaign.
If we were to simply go by the popular vote to decide who’s elected President, several other major alterations would occur that would permanently change the landscape of our political culture.
- Candidates would concentrate on big states in their campaigns. Whoever the party nominees were, they would move to California, set up residence, and try to shake 40 million hands. An exaggeration of course. But a politician who already lived in California – say a Governor or Senator – would have an enormous advantage in any race for the Presidency. If such a candidate could run up a huge majority in California the task of getting 50.1% of the vote would become much easier. This begs the question; should one state have such an enormous say in who gets elected President? The state already supplies fully 20% of the electoral votes necessary to get to the magic number of 270. Can you imagine what a 5 million vote lead would mean coming out of California to a national candidate based on directly electing a President?
- Minorities would become marginalized. If you think candidates ignore the concerns of minorities now, you’ll love direct elections for President. More than ever, Democrats would take the minority vote for granted and Republicans would continue their half-hearted attempts at outreach. the rationale being, why spend time and money preaching to (or begging from)) the converted?
- Small states and rural areas would be slighted in national elections. Would a campaign that never visited Bucktooth PA or Watchoutforthatcroc FL be any fun at all? I doubt it. I think that we’d lose something if Presidential candidates only visited big states and big state TV markets. Somehow, watching a candidate interact with these simple folk gives you a handle on what kind of person they are, hence what kind of leader they’d make.
Finally, there is this to consider:
Finally, direct election would also lead to weaker presidents. There are no run-offs in the Interstate Compact—that would require either a constitutional amendment or the agreement of all 50 states and the District of Columbia—so the highest percentage winner, no matter how small (perhaps 25% or 30% in a six- or eight-candidate field) would become president. Such a winner would not have an Electoral College majority and therefore not be seen as a legitimate president.So rather that trying to eviscerate the Electoral College, we should be embracing it. It was put in the Constitution to allow states to choose presidents, for we are a republic based on the separation of powers, not a direct democracy. And the Electoral College—just like the Senate—was intended to protect the residents of small states. As James Madison said, the Electoral College included the will of the nation—every congressional district gets an electoral vote—and “the will of the states in their distinct and independent capacities” since every state gets two additional electors.
What Mr. Du Pont doesn’t say and what the proponents of abandoning the Electoral College never tire of pointing out is that the Electoral College was put in place because our Founding Fathers didn’t trust Jefferson’s yeoman farmers any further than they could throw them – literally. They saw us common folk as rabble, a dangerous mob and in great need of guidance by men better suited to the task of governing by virtue of their superior breeding and education. The Electoral College was originally seen as a brake on popular passions and allowed for the wisest men in the country to gather once every four years to pick our national leader.
How the Electoral College has evolved over the years to reflect the will of the people in the various states in Presidential elections is one of the more fascinating aspects in studying the American government. In fact, since the choosing of electors is up to each individual state, the system is a hodge-podge of processes and procedures that functions largely out of respect for tradition:
Here is a list of how the different states have political parties choose who will be their electors. It also shows whether or not the electors’ names appear on the ballot in November. Finally, it indicates which states have passed laws to bind their electors. Not too many do, and even fewer have defined penalties for an unfaithful elector. Yet, of more than 16,000 electors in U.S. history, less than a dozen have ever voted contrary to the wishes of the people who elected them. Don’t you wish we could say the same about our other elected officials?
The evolution of the College from something akin to the College of Cardinals to a body that reflected the democratic will of the people didn’t take long. Electors running in each district usually made it clear who they would vote for President when the College convened. But the federalist impulse behind the invention of the college remains to this day, a demonstration of the recognition that we are indeed a federal republic. And getting rid of the Electoral College would go a long way towards destroying that idea.
WILL WE TOSS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ANY TIME SOON?
Not as long as the current political party situation remains unchanged. Republicans would be at enormous logistical disadvantage under such a system. Think of it like a war. Republicans have a lot more territory to defend than Democrats and thus, their resources would be stretched much thinner. To get to the magic number of 50.1% of the popular vote, Democrats would be able to expend a lot less energy and money to defend their own turf thus freeing them up to raid Republican strongholds. Republicans would have to fight off Democratic insurgencies in red states while carrying on an expensive battle in blue states to pick off a few voters here and there.
No wonder the idea is popular with liberals. It would maximize the influence of their strategic assets while diminishing the power of most of the people who disagree with them.
But hey! All for a good cause, right?
UPDATE
Good Lt. blogging a the Jawas:
Yes. The Democrats want the dense inner-city populations and their infinitely successful approaches to problems like education, crime and corruption to run the national government without regard to what anybody else outside of the large population centers might think.
Times have changed so much under the long dark night of Bushiburton fascism that the very democracy that was perfectly acceptable a decade ago has collapsed entirely and needs to be replaced with procedures favorable to urban liberal constituencies.
Du Pont puts the issue correctly. Mucking with the electoral college will basically disenfracnchise rural voters. Campaigns will not only ignore them but it is likely that Administrations will also give their concerns short shrift.
6:54 am
Is it really worth worrying about right now? I, too, support the Electoral College, but since it would take a constitutional ammendment to alter, I think now is not the time to worry. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one has introduced a bill to start the process yet, have they?
One thing we could do to update the Electoral College: split California in two (north and south). No one state should be that influential.
7:01 am
To say this would be catastrophic to American democracy would not be overstating the case one bit.
‘One person one vote would DESTROY democracy!’
That’s a strange thing to say, no?
9:07 am
Lets look at it from a tax base point of view…the “liberal” coastal states provide way more money to the government than sparsely populated states. Liberals should therefore have more say in how tax money is spent.
9:34 am
JPE:
Not at all. During 2004, you had both Kerry and Bush in New Hampshire the weekend before the election. New Hampshire? Why? Because their electoral votes could make the difference between winning and losing.
In the one man one vote scenario, candidates would camp out in CA, NY, TX, FL, and perhaps PA in order to harvest the largest numbers of votes for the buck – advertising buck that is. Why go anywhere else (or spend ad money anywhere else) when the payoff is so small?
In effect, you are disenfranchising about 30 million voters. Plus, as Du Pont raises in his article, what about the Senate? Why not apply one man one vote there and tear the constitution up good and proper?
9:38 am
The DNC, now three members because of Carvelle’s work under Clinton, planned to change the elctoral college by city. This was attepted in Colorado and the goal was to redistrict the Republican electoral college vote. This is the same DNC that wrote to Kofi Annan to run our elections after losing the election and going to US court. The redistricting of the electoral college in Colorado was done as the UN monitored our voting; where the electoral college might end up was in question.
This seems a fair answer to the American voter. There is no reason do disagree with this answer.
10:42 am
Your argument, philosophically, is not tremendously sound. What you are saying is simply that rural votes are somehow more special than urban votes (mostly because they elect Republicans more often these days). However, if we are indeed a urban/suburban population largely concentrated on the postecoasts, then why shouldn’t the Presidency reflect those perspectives? One of your posters put it well – why is democracy under assault if one person equals one vote? The complete over-representation of the votes of people from small states doesn’t seem hugely democratic, does it?
As for the poster asking why this matters, if all states pass the law that California did, the electoral college is overturned. Right now, their law does NOT favor Democrats. It could just as readily elect a Republican president “just because” he won the popular vote but not the electoral vote. A simply shift of 70,000 votes in Ohio would have yielded a Democratic president even though the popular vote went for Bush in this last election. Under California’s new law, the electoral college votes would have been cast for Bush, DECISIVELY handing him the election regardless of how Ohio went. What California has unilaterally done is actually hand Republicans a huge advantage. They can afford to ignore California since it votes Democrat, but make sure they rack up enough votes elsewhere to win the popular vote.
Interesting, no? California has actually tilted the field in favor of Republicans.
10:52 am
I honestly don’t think this is a Rep v Dem issue at all. It is a question of making the presidency irreleveant to tens of millions of voters.
At the moment, despite 2004 results, the one man one vote system would overwhelmingly favor Democrats. And the CO and CA proposals would eviscerate the electoral college and destroy an important component of federalism – the idea that we are a nation of many interests.
Apparently you see nothing wrong with making the top 677 counties in the country the sine qua non of all national elections. More specifically, those counties represent the top 31 TV markets – most of which are concentrated on the coasts and especially out east. Even an additional 37 Areas of Dominant Influence (ADI’s) taken with those markets represent 70% of the population.
You are proposing the disenfranchisement of the bottom 30% of the country. Eminently practical from the point of view of Democrats but outrageously unfair to the non partisan.
10:54 am
Second, in any direct national election there would be significant election-fraud concerns. In the 2000 Bush-Gore race, Mr. Gore’s 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country’s 175,000 precincts. “Finding†three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing
HAHAHAHA. You’re right. It was GORE who stole the election of 2000!
10:58 am
Thank you for pointing out how the intentions of the Founding Fathers for our government are subject to change over time. Indeed, the original intent was for the Electoral College to vote in each state in a manner that precluded being influenced by general election results or anything else, what Rick called a College of Cardinals (see Federalist Papers #68, in particular).
Strict constitutional constructionists pretend that the constitutional intent of the Founding Fathers cannot be changed, except through the formal Constitutional amendment process. Those who read the actual writings of the Founding Fathers know of the considerable dissent AMONG them regarding our government, both philosophically and functionally. The Founders knew also that their work would and should be modified by all three branches of the republic over time. Important to remember when cursing “judicial activists”, i.e., judges who don’t agree with me.
11:05 am
Don’t you think it’s just a little disingenuous to say that moving from a system that favors sparsely populated states (or counties) to a system that favors the actual population of the country will disenfranchise “tens of millions” of voters? Especially when “tens of millions” of voters disenfranchise themselves every election year by not voting. Where’s the outrage about that?
Also, I seem to remember some talk about abolishment of the Electoral College coming mostly from Republicans before 2000. That was, until their guy was the one who “won” the election with 500,000 less popular…
11:12 am
Some comments in defense of direct vote-
Small states have disproportionate voting power in the electoral college.
Example- WY has one vote in the electoral college for every 170K, compared to Texas’ 670K.
States that happen to be split roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans garner much more attention in elections in the electoral college.
Candidates are forced to consider issues that are important to states like FL, OH, and NH, not because those issues are of national importance, but because those states influence elections.
Lastly, the claim that elections would become urban-focused needs to be examined.
Bush in 2004 was able to win a majority of the popular vote without winning in urban areas. If one candidate was to focus on urban areas and ignore rural/suburban/small states, the opposing candidate could focus on the ignored demographics, and as Bush proved in 04, there are enough votes outside urban areas to win the popular vote.
11:17 am
The Electoral College “favors” no one at the moment. Democrats remain more than competitive thanks to their huge lead in the large states as well as majorities in the NE and far west.
Republicans have an edge in the Mountain West, the south (unless the Dems are smart enough to nominate a southerner or border state politician, and the plains states.
The balance of power lies in the Midwest and close races in the border states – MO, TN, KY, WV. Dems dominate in the industrial states of MI, IL, and MN while Republicans do well in farm states like WI, IN, and Ohio.
Do you see where this is going? Either a Dem or Rep must run a national campaign in order to win. They must appeal to a wide cross section of voters in order to prevail.
Under the direct election proposal, the focus of the election would narrow considerably in order to appeal to urban voters. And if it’s apathy you want, see what happens when you cut off 1/3 of the voters from having a stake in the outcome of a Presidential election.
11:18 am
An interesting post here, but it seems to me that an analysis of the role of the electoral college should be made without consideration as to which party it advantages, no? The current political party system we have is NOT mandated by the consitution; thus, it seems to be that which party might be affected more by any (of course, hypothetical at this point) changes is irrelevant. The beautiful thing to me in all of this is that there is no need for anyone to get too worked up here. Because states decide how they will apportion their EC votes, rapid changes are quite unlikely (barring the incredibly improbably circumstance of a Constitutional amendment). Instead, states will tinker here and there, like California and Colorado, people will fight over those changes, and a generally balanced system will be maintained. That said, as an urban coastal stater, I’d really prefer it the system operated to give the states which are the big population centers and economic engines of our country equal weight (relative to population) versus little states (who due to the 2 senators and at least 1 representative, are seriously overweighted).
11:21 am
Fascinating.
It’s amazing that the same debates over the Electoral College 220 years ago are going on today.
Fascinating.
11:24 am
The Electoral College is why our democracy has endured for so long. We are after all talking about an entire branch of government controlled by a single individual with a fixed term. I think it is important that that individual appeals to a broad consensus of his fellow countrymen. This results in our pluralism, uniquely American.
11:27 am
The Electoral College “favors†no one at the moment.
Christopher’s 11:12 am post shows this to be demonstrably false.
11:34 am
If the Dems nominate a southerner, the differences are huge. Whereas if the Reps nominate a small state candidate, they are in trouble (FL and TX are very competitive for Democrats without a Bush at the top of the ticket).
Look beyond the present and concentrate on the efficacy of the system.
The point is not superior influence but fairness. Chris was saying anyone living in Wyoming may as well live on the surface of the moon for all the influence his vote SHOULD have in a presidential election. Whereas no one is saying that in the EC system about anyone in a big state.
11:59 am
Wow,
I have to say that I think most of Dupont’s arguments and yours are largely specious.
Let’s go through them in order:
This is largely the situation we have now except that the “important†voters are from the so-called battleground states. In the last election, Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas might as well have not voted. Candidates didn’t spend any time there because what was the point? Everyone knew where those electoral votes were going, so no one bothered to campaign there. That was the fact in a solid majority of the 50 states. What you had in 2000 and 2004 was all the money in a few battleground states representing a minority of the US population. In other words, a few hundred thousand republicans in New Hampshire were worth more than all the republicans in California. DuPont seems to think that today’s elections are somehow geographically wide – they are not.
That may be true, but as it stands now, New York’s and California’s voters don’t matter because everyone already knows who will win those State’s electoral votes. In essence, the minority party of these states gets screwed, to say nothing of independent candidates. Direct voting would make some voting blocks less important, but that condition exists now. And the poor rural folk who supposedly won’t be important anymore will still have money to donate to ensure candidates pay attention to them.
Fraud concerns: This is about an even split I believe. As it stands now, a relatively few fraudulent votes in one state can swing an election – Florida 2000 being the prime example. Admittedly, monitoring fraud nationwide would be more difficult for everyone, but if we actually had a decent voting and registration system in this country then this would be much less of an issue. Voting fraud has nothing to do with the electoral college – it’s a problem in its own right that still needs to be solved.
This is the kicker here. What is constitutional or desirable about the two-party system? The only thing Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on is ensuring that no other parties or candidates should ever be able to run. The founding fathers never intended for this to be a two-party system. The examples he uses are BS. People would still have to get on the ballot in all the states. And besides, what’s so bad about having a candidate that you actually want to vote for instead of choosing the lesser of two evils? Maybe the pathetically low turnout and registration rates in this country would improve, but I’m sure Du Pont wouldn’t support that – think of the chaos all those new voters would cause!
BULLSHIT. The reason that candidates now have an Electoral College majority is because there are ONLY TWO FREAKING CANDIDATES! So one will always have more college votes than the other! That doesn’t somehow make them strong or popular – it means they were the least worst choice. I voted for Bush in the last two elections mainly because I couldn’t stand the Democratic ticket. I’m not alone in this regard. What if we kept the Electoral College and had 4 candidates? You know what, then one of those candidates could win with as little as 25.1% of the Electoral College vote! I wonder what Du Pont thinks of that? Oh, I already know – he thinks there should only be two parties to choose from in the first place. I bet he’s a big supporter of the primary system too: We get two candidates chosen by a small minority of the most partisan voters in 4-6 states that run in elections that are decided by a minority of voters in 10-15 other states. Great system.
There are problems with a direct-election system, but I don’t see them as any worse than what we have now, which is a completely flawed system. At least with direct elections we’d actually have national campaigns, instead of those focused on a few key demographics in a few key states. More important than the Electoral College, however, is breaking the duopoly of power the two parties have. Since they control all the state election organs, plus redistricting, and blocking any election reform proposals, it’s pretty much impossible for other candidates to compete. I think a strong third party would go a long way to solving a lot of these issues.
12:01 pm
The current EC give more weight to votes cast in small staes. In effect each of those voters have super votes. The current system also diminishes the value of votes cast in large states.
Under a “one man one vote” system the Wyoming voter would be still be more valuable than a republican voter in New York.
12:04 pm
The last paragraph should read.
Under a “one man one vote†system the Wyoming voter would be still be more valuable than a republican voter in New York [i]UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM[/i].
12:04 pm
FAP:
I see part of your point but you neglect to point out that our blue state Rep would more than likely have a campaign tailored to appeal to his interests whereas the WY voter would be left out in the cold as far as having his concerns addressed in a national campaign.
Currently, both candidates have to appeal to a broad spectrum of interests. I just don’t see that happening in a non EC system.
12:21 pm
Rick:
There is a repeated claim that rural/small state voters will be left out of a direct vote election. The only argument I’ve seen so far that supports this is the fact that these voters will be more expensive to reach, compared to urban voters, because they are more spread out.
Is there more to it than that? I don’t see this as a question of whether we have more urban voters or rural/small state voters, because Bush was able to win a majority of the popular vote without urban support.
Please just give more detail of the “rural voter left out” argument.
12:23 pm
Rick and I see your point. I’m not saying the current EC system is not a valid one.
I am saying it’s not a fair one as it allocates different value to different voters based solely on their addresses.
12:31 pm
Conspiracy?
Since we have decided as a country that we will refuse to look into any of the problems in Ohio 2004, I’d hardly call that a conspiracy.
No democracy could withstand an investigation into voting irregularities.
That’s obvious.
12:59 pm
One thing that this whole discussion point keeps missing is that we are NOT a democracy. Democracies are frightening things that eventually lead to such sweetness as Hitler, Stalin and the liberal hero over there in Cuba, and one party and one way of thinking (liberal) being the only thing that makes any headway. (check Canadian politics for proof of that where the truly smart are terrorized yearly by the bad political thinking of Quebec and Ontario)
We are a democratic repubblic (which is why you can whine and moan and cry about “popular vote” until those cows come home and I just won’t feel sorry for you.. especially when your guy was attempting to be the REAL thief in a democratic republic a few years ago) and as such densely populated areas have not been allowed a reign of terror over the hard working rural dwellers that feed them. That is the genius of the EC. Until you have something better that assures that rich, bloated urbanites can’t do that, I vote for keeping it.
1:03 pm
The Electoral College is like the NFL’s revenue sharing & salary cap. It provides equal chance for all teams to compete and has resulted in a much larger audience and higher revenues. The Senate & Electoral College have served us well.
1:04 pm
Wow Noelie. Way to have an unbiased view.
“densely populated areas have not been allowed a reign of terror over the hard working rural dwellers”
Call back when you get a clue.
1:12 pm
The argument of ditching the EC disenfranchising voters is simply false.
Disenfranchisement means a very specific thing- your vote has no impact on the resolution of the issue.
Currently the EC does in fact disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. Getting rid of it would in fact fix that.
For an example consider my home state of Oregon. In 2000 47% of the population turned out to vote for Bush. That’s some 700,000 voters. 47% also turned out for Gore. Gore won the popular vote by less than .5% of the total vote (7,000 votes) and so got Oregon’s 7 elctoral votes. Obviously the electorla otes are the only ones that matter which means that 700,000 Bush voters were in fact disenfranchised. Had they stayed home there would have been absolutely no difference, Gore would still have recieved 7 electoral votes.
That is the literal meaning of disenfranchisement, and it does not occur with direct election. Indeed the whole idea of direct election resulting in disenfranchisement is absurdly oxymoronic.
So if we had direct elections would those 700,000 voters have mattered? Yes. That’s not to say they would have prevailed, they wouldn’t have, Bush lost the popular vote. But had they stayed home it would have made a difference- Bush would have lost the popular vote by over a million rather than by 500,000.
Direct election is the ONLY way for every person;s vote to matter. If we choose to live in big cities on the coast then the elections need to reflect that. Under the current system people are disenfranchised.
1:24 pm
Wow, a completely flawed premise has spawned a truly interesting debate. One that has been going on since the founding of the country, but interesting nonetheless. I have to agree with most of the commenters. Direct elections would seem to be the fairer system.
I would like to contest the hypothesis that it wouldn’t favor Republicans. First off, it has been pointed out that Bush won in rural areas. But I want to address what the author spoke of: that it would cost more to reach rural voters. This makes no sense.
Advertising costs are based off of eyeballs reached, not square miles covered. Advertising in smaller markets is cheaper than in larger markets. So if one wanted to reach rural voters they could make lots of smaller ad buys instead of a few large ones. Logistically you may be talking about a bit more work for the advertising coordinator, but that’s about the extent of the difference.
Do you have any facts or market analysis to back-up your cost claims?
1:50 pm
How about we keep the electoral college, but only count the electoral votes of those states that are net contributors to the federal Treasury? This will provide the power to the states that are paying for the government. It will also give the states an incentive to reduce the federal dole.
1:52 pm
Chatterbox,
“Fair” is a subjective term. California “joined” the Union under a Constitution that selects a President by state electors. The California legislature allows its citizens to vote for those electors, thus every vote counts. The state has electors based on population and each state gets 2 extra electoral votes for being a state. To amend the Constitution, each state is equal, should we just have referendums to change the Constitution too?
2:07 pm
Hey direct electors, how do you feel that Tony Blair was not elected by popular vote as Prime Minister?
2:21 pm
“Hey direct electors, how do you feel that Tony Blair was not elected by popular vote as Prime Minister?”
What am I, british?
2:24 pm
“The California legislature allows its citizens to vote for those electors, thus every vote counts.”
False, since all the electors are awarded as a group. If they were awarded proportionally then you could argue that within the granularity of the apportionment their votes counted. But in a winner takes all votes environment the voters for the loser are literally disenfranchised as above.
2:39 pm
Tlaloc,
Winner take all rules could be changed by the legislature, there is no disfranchisement from such laws. Nebraska awards proportionally. I think this new law is really stupid to award on how the rest of the county votes. What if there is a major storm in the North East and turn out is low? California may not have enough votes to make up for low turnout, the Democrat won New York, New Jersey and if awarded California would win the Electoral College, but the Republican gets California’s electors for having greater popular vote.
2:55 pm
“Winner take all rules could be changed by the legislature, there is no disfranchisement from such laws.”
There is absolutely disenfranchisment as I demonstrated above. Can you actually dispute the facts I gave there regarding Oregon as an example?
But with regards to the legislature you are right, however that was exactly what Moran was arguing against! He was decrying the use of legislative moves (like California’s) as a way of subverting the Electrola College.
“What if there is a major storm in the North East and turn out is low?”
How is that any different than if there is a storm in San Francisco and turn out there is low? You are raising an issue that affects all forms of democracy as if it were peculiar to direct elections- it isn’t.
3:14 pm
First, these sort of laws do not eliminate the electoral college. The constitution allows that states dictate how their electroal votes are awarded. What a drama queen! If enough states adopt these laws, then the electoral college becomes irrelavant without tinkering with the Constitution in the least.
Second, voters are seriously disenfranchised by awarding electoral votes to state winners. At this point, a Democratic vote in South Carolina or a Republican vote is New York are symbolic gestures without impact. I think the biggest advatage of this system is that it would increase voter participation in both Red and Blue states.
Finally, should enough states enact these laws, I think citizens would benefit greatly from national campaigns rather than state-by-state strategies. Currently, our presidents are selected by the voters of Florida, Ohio and Pennsyvania. I suspect that Republicans are comfortable with this formula, but it strikes me as wrong.
3:15 pm
Not liking a law passed by duly elected representatives is not disenfranchisement. Winner take all is perfectly acceptable. We don’t have proportional Presidencies. The winner gets the office, takes all.
If anything, Electoral College guarantees each state its representation, regardless of turn-out.
3:40 pm
I really don’t think the President of the United States should be elected by 30-35% of Americans, the result of this California type elector award. The office is too powerful, extreme candidates would arise and our pluralism would diminish.
3:41 pm
“Not liking a law passed by duly elected representatives is not disenfranchisement.”
No it isn’t, nor have I claimed such. I gave you a simple factual example of disenfranchisement and you have yet to address it in any meaningful way byond saying “nyuh-uh!”
“Winner take all is perfectly acceptable.”
For the result, yes, for a middle step, no. Again, I already dealt with this in my original post (#28). There is a very huge difference between the final result being winner take all and a middle step. In the case of a middle step that means you have disenfranchised every vote prior to that step that was not for the eventual winner. Their votes made absolutely no difference to the process which is the DEFINITION of disenfranchisement.
With the elctoral system we do not in fact vote for the president only for the Electors who are the ONLY ones who actually have a say in the selection of the president. If we do not have a say in the selection of electors we do not have a say in the selection of the president. In a system where the Electors are awarded in a winner take all manner the losers have no say at all in the selection of the president. They are, once again by DEFINITION, disenfranchised. Whether they vote or do not vote affects the decision not one whit.
In a direct election the voters for the loser directly affect how large a margin their candidate lost by. While that may be cold comfort that is how democracy works.
“If anything, Electoral College guarantees each state its representation, regardless of turn-out.”
States don’t matter. People matter. A person in Oregon should count exactly as much as a person in Wyoming. But under the Electoral system they don’t. Or more precisely their votes don’t.
4:15 pm
I really don’t think the President of the United States should be elected by 30-35% of Americans, the result of this California type elector award. The office is too powerful, extreme candidates would arise and our pluralism would diminish.
Like I said in my long comment above, the only reason this doesn’t happen now is because there are only two candidates. If there were 3 relatively even candidates under the CURRENT SYSTEM, then they could get the Presidency with 30-35% of the EC vote and even less of the popular vote. So that is not a strike against direct voting, it’s a strike against the two-party system.
5:12 pm
Oh….christ. You don’t mind if Bush becomes King, disregarding all and any of the Constitution he wants in the name of the WARONTERA, but now it’s all moany moany “... stripping America of one of her oldest and most cherished institutions.” Whatever.
“Republicans would be at enormous logistical disadvantage under such a system.”
OH there it is.
5:12 pm
“States don’t matter. People matter. A person in Oregon should count exactly as much as a person in Wyoming”
That is what you may desire, but this is a Federal Republic where states are given the power to elect Presidents. It is not a matter of “counting” more or less, it is a matter of each state and its citizens an equal place at the table to determine the President of the United States. As I had mentioned before, the Prime Minister is not elected by popular vote, each MP is elected like an elector, and the majority coalition of those pick the Prime Minister. Are the people of Great Britain disenfranchised because they don’t cast a vote for Prime Minister? Unlike a Prime Minister, a President is not beholding to a coalition, has a fixed term, and always represents a majority of the states in the Republic. President Clinton may have won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, but he commanded a healthy majority of the states.
Your #28 Oregon example makes no sense. The election was for Oregon electors, Gore won by 7,000. The will of the people to send Oregon’s slate of electors to vote for Gore was done. No different than xyz MP won by 7,000 to cast his support to Tony Blair.
5:14 pm
Okay…let me get this straight…
Bush, King + Bad
Dems, with enormous advantage = Good
Just checking,...
5:43 pm
“That is what you may desire, but this is a Federal Republic where states are given the power to elect Presidents.”
Fine, then don’t complain when people use “one man one vote” as a rallying cry because you are explicitly saying that is not the case now. You are certainly correct in that regard as I have been laboring to show, but it runs very contrary to the ideology of the country. As Moran mentions the Electoral College was created as a way to disenfranchise the unwashed masses.
Now that the masses have decent access to baths some of us think it’s outlived its purpose.
“It is not a matter of “counting†more or less, it is a matter of each state and its citizens an equal place at the table to determine the President of the United States.”
Ah, but the choice is between offering an equal place to each state OR to the people. You can’t do both unless state boundaries were redrawn based on census data to make each state have precisely equal population. Obviously that is untenable so a choice has to be made as to which it is that actually grants consent to governance: abstract geographical boundaries or actual people?
Naturally the constitution does contain mechanisms for protection of the minority, the method of Senate apportionment being an example, and it should. But election of the Chief Exectuitve was not supposed to be one of those, nor should it. Just as the Judiciary must be insulated from the whims of the majority the Executive must be directly beholden to it (with congress inbetween).
“Are the people of Great Britain disenfranchised because they don’t cast a vote for Prime Minister?”
That depends on whether there is a winner take all step (or other counter-democratic function) inbetween their vote for the MP and the final result of a vote for prime minister. If yes then they have absolutely been disenfranchised. If not then no they haven’t.
Consider Congressional leaders. People vote for congressmen and senators who then elect from within their party leaders. Let us take Wyoming as a hypothetical case. They have only one Rep and two Senators as i recall. Naturally that means that anyone who voted against the winning rep has absolutely no say in the matter of who is the House of Representative’s leader (for either party as it turns out). If the population was exactly split and got one senator from each party they might be adequately represented in the Senate leadership selection. Such a result is of course highly unlikely and almost certainly a good portion of the people of Wisconsin will be disenfranchised from the selection of the House and Senate majority and minority leaders.
But that’s not terribly important because it was never important that the congressional leaderships were directly selected. They already have a mandate as congressmen, their further mandate to lead their particular party in congress can derive easily enough from their peers.
Not so the President of the United States.
” Your #28 Oregon example makes no sense. The election was for Oregon electors, Gore won by 7,000. The will of the people to send Oregon’s slate of electors to vote for Gore was done.”
Here is a simple question- would the result be any different AT ALL had every Bush voter in Oregon stayed home? No it wouldn’t have. That is precisely the definition of disenfranchisement. For them voting or not voting are exactly the same. Gore would get those seven electoral votes either way. They had no say in the matter at all.
I’m curious what possible definition of disenfranchisement you could use where that doesn’t fit the bill?
5:44 pm
If this debate is a vote, and I know it is not, I would vote to eliminate the College. Our society is increasingly mobile and our geography matters less. Electing the President is a national election and should be treated as such. Many people have lived in three or more states in their adult lifetimes. Just because one lives in New York now doesn’t mean their values from rural Kansas, where they were raised, shouldn’t count (as is often the case now as pointed out by many previous posters).
A person’s vote from Wyoming should not count for more than a vote from Oregon, New York, California, Texas, Maryland, and most every other state.
7:53 pm
I have to say, I just take issue with anyone calling the Electoral College a “cherished” institution. It is mostly an ignored and a misunderstood one, but there is absolutely no basis for asserting that it is (nationally) “cherished”.
8:31 pm
Rick,
I’m not sure who your last comment was directed to, but I’d like to say that I don’t think party politics should play into this at all and I’m certainly not basing my arguments on that premise.
9:14 pm
Learn how to count votes. Fix ANY of the problems from your 2000 embarrasment. Get a verifiable paper trail and do SOMETHING about the 6% of you who think you shouldn’t be allowed to view the process. (Where do you come up with these morons?) Increase the number of polling places to, oh, I dunno, enough? Don’t hold ballots on weekdays. Make voting compulsory. Reduce the complexity of voting. Paper and pencils are all you need. Verify ballot layouts at a national level.
When you’ve accomplished all of that, you could then maybe consider the role of the college.
12:55 am
Good post. Good debate.
I especially liked the Sister Mary Elephant reference.
1:29 am
Submitted for Your Approval
Submitted for Your Approval First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for t…
4:32 am
I’d point out in Maryland that a Democrat can win the state by winning only three out of 24 jurisdictions. If there were an electoral college like system in Maryland it would force the Democrat to seek broader appeal for his/her agenda.
One interesting consequence of going to majority rule according to your assessment is that we’d likely go back to something the founders anticipated. The founders figured that politicians would represent the interests of their states and looked down upon political parties as being crude. It would seem, ironically, that an implication of getting rid of the electoral system would be to re-emphasize the primacy of state interests. A secondary effect would be to weaken party ties.
7:11 am
Tlaloc,
Thank you, it is what we are and it takes 3/4ths of the “states” to change it. While leftists may like the 5 people on the bench to change the Constitution, Bush has done an excellent job of appointing true Constitutional adherents.
You should be against the Senate. Why California has 20% of the population yet only 2% of the Senators? Even worse, California has the same power as New Hampshire to call a Constitutional convention?
Fountain,
World governance is your forte, India and China should govern us.
Andy,
I LOVE and CHERISH the Electoral College, it was designed to eliminate political parties. It is no accident that we have only 2 major parties.
Rail,
Under law, inaction does not constitute an action. Saddam had compulsory voting. If anything, weekday voting hinders working property owners.
Soccer Dad,
Political parties were considered treason in 1789. They NEVER considered majority rule as good.
9:53 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Save the Electoral College!†[...]
12:19 pm
Please just give more detail of the “rural voter left out†argument.
The larger an electorate, the more districted elections incentivize the frontrunner (who usually becomes the winner) to “keep the losers happy” and govern them fairly. There’s math behind it and everything. Primary source here, blogged about here.
1:22 pm
soccer dad:
“I’d point out in Maryland that a Democrat can win the state by winning only three out of 24 jurisdictions. If there were an electoral college like system in Maryland it would force the Democrat to seek broader appeal for his/her agenda.”
Important point here- by “broader” you mean broader GEOGRAPHICALLY but not broader as in representing more people. In fact the system means they would be representing fewer by pandering to low density areas that carry a disproportionate amount of electoral votes. Pretty obviously that system is not optimal since it is people and not acres that vote.
1:27 pm
“Thank you, it is what we are and it takes 3/4ths of the “states†to change it. While leftists may like the 5 people on the bench to change the Constitution, Bush has done an excellent job of appointing true Constitutional adherents.”
So you’ve replaced ignoring my direct argument to simply spouting talking points. Nice.
“You should be against the Senate. Why California has 20% of the population yet only 2% of the Senators? Even worse, California has the same power as New Hampshire to call a Constitutional convention?”
Here’s what I said about the distribution of powers in post #45:
“Naturally the constitution does contain mechanisms for protection of the minority, the method of Senate apportionment being an example, and it should. But election of the Chief Exectuitve was not supposed to be one of those, nor should it. Just as the Judiciary must be insulated from the whims of the majority the Executive must be directly beholden to it (with congress inbetween).”
Was that really so hard to read and understand?
3:11 pm
To those who believe in the traditional rationale for the EC (such as we are a republic, with the president chosen by states, not people):
How about keeping the EC but scrapping the winner-take-all distribution of electoral votes? Maine and Nebraska currently award each district’s one vote to the winner of that district, with the two senatorial votes going as a special reward to the statewide popular winner. It has the merit of awarding EVs with more proportionality. It’s more democratic than the current system because all voters are competing to put their guy over the top in districts of equal population density. The two senatorial votes DO give extra power to rural voters, but less than they now enjoy. A flaw to this idea is the vulnerability to gerrymandering, not to mention fraud. Currently in most states the fraudsters must swing the entire state popular vote to effect the electoral vote count but in Maine and Nebraska you can steal one district and swing that one vote. In 2000 it was certainly feasible that Nader could have carried a single district in one of those states, had he wished to concentrate on it—opening the possibility of a tie in the electoral college. But some kinds of fraud and gerrymandering would be mitigated by containing the damage to a single district. You would no longer be able to steal, say, the most populated county and then carry the state.
The other suggestion would be proportional awarding of electoral votes. Get 20% of the of statewide vote, and walk away with 20% of the EVs. Small states still get a boost based on the two senatorial votes.
I haven’t done any of this math so I have no idea who’d benefit but that’s irrelevant, right? The question behind all of this is, who should be picking the president: the states or the people?
And most Americans have been brought up to believe that this is a democracy so would probably say the people.
7:09 pm
“Saddam had compulsory voting.”
He also had running water and electricity. What’s your point?
11:29 pm
Watchers of weasels 8/30/06
The nominations are in. Here is a rundown of this week’s Council posts … In Cutting the Biased Some Slack, Sundries Shack notes that all journalists appear to be on the same team. It just may not be the team of freeedom and democracy. Done with Mirr…
2:59 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Empire and Apocalypse by Gates of …
5:30 pm
Well, I also don’t see why a rural voter (or one from Wyoming) should count more than I do when it comes to choosing the president. Further, there are actually three states in which the EC votes are not distributed as “winner takes all,”—and they are rather small states. But to say that democracy is best served by having presidents elected by states (as units), not individual voters is indeed a strange bit of reasoning. Furthrermore, it is certainly not unusual for candidates to be picked based upon the state that they are from under the Electoral College: in the late 19th century, the popular saying regarding presidential candidates was: “Some are born great; others are born in Ohio.”
And finally, having grown up in Oklahoma, I can tell you that there are PLENTY of states who are completely ignored by the candidates now—the Electoral College certainly makes no difference.
1:34 pm
We are proposing the reform of the Electoral College in California. Our initiative is that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in each Congressional District gets the Elector. The two Electors that reflect the two Senate seats would be selected by the statewide popular vote. It is called the Mundt-Cordier Plan and is now installed in Maine and Nebraska.
The current system is that the winner of the popular vote in California takes all 55 Electors. The Los Angeles and San Francisco areas determine the Electors for the entire State.
This is not democratic and is unfair.
Call us: 916-230-2123
12:14 pm
[...] The entire United States Constitution was built around a system of Checks and Balances. Since “Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom,” it is obviously another Check and Balance built into the Constitution. People vote for someone. What if it’s the wrong person? The Electoral College checks the people. The House and Senate are Checks against the Electoral College. Even in spite of the people espousing their belief that the Electoral College is not needed, there are some who read between the lines of those who want to discard the Electoral College. [...]