An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Republicans Issue Press Release Using Clinton’s Words Against Obama Against Obama

About the nomineee, politics and pathways to a better future »

Will we see the end of the Electoral College?

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Jun 7th, 2008 | Comments

According to Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the time has come.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College on Friday, less than a week after the Democrats settled on how to handle delegates from Florida at their national convention.

“It’s time for Congress to really give Americans the power of one-person, one-vote, instead of the political machinery selecting candidates and electing our president,” Nelson said in a release announcing the amendment.

Nelson had announced he would offer the legislation in an address to his state’s senate in March.

Seeing this proposal (not the first, by the way) come out of the state of Florida is no surprise. With the Sunshine State being the scene of the 2000 electoral debacle and, more recently, the botched Democratic primary race, feelings have long been running high about the relative merits of the “one person, one vote” concept vs. our antiquated electoral college system. But is it even possible?

This is not a state level decision, but rather a proposal for a constitutional amendment. It will have a long road to travel if it even makes it out of Congress. (Still doubtful at best.) A large number of states will need to agree, and they will include many smaller states, traditionally under Republican control who have benefitted from the existing system. They will argue that a popular vote system will give disproportionate power to the major population centers on the West Coast and in the Northeast. (Which, by some coincidence, tend to lean more Democratic and liberal.) This, they will say, robs the smaller states in “flyover country” of their voice in selecting the president.

I tend to go back and forth on this question myself. But in the end, I find it hard to argue with the idea of the true majority of voters selecting their leaders.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

dadmanly

Jazz,

Would I be right in guessing you're from a big population state, possibly in the East?

Because the whole point of the Electoral College was to dilute the power and influence of Big population States overwhelming small states.

Strictly speaking, that means South Dakota and Iowa and Rhode Island and Maine and Arkansas gte more influence than they deserve only by number of voters.

But it also means that it isn't up to ONLY New York, California, and Texas to decide who gets elected President. (A million votes or less? That can be made up in one or two precincts in LA or NYC.)

It always seems that only those with a particular agenda -- Having a Democrat elected President -- or those residing in a Big Population states seem to think the Electoral College so "antiquated."

Jazz

Well, for what it's worth, I do currently live in upstate New York, though I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Democratic Party. The history of the electoral college is long and complex, and explained well in the Federlist Papers. Some aspects were well intended and had positive consequences, even in to the modern day, but it's important to also remember the other aspects. Our founders really didn't want the "great unwashed masses" making important decisions if they proved to be too unwise to select the "right person" and the college was also originally inteded to be a check against "popular ignorance." I would hope we've moved beyond that.

As to the arguments about regionality in the popular vote, many of the talking points carry a lot of popular appeal, but leave serious questions. You say that a few precincts in LA or NYC can wipe out a million votes elsewhere. True. But by the same token, numbers are numbers. The people in all of the "flyover states", with a solid front, can still outnumber the coasts handily. And in the end, is it ever really fair to say that the winner should be the person who less people voted for no matter where they reside? I suppose that's my question for you. It's not geography or post office code where any one vote is cast, it's a simple question of whether or not you believe that each vote counts for the same amount? In the current (and traditional) system, they seem not to.

mikkel

I think that the primary historical consideration when discussing the electoral college is the role of the Federal Government. Even the Federalists envisioned that state policies would have much more of an effect on most people's lives, and that the states would be relatively sovereign and independent players.

This is definitely not the case these days. As such, I find it hard to argue for giving rural areas a greater representation, especially when most regional specific laws are put together by Congress and rarely addressed by the President.

Neocon

Wyoming gets 3 votes........California gets 55

I think that is about as fair as it gets.

No. The time has not come.

mikkel

Yeah and California has 60x more people...

Anyway, I'm surprised it hasn't come up that in our current climate, the vast majority of people in the country are effectively disfranchised. Living in Ohio, I constantly have people say "how does it feel that your vote actually counts?"

People decry the lack of political involvement, but at the same time, in most states it doesn't matter whether you vote because the winner of the state is preordained. Going to popular vote (or having the states decide their electoral college votes would be proportionally split) would convince more people to go to the polls and become more active in the process.

Jazz

Mikkel makes an excellent point here. As stated, I live in New York. My vote has never counted in a presidential election. I have actually voted for a number of Republicans and third party candidates, but none of them ever counted.

superdestroyer

Considering how the U.S. is headed to being a one party state, the electorial college will be as irrelevant as the Republican Party. In 2016, the real electio for president will be the Democratic Primary were four states (Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina will have about 90% of the say on who will be the president. The residents of California, Texas, New York will even have less say that in the current system.

StockBoySF

There seems to be too much room for mischief in the electoral college for the election of the president/vp. Generally states' electoral colleges will give their votes to the candidate who received the most popular vote. But some states can apportion the electoral college differently. In a tight presidential race, a state's population might vote for candidate "Y'. Typically that state would cast its votes for "Y" (which would give Y the presidency), but this particular state decided to casts its votes along popular vote line. Because the vote was close the other candidate, "X" is declared the winner and becomes president.

So I'm all for the direct election of the president by popular vote.

BBQ

If we really want to throw it out we might as well do a proportional election so we can finally have more than two parties.

Tully

Just to state the obvious: The purpose of the Electoral College is the same as the purpose of giving each state two Senators. Namely, to prevent the more populous states from oppressing (and I use that word literally) the smaller, less populous states. And indeed, that's the core of the "unequal" representation of states, that they get as many electoral college votes as they have seats in Congress.

The compromise that came up with that system was a wise one, and the purposes for which it was designed still apply as much as ever.

bellisaurius

I'm generally skeptical of constitutional amendments, but this one might be on the lines of the one about direct election of senators and such, so there's only a minor general principal issue.

Game theory wise, the electoral college does have it's advantages (which are increased by the fact that all but two states bundle their votes, which is, in the end, the real problem. Otherwise, the popular vote and electoral votes would be very similar), in that your vote represents a higher percentage of the state's vote than it ever would of the federal one. To be fair, my understanding of the overall theory is that all voting systems are flawed in some way, and the only best way to go is to make sure the rules don't change in the middle of an election.

Finally, we should remember that we're a federal republic, and states do matter. I see no reason to strip them of the ability to decide how they want the votes of their election to change. Otherwise, if this was a justice issue, we'd see more states putting up to change the winner take all system (by a side other than the expected loser).

bluebuddha

The problem with the Electoral College is the whole thing is inefficient and cobbled together. For one thing, each state has its own rules as to how they will cast their electoral votes: for example, NE and ME split their votes instead of going "one for all" like the other 48 states. Also, most states have rules that the EC representatives can vote for whomever they damn well want to, actual election result be damned... that's right, if one state conspired to vote for, say Ralph Nader or Bob Barr, just for the heck of it, they have every right to! Of course, something like this hasn't happened since the 40's or 50's.

While I can understand state rights and all, doing this for a Federal election is kind of bullshit. If there is any hope of keeping the EC alive, the first thing that needs to be done is have one set of rules instead of fifty. Also, the "one for all" per state system sucks. If each district had one vote instead of state by state, it would more closely reflect the popular vote, and there's far less chance that an entire election would fall on the will of one large state (eg: Gore would've won 2000 if EVs were split up).

Apphouse50

What is it about the fractions 2/3 and 3/4 opponents of the electoral college don't understand? Love it or hate it, it's pretty much naivete or grandstanding to suggest it's going away. In my experience, a lot of the people who rail against the electoral college don't have any idea why there are enough states who think it's swell -- because they don't understand why places like Wyoming and Montana don't think their polls should be shut down for the night once the eastern time zone returns are in.

Apphouse50

Think of all the gas that can be saved in the far western states if the east coast and a few industrial states east of the Mississippi can save them the trouble of driving to the polls by determining the presidency at 7 or 8 pm on election night!

Truthlight

Yeah, for Senator Nelson!! The time has come for One-Person, One-Vote.

Let's put it out there and vote on it.............again, one-person, one-vote. There is no other way that's truly fair.

Citizens deserve this.

Tully

While I can understand state rights and all, doing this for a Federal election is kind of bullshit. If there is any hope of keeping the EC alive, the first thing that needs to be done is have one set of rules instead of fifty. Also, the "one for all" per state system sucks. If each district had one vote instead of state by state, it would more closely reflect the popular vote, and there's far less chance that an entire election would fall on the will of one large state (eg: Gore would've won 2000 if EVs were split up).

States can do that now, and Maine and Nebraska do. That's completely up to them and always has been.

But an amendment asking the states to surrender their power in a federal republic in exchange for straight brute democracy--essentially abandoning the entire core Constitutional principal of state's rights-- is not going to fly, for the simple and obvious reason that enough of the states themselves recognize the purpose (and benefit) of the system that an amendment can not muster the numbers required to pass. Only the more populous states that would be winners in terms of influence will be in favor, and they by definition a minority.

blog comments powered by Disqus