Abolishing the Electoral College

[pgwenthold]

There was a great discussion today on Al Franken's show about the potential for abolishing the Electoral College.

OK, abolishing it wouldn't be easy. It would require amending the constitution, and that requires 3/4 of the states on board. Most people are pretty realistic that it would be very hard to change the practice, and I think it's not a stretch to say that's how it should be.

OTOH, there is a new plan that makes it so you don't abolish the electoral college, but you can make it basically obsolete. Recall that the current electoral procedures of having all the state's electoral votes decided by the winner of the popular vote in the state is not actually specified in the constitution, and it is in fact up to the state legislatures to determine how the electoral votes are distributed (for example, some states distribute them by congressional districts). So the idea is for the legislature to declare the that the state's electoral votes will be given to the candidate that gets the most popular votes NATIONALLY. With this approach, it only takes enough states to account for the majority of the electoral votes to make it so that the winner of the popular vote will always win the election (note that given the extra weight given to smaller states, this means that if it were the largest X states on board, the % of the population in the states that support the measures would be greater than the % of electoral votes - it could be something like 55% of the population but only 51% of the electoral votes)

This type of process would make the electoral college complete moot. Whoever would win the popular vote wins the election.

Now, there are always the questions of do we want to do this? There are good things about the EC, and there are not so good things (no presidential candidate wastes a lot of time (or money) in my state, because it is solidly red; but if the popular vote matters, then my vote matters). However, this is a plan around it, and the surprising thing is, it is completely within the guidelines of the constitution.

I'm not advocating it (or disparaging it, for that matter), just noting that it is an interesting thing to think about.

 

[Number Six]

I'm not sure I get this. Right now all a states electoral votes go to whoever won that state. It seems counterintuitive for it to be in the interest of State X to change the rules such that all its electoral votes will go to whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of whether that same candidate won the popular vote in State X. OTOH I can understand how, if the rules were that whoever won the national popular vote also won the election, it would benefit the states with more people because they'd become more important to campgain in.

How about this...could you even get the change done in a state? For example, California usually goes Democrat but is usually ignored because it goes Democrat regardless, so it would be in the Democrats interest to pass this rule in California, which means the Republicans in the California legislature would fight against it. Could the Democrats get it passed?

It seems it would only work if each state involve could be assured other states would go along and do it too. Otherwise, it seems like a state that did it alone would in effect be handing over some of its power to the other states.

 

[rwguinn]

It is always funny (peculiar, not ha-ha) to me that the system that allows all states a say is disparaged by folks living in the few states which have the population to determine a simply popular vote...
Heck, let's stick it to the folk in Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoing, and all those places where people shouldn't be living anyway.Then we can giv them back to the Buffalo...

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm not sure I get this. Right now all a states electoral votes go to whoever won that state. It seems counterintuitive for it to be in the interest of State X to change the rules such that all its electoral votes will go to whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of whether that same candidate won the popular vote in State X. OTOH I can understand how, if the rules were that whoever won the national popular vote also won the election, it would benefit the states with more people because they'd become more important to campgain in.

How about this...could you even get the change done in a state? For example, California usually goes Democrat but is usually ignored because it goes Democrat regardless, so it would be in the Democrats interest to pass this rule in California, which means the Republicans in the California legislature would fight against it. Could the Democrats get it passed?

It seems it would only work if each state involve could be assured other states would go along and do it too. Otherwise, it seems like a state that did it alone would in effect be handing over some of its power to the other states.

I left that part of the nitty gritty out of it. The idea is that it would be written so that it only goes into effect if the majority of the states (at least, the majority of the electoral votes) adopt the same type of measure.

 

[pgwenthold]

It is always funny (peculiar, not ha-ha) to me that the system that allows all states a say is disparaged by folks living in the few states which have the population to determine a simply popular vote...
Heck, let's stick it to the folk in Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoing, and all those places where people shouldn't be living anyway.Then we can giv them back to the Buffalo...

So the election should be determined by land mass?

Why should the states have the say, as opposed to the people?

If you go by popular vote, it doesn't matter if you live in Montana or California, your vote counts the same.

 

[Aoidoi]

I just love the idea of a nationwide recount. Imagine the fun that'd cause!

 

[Beerina]

...because it's important, oh so vitally important, that the concrete canyon dwellers in New York and California determine how the Grand Canyon and Alaska be operated.

And I'm a bit confused about the plan. You're suggesting a state legislature declare all their electoral votes go to the candidate who gets the most (popular) votes nationally? Even if that particular state votes for the other guy?

It'll fail miserably. Here's why: A state votes for the other guy. Population is completely outraged their electoral votes go to the national winner. State level politicians reverse the law right quick, since they'll be out on their cans themselves the next election.

Yeah, there has to be something more to it than this. As described, it's in the interest of no state legislatures anywhere, big or small state.

 

[pgwenthold]

...because it's important, oh so vitally important, that the concrete canyon dwellers in New York and California determine how the Grand Canyon and Alaska be operated.

No more than in the current system that the Montana ranchers and Hawaiin beach bums have more say in how the Army and Coast Guard are run.

Why the implication that the views of concrete canyon dwellers are less important than those of the Montana ranchers?

And I'm a bit confused about the plan. You're suggesting a state legislature declare all their electoral votes go to the candidate who gets the most (popular) votes nationally? Even if that particular state votes for the other guy?

That's the plan.

It's already an issue. It's no different than Congressional district 1 voting for Candidate B, but the state prefers candidate A. Boulder County, CO probably voted 80% for Kerry in the last election, but all of CO's votes went to Bush. What's the difference?

It'll fail miserably. Here's why: A state votes for the other guy. Population is completely outraged their electoral votes go to the national winner. State level politicians reverse the law right quick, since they'll be out on their cans themselves the next election.

Yeah, there has to be something more to it than this. As described, it's in the interest of no state legislatures anywhere, big or small state.

Sure it is. It is in fact relevent to all the states that are not the "swing states." It makes the popular note matter, and if that is the case, then every single vote matters, regardless of the state.

This plan would give big states more voting power, and voting power more proportional to their population.

 

[gtc]

Aboloshing the electoral college makes sense to me, but I can't see how you can get there from here.

It might be popular in non-swing states. Because the votes of both the minority party and the majority party count. Politicians will need to spend on ads and promises to ensure they get they vote out in the states they would have otherwise ignored. So politicians in general might be against it. Swing states will also not like it as their importance declines in favour of the bigger states.

Change will be resisted anyway but if enough politicians are against it and it looks like favouring bigger states at the expense of both smaller states and the currently powerful swing states then it will be a tough sell.

 

[pgwenthold]

Aboloshing the electoral college makes sense to me, but I can't see how you can get there from here.

It might be popular in non-swing states. Because the votes of both the minority party and the majority party count. Politicians will need to spend on ads and promises to ensure they get they vote out in the states they would have otherwise ignored. So politicians in general might be against it. Swing states will also not like it as their importance declines in favour of the bigger states.

Change will be resisted anyway but if enough politicians are against it and it looks like favouring bigger states at the expense of both smaller states and the currently powerful swing states then it will be a tough sell.

But the important point is that you don't need a 3/4 majority of states to change the process, as you would with a constitutional amendment. You only need enough states with enough electoral votes.

I'm not saying it will happen, but that it is a lot easier to do it than one would initially think.

 

[epepke]

There was a great discussion today on Al Franken's show about the potential for abolishing the Electoral College.

Just when I thought Al Franken's show couldn't possibly get any more tedious.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I believe I started a thread on this issue in the wake of Election 2004. No matter, as it's a worthy subject for renewal.

So the election should be determined by land mass?

Why should the states have the say, as opposed to the people?

If you go by popular vote, it doesn't matter if you live in Montana or California, your vote counts the same.

Precisely.

...because it's important, oh so vitally important, that the concrete canyon dwellers in New York and California determine how the Grand Canyon and Alaska be operated.

Your silly rolleyes notwithstanding, a person should neither be punished or rewarded by where they live insofar as this issue is concerned. Anyway, that's what we have the House of Representatives for.

Also, a popular vote will encourage actual nationwide campaigning, as opposed to what things have come to, where swing (or "battleground") states get all the attention.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Just when I thought Al Franken's show couldn't possibly get any more tedious.

Quite. How dare anyone devote even a moment to issues of such unimportance.

So, who do you think Brad should be married to, Jennifer or Angelina?

 

[Luke T.]

Don't Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes? I think Colorado had a similar measure on the ballot last election, but don't know how it came out.

 

[Luke T.]

Ah.

A measure on the ballot in Colorado could conceivably determine who will be the next president. That's because voters there will decide whether Colorado will become the first state in the nation to allocate its electoral votes based proportionately on the popular vote.

The change would be unprecedented. Maine and Nebraska are the only other states where the winner doesn't necessarily take all. But those states use a formula based on who wins congressional districts, and, so far, neither state has had to split its vote because one candidate has always won a majority across the state.

Link

 

[Luke T.]

The Colorado amendment (Amendment 36) was defeated 65% - 35% by the voters.

 

[toddjh]

Why should the states have the say, as opposed to the people?

The people have their say. They're called U.S. Representatives and Senators.

Here's the way I would phrase the question: Why shouldn't the state governments have their say? Federal policy affects them as much, if not more, than the average citizen.

 

[Mycroft]

There was a great discussion today on Al Franken's show about the potential for abolishing the Electoral College.

I stopped watching Rush Limbaugh years ago because his sour grapes over Clintons victory got too sickening. Al Franken started out that way.

The only problem Franken wants fixed here is that his guy lost.

 

[UserGoogol]

I see no reason why geography matters at all. There are no political opinions associated with "Texas" in of itself, there are political opinions associated with the many conservatives who live there. There are some issues which might end up being influenced by a person's geographical location (like pork barrel stuff) but that's more legislative stuff, and the president really can't do much about that. Geography is completely irrelevant, it's all about what sort of philosophy you have about the overarcing purpose of government

 

[rwguinn]

I see no reason why geography matters at all. There are no political opinions associated with "Texas" in of itself, there are political opinions associated with the many conservatives who live there. There are some issues which might end up being influenced by a person's geographical location (like pork barrel stuff) but that's more legislative stuff, and the president really can't do much about that. Geography is completely irrelevant, it's all about what sort of philosophy you have about the overarcing purpose of government

Right..One size fits all.