Nelson bill would abolish Electoral College

[primavera]

Source: The Hill

Nelson bill would abolish Electoral College
By Michael O'Brien
Posted: 06/06/08 05:18 PM

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.

<snip>

Nelson said his principal argument for making the change is that the Electoral College permits a candidate with fewer votes nationally to win the presidency by capturing narrow victories in big states. In 2000, then-Vice President Al Gore won the popular votes but George W. Bush won the Electoral College.

<snip>

Legislation to abolish the Electoral College is not entirely foreign to the 110 Congress. Reps. Gene Green (D-Texas) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) introduced similar amendments in the House in early 2007.



Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nelson-bill-would-a...

[onehandle]

1. Good. nt

[krkaufman]

61. Not really. n/t

[mdmc]

71. why not?

Sounds real good to me.

[krkaufman]

78. Oh, I didn't think we needed to provide any backing for our opinions.

Expressed elsewhere in thread... problematic recounts in close elections (entire nation would need to recount votes); one state's corruption can have a much greater impact on the popular vote than the EC; diminishes need for candidates to appeal to all 50 states.

My preferred changes are removal of Senatorial bonus; proportional allocation of electors, by statewide vote (not district); instant runoff voting (although IRV would be better-implemented on a national popular vote level). Making these changes brings the EC to much better approximate the popular vote, without losing the "union of states" aspect and without getting into sticky nationwide recount situations.

[ohio2007]

84. I against "winner take all" systems. Maybe Fla should take that idea to the floor

Maybe all states should abolish winner take all to better mirror their own states voters preferences . That would award more attention to the individual voters.

[krkaufman]

86. I agree... so long as, in doing so, the electoral balance is not disrupted ...

... during the transition. For example, I'm all for propotional allocation (by popular vote within a state, not by district), but I'm against any ONE state -- especially large ones -- doing so unilaterally, as that would effectively surrender the Presidential election until an equivalent number of opposite-leaning states follow suit.

California is the most recent example. Were California to unilaterally shift to proportional voting, we'd probably never see a Democrat in the White House in our lifetimes, unless Texas or several other Republican-leaning states also went proportional.

I'd like to see the states put together a coalition, similar to the current popular vote coalition, that would be based on state-level legislation committing a state to proportional allocation of electors so long as their designated "sister"/partner state(s) did the same. This might allow for us to progress towards proportional allocation without throwing any given election out-of-whack.

[slackmaster]

2. Waste of time and energy

There will always be at least 13 state legislatures that believe the EC serves their interests.

[jody]

6. Precisely! n/t

[Hosnon]

14. Yep. And to a large degree the EC does serve the interests of the smaller states.

[krkaufman]

62. The Senatorial bonus gives the small states more clout ...

... in the selection of the President, and it helped put Bush in the WH in 2001.

[primavera]

16. And they'll be right

Having the votes of your state's residents count as much as the votes of up to seven residents of other state is a pretty sweet deal. Not so great for everyone else, but hey, unfairness is the American way after all.

[sl8]

44. Unfair how?

In a pure federal system, each state would have equal votes for the President.

In a pure democracy, each voter would have equal votes for the President.

What we have now is a compromise between the two, paralleling the compromise in the makeup of the Congress.

Would you rather we change the system to favor pure democracy or pure federalism?

[primavera]

46. One person, one vote

Under our current system, the vote of one person from a small state counts for as much as the votes of as many as seven persons from the most populous states. That any one citizen's vote should count for more than any other's, for any reason, is like saying that we're all equal, but some are more equal than others. That's not consistent with a democratic society and, what's more, it's not right. I understand that federalism emphasizes equality of territories rather than citizens, and I understand why it considers that justifiable. Personally, though, I see it as an ends justifying the means argument: for the sake of preserving a union, we'll allow some citizens to be more equal than others, for which very reason, I'm not really a great fan of federalism. I do appreciate the value of states' rights, particularly these days as the federal government rests in the hands of a fascist dictator. But that too is a double edged sword, in that it grants conservative minorities from sparsely populated states the ability to really screw up the country for the rest of us, again making me question how great a thing federalism is. And, of course, if we had a democracy, we wouldn't have a fascist dictator in office now. So, while I respect that there are two sides to the coin and reasonable people can differ in their conclusions on the subject, I personally remain convinced that democracy is what we should be striving for, as opposed to legitimizing undemocratic institutions which favor federalism.

[Kolesar]

55. Civics by Kevin

:very good:

[krkaufman]

63. Personally, just get rid of the Senatorial bonus.

This would reduce/eliminate the small state advantage. The next step would be to allocate the Electors proportinally, more closely approximating the popular vote in each state.

[BearSquirrel2]

48. Explain ... via census ?

Electoral votes are granted proportionally according to state population. The only argument that I can see that supports your arguments are issues with the census and the difference in population since the last census.

[Angleae]

50. EV are not granted proportionally according to population

They are granted by the number of seats in congress the state has (house + senate). If it were just the house it would be proporionate but add the senate, then some states have 3 times the EV they should by population.

[BearSquirrel2]

51. Ahh .. I see ...

Yes, I agree that is disproportional. And this case, you will never pass an amendment as small and sparsely populated states will never vote against their own best interests. When you think about it, only large/densely populated states would vote FOR it.

[jody]

22. It’s unlikely that states with few electoral votes would give up their voting edge versus the big

states like California.

States with three electoral votes are AK, DE, MT, ND, SD, VT, and WY.

WY has 3 electoral votes and 493,782 people versus CA with 55 electoral votes and 36,553,215 people.

CA has 18.3 times the electoral votes of WY but CA has 74 times the population of WY.

[krkaufman]

64. "unlikely" is an understatement ...

.. although one would then need to inquire as to what inspired Nebraska and Maine to begin allocating their electors proportionally.

(Though both states are small enough that they could do so without dramatically affecting an election. California doing so, without some Republican-leaning state matching their action, would hand the Presidency to the Republicans.)

[Bill McBlueState]

81. 74 times

I don't think the founders would have set up the government the way they did if they knew that someday, the largest state would have 74 times as many people as the smallest. Equal representation in the Senate begins to look patently unfair when the discrepancy is that big.

[Middle finga]

3. That would really be good if they could abolish the lame EC

Then we wouldn't have to depend on the so called swing states deciding the elections every year. What kind of shit is it anyway when the biggest and most populated states in the union are basically ignored during presidential elections? The candidates would have to visit every state. Big State like CA, NY, IL, TX would get the attention that they should and cheaters like OH would be irrelevant.

[BearSquirrel2]

49. We ned proportional voting for the regular election ...

I believe we should have proportionally granted delegated in EVERY state with the winner benefiting from rounding.

[Scooter24]

4. All this would do is push the candidates into states with large populations

and into the largest cities where there are more voters.

[aquart]

37. Completely skewing and neglecting the rest of the country.

But people keep presenting like it's a good idea. It ain't. And I'm from one of the heaviest of the populated areas.

Too many people half think.

[Kolesar]

54. Campaigning would shift from OH & FL to TX & CA--states that never see campaign commercials

...as it is now.

[Dark]

42. As opposed to now where they focus on Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvannia

n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

82. Good!

Doesn't it make sense that candidates would go where the voters are?

[Caution]

5. This will never pass. However the Interstate Compact has a much better shot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inte...

[phrigndumass]

27. Thanks for sharing that link ...

I'm in Illinois, and we've been working for the interstate compact!

[krkaufman]

65. That definitely stands a better chance of coming to be ...

... since it bypasses Congress, but it would present new electoral problems, like blowing-off of entire states during campaigning.

On the other hand, going with a popular vote for President wouldn't rid those states of representation, since they still have their Senators and Rep(s)... but it *might* allow us to begin moving beyond some issues that have roadblocked us for years, owing to no one wanting to offend key constituencies in critical Electoral College states.

[krkaufman]

66. p.s. Dumping the Electoral College may also get more people voting ...

... since many people may sit-out elections now, knowing that the EVs are allocated winner-take-all and so there's no point for, e.g., a Democrat to vote in Texas, or a Republican in New York.

My main concern with the popular vote, though, is exactly what is the scope of a recount in a close election? In 2000, the entire country would have been recounting.

Thanks for the reminder of this initiative.

[melm00se]

75. i am curious

how would this withstand a Constitutional challenge?

[jody]

7. A more likely change would be select electors at the district level plus statewide for the other

two electors.

ME and NE do that today.

[struggle4progress]

12. Bad idea: it would let states gerrymander the Presidential vote with the districts

[jody]

18. Perhaps but gerrymandering already exists with congressional districts which are biyearly elections

Why do you think the gerrymandering problem would be worst for presidential elections every four years?

[struggle4progress]

58. I say: it would have worse effects, since it would also affect the Presidential election

(under the scheme to which I was objecting) rather than merely the Congressional elections

Clearly using the same gerrymandered districts for Presidential electors as for Congress essentially ensures that in Presidential election years the Congress will be controlled by the President's party -- which further unnecessarily limits the already limited possibilities for meaningful checks and balances

Obvious whether it is the biennial or quadrennial is irrelevant -- the census is, in any case, decennial

[jody]

59. Gerrymandering requires that a party control a state legislature and get federal court approval. IMO

that potentially lets electors be elected for each congressional district and again IMO that's better than a winner take all process used by 48 states, excluding ME and NE.

That would be preferably to giving a sledge hammer to such big states as California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21) and Illinois (21) where one popular vote in each state could add 94 votes in the electoral college rather than having their 189 votes divided among two or more candidates.

[krkaufman]

67. Agreed. Allocation by district would not be proportional ...

... even though some might spin it that way.

[Buns_of_Fire]

17. ...and the nice thing is, it doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment to do it!

(Keep in mind how long ERA has been sitting there waiting to be ratified.)

[defendandprotect]

8. Let's not confuse ourselves by suggesting that Bush won 2000 in any way, shape or form!!!

However, I am glad to see someone moving on the Electoral College deal and I think we have to
have confirmation that in a democracy . . . the people elect the president -- NOT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE . . .

And...this lack of our having this power was very brutally and gleefully pointed out by Scalia in
his 2000 message informing us of the total political corruption of the Supreme Court -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

9. Need to assert/affirm in one of these ways that the people elect the president in a democracy--!!

Not an electoral college ---

[DavidDvorkin]

10. About time. Actually about 220 years past time.

It won't go anywhere, but perhaps if something like this gets introduced in every session, eventually it will make it.

[primavera]

19. Yeah, that was kind of my thinking as well

I mean, it's obviously pretty unlikely that smaller states will be willing to give up having their votes count more than everyone else's, but we at least need to keep raising awareness of the fundamentally undemocratic character of this institution. Maybe one of these days the shame and embarassment will outweigh the benefits of enjoying disproportionate influence and we'll finally do something about it.

[aquart]

38. No. For the very reason it was instituted to begin with.

Sigh. Some things never penetrate.

[struggle4progress]

11. S. J. Res. 39, I think. Can't find the text yet

[yy4me]

13. I've been around more election years than I care to count. This

issue comes up before and after all of them. Nothing ever happens and I doubt it ever will. Might be too much work for our congress critters to figure out how to change this archaic system.
Too logical, one man-one vote---what a concept.

[patriotvoice]

20. Change does happen: the 12th Amendment altered the Electoral College.

The popular opinion is usually better reflected by the 12th Amendment's modification. And, not surprisingly, the 12th Amendment sprung in to being after the 1800 election fiasco between Jefferson and Burr. Granted, it took 4 years to ratify, but the genesis of any EC change seems to be an election.

William Kimberling's treatise on the Electoral College provides lots of historical context to frame the motivations (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf ), and, IMO, this is a must read before any rational discussion can be had on our EC.

[primavera]

21. Great link!

Thanks for posting this!

[greyghost]

15. Long, long over do.

[westerebus]

23. Time for a change.

That is the platform of the nominee is it not? May be he can put it on his to do list. A little something for American people.

[cyclezealot]

24. I am all for it.

I predict states such a Delaware or Wyoming will not go for it. / So, the alternatives.....reforms to make the stupid thing more democratic. / Award a states' electoral vote based on its popular vote . Or less democratic still, maybe have the electors awarded based on the vote of each congressional district. / Best is just go by the popular vote. All would be an improvement over the idiotic system we presently live with. Still. it takes the passage of 37 state's legislatures to change the consittution. Good Luck, with that Sen. Nelson.

[Phred42]

25. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[depakid]

26. While they're at it, why not get rid of disproportional representation in the Senate?

and adopt instant runoff voting?

Both sound ideas that will never pass.

[DavidDvorkin]

28. Well, heck, let's switch to a Parliamentary system with a figurehead president!

Including proportional representation. I'd vote for that. But I don't expect to ever see it happen.

[depakid]

29. Having watched the dysfunctional American system in action for so many years

and having seen also seen parliamentary close up- that would be an excellent idea. It would certainly deal with the DINO problem.

(Note that other countries are well aware of how screwed up the American system is both in theory and in practice, which is why only Liberia and the Philippines have copied the model).

[DavidDvorkin]

33. The parliamentary system is superior in various ways

Whereas ours has some major built-in problems that undermine democracy. The choice the Founding Fathers made led inevitably to an imperial presidency.

[primavera]

35. I agree

But in fairness to the framers, I think we've asked an awful lot of them by insisting upon using their words as our sole guidelines. Every other democracy around the world has had opportunities to adapt to changing circumstances introduced by modernity, through revising and updating their constitutions and government institutions. We're the only ones who elect to rely upon two century old views as if they were the inviolable, immutable words of God. At that point, the framers had to not only do a good job drafting documents for their time period - a tough enough challenge already - but had to be able to anticipate what the world would look like centuries later and create institutions capable of accommodating any possible future developments as well. And that truly is an impossible task and a thoroughly unrealistic expectation to have of the framers. Personally, I suspect the framers must be spinning in their graves as we look to them to decide for us what to do on such subjects as electronic surveillance, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, internet freedoms, etc..

[meow2u3]

30. It would have to be introduced via a constitutional amendment

The Electoral College is part and parcel of the Constitution. The only way to have direct election of the President is via a constitutional amendment which abolishes the Electoral College and dictates direct elections.

[scarface2004]

31. it disenfranchises half the voters of every state!!

the electoral college is a ridiculous relic of the era before the supreme court with likes of tony the fixer came into being. it needs to be abolished immediately, if not sooner!!

[defendandprotect]

32. Any problems with this being found "Constitutional" --- Scalia is somewhat . . .

attached to the idea that we don't get to elect a president directly . . . ??

[penndragon69]

34. Dump the E.C.

The year is 2008 not 1776. Votes can be tallied and transmitted to one place in a matter of hours. In the 1700's, it took months for delegates to travel to Pennsylvania to cast their states vote.

It is more sensible to simply count the popular vote than jump through the hoops of the EC. Every person would have an equal voice in the proccess.
A renter in a small red state would have the same voice as a big land owner.

Sure the small states have to be drug kicking and screaming to join the civilized world, but some times that's what you need to do.

With the cable / satellite news and internet access, we don't need a candidate to knock on our door and introduce themselves, but it does make
us feel like we're Special.

We can get much better info on them by checking the facts, not the P.R.

While we are at it, lets make the primaries a two day event for the same reasons....One Person,One Vote!

[Yupster]

57. But the reason for creating an electoral college

had nothing to do with travel time.

In fact the original idea of how to elect a president is actually pretty interesting.

Each state legislature would select electors by whatever means they wanted to.

The electors would choose two people who they thought would make a good president. One would have to be from a different state than their own.

The electoral votes would be counted in Washington and a president would be chosen from among the top three (five? I can't remember) vote getters.

Actually a pretty interesting process, but it didn't survive the creation of political parties and was therefore changed by the 12th Amendment.

Notice, the voters have no role in the process at all, other than electing their state legislators I guess.

One by one states turned toward popular votes as the way to choose electors. The last to do it was South Carolina in 1868.

The first President S Carolina voters voted for was Ulysses Grany, three years after the Civil War. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

[penndragon69]

73. All true..

But it is simply an out dated and archaic system (the EC ) to use in the 21st century.
The constitution was created as a flexible document so that future generations could
adjust it to more modern methods.

Just because something is old does not make it a good option.

[aquart]

36. LOL!

[Prophet 451]

39. Agree with the principle but...

...Firstly, I don't like his chances of getting it passed and secondly, since the format of the electoral college was set in the Constitution, wouldn't abolishing it require a Constitutional Amendment?

[and-justice-for-all]

40. Good...

get rid of the EC. No love lost.

It should always be the popular/majority vote that determines who is elected president. Al Gore was robbed because of this fucked up system.

[ToeBot]

41. Good, and Sen. Clinton should make good on her statements and join Nelson in pushing the amendment

[Smokey72]

43. Finally

It's about time to overhaul the system. There is no need for the electoral college anymore. Just think how different the world would be today if Gore was in office the last 8 years.

[yurbud]

45. the only thing that would stop most people from supporting it is they don't know what it is

[Jefferson23]

47. I can't stand Bill Nelson, he voted with Bush so many times he makes me sick,,

he needs to get voted out of office.

[Zachstar]

52. Attempt number #29747856283

[bobmorr1]

53. Great Dream

Wish it could happen. Doubt if it will make it. We need some major changes in our country.

[NMDemDist2]

56. Welcome to DU bobmorr1

[krkaufman]

60. The downside of getting rid of the Electoral College, though ...

... is that a candidate could then win the Presidency by focusing on just a few states and going after votes, rather than addressing the concerns of all the states.

The simplest compromise would be to get rid of the Senatorial bonus in the Electoral College, which gives small states an advantage over larger states (Gore also would have won, absent this bonus favoring Bush). Another solution, short of dumping the EC entirely, would then be to have Electoral Votes allocated proportionally.

Another, bigger problem of going with the popular vote is ... exactly how do you do a recount if there's a close election? If you thought the 2000 Florida recount was a nightmare, under Nelson's ban of the Electoral College, the entire country would have been recounting votes. The Electoral College provides some segmentation to voting and limits the influence of any one particular state.

[MurrayDelph]

68. My fear

is that until you can get reliable vote counting back, states like Florida and Texas will report several million more votes for the Republican than there are people in Florida and Texas.

[krkaufman]

79. Exactly. And, right now, with the Electoral College, their corruption is limited ...

... to the number of Electoral Votes allocated for each state; however, with a national popular vote, the sky's the limit. Corrupt states could run-up their popular vote totals fraudulently, and have a much greater impact... increasing the "theft margin" -- i.e. the voting margin within which an election can be stolen without being apparent to all.

[pegleg]

69. It's time has come. As long as we have an electoral college your vote

is merely a suggestion.

[mdmc]

70. too late to R

we need this BAD!

[hyphenate]

72. The Electoral College

Has been both a friend and an enemy. If it weren't for the EC, Bill Clinton would not have been president, and if you go back to major races over the years, it stands out in other races, including Kennedy versus Nixon.

I don't think our founding fathers could have foreseen this many citizens in the country, nor could they have seen how results could have turned to an advantage for some shady politicians. In their day, the voters were primarily wealthy (or at least well-to-do) white men who were active in their own communities, who would then get the votes represented by the members of the electoral college in their state. The members of the college were then pressed into delivering the votes to a central entity.

We no longer have to worry about the lack of communications that existed then--but instantaneous isn't always right, either. People still need to take careful consideration in their choices, and live with what they choose.

[RoseMead]

74. Without the EC as an issue, I bet we'd never see another

presidential candidate here. Not saying that's good, bad, or anything, but I'd be willing to bet money on it if the EC were abolished.

[Zavulon]

76. So why not abolish the Senate as well?

If we're getting rid of the EC, why should Rhode Island have the same influence as New York or California?

[SoCalDem]

77. It would take a constitutional amendment and the smaller states would say NO

This has been brought up numerous times, and it's always failed..

Perhaps the Asshole Astronaut should start by helping to restore PAPER BALLOTS/Sharpie Pens first, and count the damned votes.. That's do-able..

Another thing he could do would be to make sure that there are enough polling places, enough staff and no caging lists to prevent voters from voting..

c'mon Bill get started

[maryallen]

80. Some reflex you got thee, Senator:

EIGHT YEARS after the fact, you react.

[Jack_DeLeon]

83. I'm against getting rid the Electoral College...

I think the founding fathers were right on this issue, as they were on most of them.

We are a Democratic Republic, we are not a Democracy. The country was founded as a union of states, and despite the fact that I'm from one of the larger states I do not think it would be right for the populations of a few larger states to force thier will on the people living in the many smaller ones.

[ohio2007]

85. I'm against "winner take all" system . Maybe Fla ( et el ) should take that idea to the floor

Maybe all states should abolish winner take all to better mirror their own states voters preferences . That would award more attention to the individual voters.