Do you think the electoral vote college should be abolished?

[redstate_democrat]

and that presidential elections be decided on popular vote?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Yes of course. Our system is embarrassingly stupid.

[Yukari Yakumo]

122. Not just no, but FUCK NO.

Do you seriously believe either Obama or McCain would pay attention to states like Montana, New Mexico, or perhaps even North Carolina if it weren't for the GE? Hell no. Cali and NY would almost monopolize all of their their attention.

[last_texas_dem]

125. The EC just causes candidates to pay attention to states because they swing not b/c they're small

I mean, NH is looking much more likely (albeit still not that likely) to swing than PA, but where is McSame camping out at the end here?

I know the argument is that the EC protects the voices of "small" states, but it's not as if the candidates are campaigning like crazy in DE, VT, ID, ND, SD, WY, etc. At least with nationwide popular vote each person's vote would count the same amount and we wouldn't essentially be devaluing millions of votes, of everyone from California Republicans to Wyoming Democrats.

[Warren Stupidity]

137. Campaigns would appeal to the majority of the population.

Under the current system it isn't small or big states that get attention, it is swing states, big or small. The states where there is no play are ignored. Under the current system Ohio Pennsylvania and Florida receive a disproportionate share of this attention that you seem to think is so important. Those are all large population states.

If you are a Republican voter in New York or a Democratic voter in Utah, for example, you might as well not bother voting, your vote effectively doesn't count.

Under a one-person-one-vote system we would have truly national elections that would focus not on the angles that play well in a select group of swing states, but on the issues that appeal to the majority of voters across the country. Every voter, not matter how big or small their state's population is, no matter how few of the residents of his or her state shared the same political views, would have the same say in choosing the president of this nation. Yes, the horrors of democracy, that which you say not just no to, but FUCK NO to, would be manifested.

Oh and of course we should use an instant run-off system requiring the winner to actually have 50%+1 of the votes. No plurality president ever again.

[BigD_95]

139. yea

but now they are not paying attention to states like Cali. or New York or Texas so whats the difference?

[Orsino]

146. Yes. I mean no.

For the precise reason you mentioned. The Electoral College is one of the few remaining checks on federal power by the states.

[Jed Dilligan]

162. What would be wrong with the largest populations getting the most

attention?

[Cronus Protagonist]

170. In that case, HELL YEAH!

I'm tired of being controlled by a minority of redneck rubes.

[Spike89]

165. Buffer, not a barrier to democracy

Until region differences are gone, the EC has a real and somewhat useful purpose. Taking away the protections of the EC could result in pandering to the population centers over the resource-rich, but sparser areas. The senate configuration helps blunt this, and I think the EC performs the same moderation effect in presidential campaigning. Sure, swing states are going to get the late attention, regardless of the EV, but it does tend to move the battle grounds around much more than a straight vote would.

The idea that "my vote doesn't count" in the current setup doesn't really hold up--the same argument could logically be made for casting a "losing" vote in any vote scenario. Anyway, we have NEVER had a pure democracy. Except in some very small towns, virtually every government decision is made by a representative vote, i.e., you vote for someone to make the decisions.

[OmahaBlueDog]

2. I'm for the compromise solution: Direct election of electors by district.

[Bucky]

36. That's one of a brazillion compromises that will never be.

I like that solution, too, but any change to the EC system will be hard to enact. The best chance for any change would be the simplest solution, direct voting. Of course most states would be against it as it would dilute their perceived influence in elections.

[Ken Burch]

63. Each state can determine how its EC votes are distributed.

As a first step, we should work to have Democratic legislatures in "Red" states(and there will be a fair amount of these after this election)vote to allocate their electoral votes proportionally.

This could put a lot of Southern electoral votes in play.

We could also work to achieve this via the initiative route.

[newfie11]

3. You Betcha !!

It is a stupid system!

[Mojambo]

4. No.

But I do wish we could have national proportional representation.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Um, uh -- I give up.

How would 'national proportional representation' differ from 'direct popular election' and not be 'getting rid of the electoral college'?

[Essene]

23. Winner takes all per state. We're a republic of states. The problem is...

That the proportions are messed up, based on congressional districts.

This helps small population states have "bigger votes."

If you could remove that aspect of the EV and just let states swing all their EVs as a block, it would make more sense.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. No it wouldn't make more sense.

1) small states get one vote per senator plus one vote per rep, that is what messes that part up - the senators can triple the size of a small state that by CD ought to get only one elector. Simply reducing votes to CD districts would reduce the distorted small state effect considerably.

2) we aren't a republic of independent states - that is nonsense. That nonsense was decided once and for all in a civil war from 1861-1865. The modern presidency, dating from more or less 1932, but perhaps as early as the Wilson administration, is a hugely powerful national government, a major player in international affairs, and not the head of a republic of states, an administrator of a complex and pervasive regulatory system that transcends the archaic notion of a union of colonial era agrarian states. See the current Wall Street disaster, for example.

3) there is no requirement for block votes from state electors - it is not in the constitution and is not a constitutional element of the system. Winner take all is merely the common method. Several states have roughly proportional representation (e.g. Maine and Nebraska.)

4) the more common winner take all mechanism is exactly what is most wrong with the electoral college system:
a) it institutionalizes the de facto two party system by making it nearly impossible for a successful third party to emerge;
b) it effectively disenfranchises minority party voters in a predominantly majority party state - e.g. republican voters in Massachusetts, democratic voters in Utah;
c) the two party duopoly and effective disenfranchisement discourage citizen participation and encourage institutional corruption.

[Uzybone]

5. Yes

popular vote only.

[iiibbb]

6. No

[greenbriar]

7. YES

Yes I do

[Greyskye]

8. Yes. The need for the Electoral College is long gone.

There is no longer an excuse not to use the popular vote.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania

would be the only states that mattered in a NATIONAL ELECTION.

Everyone else could just go take a flying leap at a rolling donut. Not sure I like that.

[Codeine]

21. To be fair,

those are the most influential and important states financially, culturally, and politically anyway. I know everyone likes to imagine that all parts of the union are of equal importance, but they just aren't.

[ncgrits]

44. I like to imagine that all of the PEOPLE in the U.S. are of equal importance.

I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think "the rest of us" want to give up our vote to the states that are "most important." Have to call bs on that one.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. I kind of like 'one person, one vote'.

I don't quite grasp how that is an unfair concept.

[Codeine]

101. We are all equal,

which is precisely why the Electoral College is awful -- it makes the vote of an individual in some shithole state whose population is akin to a medium-sized city anywhere else far more important than the vote of an individual in a big state that actually accomplishes things.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. I live in California, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

All parts of the union ARE of equal importance to me, as they are all home to people who call themselves Americans.

Wow. I really don't know what else to say.

[RichardRay]

56. Can we keep our coal, oil, wind and solar energy? Can we set

and keep the entrance fees for our National Parks?

We can do much better in markets outside the US if we aren't required to comply with US laws.

[Not the Only One]

32. exactly

All of New England would be ignored forever in presidential elections.

[Uzybone]

49. uh....New England is ignored now

Apart from NH and only because of its 1st in nation status during primaries.

[Uzybone]

47. But right now those states are the ones taking a flying leap

Does that make any sense. I'm tired of our elections decided by underinformed, undereducated yahoos from Southern Ohio.

[Ken Burch]

64. That's not really true. Actually, every individual vote everywhere would matter

So all the candidates would be motivated to campaign everywhere.

You'd have Dems campaigning hard in the South, GOP'ers in LA, SF and NYC.

What's not to like.

And why are we better off with a system where only small-town small-hearted voters matter, which is what the EC gives us?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. Voters everywhere would matter as much as one another.

The whole idea of a democracy is that a large number of people carry proportionally more weight than a smaller number.

[last_texas_dem]

126. But there are more people living in those states

than the number living in the half-dozen or so swing states that will decide this election under the EC system. I'm not seeing that much of a difference...

[Milspec]

35. Well no....but

Whats your rational for " The need for the Electoral College is long gone"

[Stephist]

9. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All the electoral college does is render my vote worthless.

[GrizzlyMan]

10. The only case for keeping it is from a Repuke point of view

They know it helps keep them in power. With the growing latino and AA populations they knew without it they are screwed, blued and tatooed in future elections.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Yes, or at least stop the "winner takes all" madness! It only makes one less

inclined to vote.

Hmmmm, maybe that's the intent in this age. :shrug:

[Voice for Peace]

13. not until the one-person-one-vote is safe, and not this year

[endthewar]

14. It'll never happen. Small states won't ratify this kind of amendment.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. It's nice to see one poster who grasps the reality of the situation, It can't be changed

without a large number of states voting against their own interests.


Never going to happen.

So whining about it isn't productive.

[Codeine]

22. This is true. nt

[Essene]

25. Here is one way they might sign off on it...

Force parties to put small states first in their primary calendars.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. You still need quite a few to vote against their own interests

don't know the exact math but I would assume at least ten low population states would need to vote to lessen their electoral impact.

I doubt you can get anywhere near enough people/states to make the trade you suggest. Especially since one is a constitutional amendment and the other is an agreement with a political party (or 2).

Besides that some people who are strict constructionists will oppose the change simply on principle.


IMO it isn't even a remote possibility.

[endthewar]

79. That'll never work, for many reasons

First of all, small states already have the ability (and quite often are) to be first in the primary system. Also, as we saw with Michigan and Florida this year, other states will always try to jump ahead in the primary calendar if they think that they can get away with it.

[Genevieve]

15. Yes, it makes no sense! nt

[AnOhioan]

17. That's easy.....yes

[Clio the Leo]

18. Well maybe AFTER next Tuesday. :-) NT

[Essene]

19. No... but the weightings should be unhinged from congressional districts

to reflect true population proportions.


This nation is a republic made out of states. I respect that.

I also think it should always be a winner-takes-all model for each state.

[salguine]

24. Yeah, it should have been left on the scrap heap of history about a hundred years ago.

[emilyg]

26. Yes.

[TexanDem]

27. absolutely not - small states would never be considered again

Districts could be drawn more fairly though.

[Raineyb]

110. Right because ignoring several large states and their populations makes just as much sense

The districts are drawn at the state level. It is the census numbers that determine number of EC votes each state gets (# of congressional districts + 2 senators=EC)

The EC on the other hand can go the way of Jim Crow.

Regards

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

168. How is giving disproportionate attention to small states helpful?

Right now, we wind up with campaigns pandering to states with vastly different needs than the ones that make up the largest portion of our population. I think some of those small states (cough, cough, New Hampshire) probably shouldn't really be considered, quite frankly.

[Phredicles]

28. Yes. The electoral college is a relic of the Roman Republic;

I've made a nice living off the Romans (I'm a Latin teacher). But if you were having a baby, would you want to rely on Roman obstetric methods? If you were accused of a crime, would you want to face Roman correctional practices? I sure wouldn't. In a lot of ways the 21st century is better. That really ought to include democratic representation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eyes_wide_ open]

30. YES !!!

[demokatgurrl]

31. Yes, definitely. or AT LEAST

get rid of the 2 electoral votes that EVERY state gets regardless of its population. That's very unrepresentative and gives an unfair advantage to smaller states with less population. It's fine in the Senate but not a good way to elect a president.

[grantcart]

33. not if we can get a system like NC where you can have one stop registration

and voting

[MarjorieG]

34. Not until we have fairer elections, or a few states, one programmer can steal everything.

Hard to justify a 50 state strategy without fairer elections. Even thoigh party building and better governing helped by the wide coverage.

[sarahdemva]

37. no

i like the system like it is. i like seeing alot of individual elections all rolled into one.

[trayfoot]

38. Yes, the electoral college should be abolished!

Direct popular vote is the way to go! I used to think proportional representation was a good way until I observed the Democratic primary this cycle. I now believe that would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Rwalsh]

41. Popular vote sounds nice but

Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 would still would have won their elections.

IMO either award the electoral vote proportionally or

change the Constitution to give each state only 1 electoral vote. This would put every state in play.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. each state only 1 electoral vote?

California - 36,457,549
Wyoming - 515,004

So a voter in Wyoming gets approximately 71 times the 'vote power' of a voter in California? That makes sense to you?


I am astounded by the people here who believe real estate has more of a say in our national affairs than people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. I'm going to have to disagree, but am completely open to be educated if I'm wrong.

Why would Wyoming's voters have more weight than California's? Since the election isn't truly a "national" one, but a "state by state" one, candidates would be vying for 50% +1 vote in each and every state. When the candidate reaches a majority of votes, states like Wyoming will cast their one electoral vote for the candidate that won the majority. Is there something wrong with my reasoning? If so, I'm perfectly willing to hear what that is.

[WhollyHeretic]

65. A vote in Wyoming counts 4 times more than a vote in California

California - 36,457,549 Electoral Votes 55
Wyoming - 515,004 Electoral Votes 3

Voters Per Electoral Vote:
California 662,864
Wyoming 171,668

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Under Rwalsh's 'one state one vote' a wyoming voter gets 71 times the vote

of a California voter.

[WhollyHeretic]

69. You're right about that. It's bad enough right now at 4 to 1. 71 to 1 is unthinkable.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Your assumptions are what we are arguing about.

Since the election isn't truly a "national" one, but a "state by state" one

Well that is the issue, not the given. However, as I noted, each Wyoming voter, under Rwalsh's system, would have 71 times the voting power, per capita, of a California voter. Rwalh's proposed system demonstrates just how absurd the electoral college and the idea of a president of the states, not the people, is. A national campaign could and would focus on the states with the smallest populations, the most rural regions of the country, and we would be ruled by a vast minority of the population. That wouldn't bother you? You want the cultural values of rural Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montant, Utah, etc. to run our national government?

Take a look at this picture of national population density and go figure just how progressive such a government would be:



You want to live in Jesusland? That is what you are proposing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Anti-christian prejudice notwithstanding, I don't see what Jesus has to do with it.

I don't care whether a state has a population of 3, or 30,000,000. The contest should be decided by winning a majority of votes in each and every state. Forcing a candidate to vie for EVERY vote in EVERY state means that no one state's citizens have more of a say than any other. You win the majority of the votes in the state, or you don't. Your 71:1 weight ratio doesn't resonate with me.

So what if a small state like Wyoming (which shouldn't be singled out because we have seven states with populations under a million) broke for a candidate you opposed? Isn't that their prerogitive? Are you saying it shouldn't be? Delaware and Vermont are JESUSLAND? They are two of the states with populations under a million you know.

Question: In a one state one electoral vote scenario, would my Obama vote in California negate a McKamikaze vote in your favorite Dem controlled state? No. Because my vote would only count in my own state, which is the way it should be.

By the way, I love your phrase "vast minority". That's one of the best oxymorons I've heard in a long time. So you'd have the "vast minority" governed by a system which favored the tyranny of the majority. Cool.

[WhollyHeretic]

89. Pure popular vote means that every vote counts. So politicians would need votes across the country

from everyone not just a few yahoos in a couple swing states. Your plan is even more ridiculous. 500,000 people should not have the same voting power as 36,000,000 just because of where they own a house.

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. "...a few yahoos". Your bias is showing. n/t

Arguments with statements like that raise a red flag for me. You're trying to superimpose your view of what is right and wrong over the views of others. I thought the Constitution provided safeguards against things like that.

It's not "my plan". Obviously, there are others who feel the same way. Just because YOU think it's ridiculous doesn't make it so.

[dbmk]

111. You totally ignore that the end result is one president.

Under a 1 EV pr state setup, a voter in Wyoming would have 71 more say than a California voter.

Or to put it more clearly:
515 thousand people would have just as much a say as 36,5 million.

Potentially the 26 least populated states could elect the president by 51-49 elections, and the 24 most populated could have 0-100 elections to no avail. Making it, theoretically of course, possible to elect a president with FAR below 25% of the total popular vote. (Can't be bothered to dig out the numbers, to calculate the exact number). That in it self should shoot that idea down.

Of course the current floor is under 25% as well, as far as I can tell.

[cherokeeprogressive]

116. Or, to put it more clearly, one state should have just as much say as the next. n/t

[dbmk]

130. If you totally want to ignore that some states have 71 times as many citizens, yes

I looked at the numbers now. And using the Census 2000 numbers and assuming there is an even distribution of people of voting age, it would be possible to be president having only received 10% of the popular vote under that system.

[quakerboy]

119. It would eliminate campaigning in large states

How much is an ad Buy in Idaho. How much is an ad buy in NY? Who in their right mind would ever campaign in NY, if they only needed to pick of the 26 smallest states.

To make it a little more solid in the numbers... to get the states of California and texas, you have to persuade a majority of the voters out of 60 million total population to vote for you. To get TWO votes, under your proposed system.

Alternately, to get 29 votes and a solid win, you only have to persuade a majority of 62 million votes in the least populated states. For about the same effort, the same amount of investment, you have to choose either 2 votes or 29. Who in their right mind would waste any time on the 2?

For a slightly different angle, the basic proposition of one vote per state would mean that approximately 8% of the population of the US could overrule the other 92% . The 26 least populated states have a combined 45 million in population, of the total 305 million in the US, and you would only have to win 51% of those.(edited this section because I overlooked one detail)


Why should a vote only count in your state? The presidency is a national position, is it not?

[Warren Stupidity]

135. Anti christian?

I am not anti-christian, I don't want to live in a theocracy. Your system would quite likely lead to just such an outcome. The idiocy of one state one vote, giving territory a vote rather than people, would lead to a national government dominated by the current states voting for McCain. Your system is the most astoundingly anti-democratic proposal I have ever seen. Rather than reforming the undemocratic flaws in the current system, you are proposing to amplify them to their maximum effect.

One person, one vote. A government of the people.

[ddeclue]

42. You first: Do you think you'll ever be able to amend the Constitution to get rid of it?

I somehow doubt that Alaska, Montana, Rhode Island, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Delaware will vote to get rid of it..


Doug D.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. That is a separate question from 'should it be abolished'.

[ddeclue]

167. No actually it is the SAME question.

The ONLY way to abolish it is by amending the Constitution.

You can't just pass a law to change how the EC works.

Doug D.

[FlyingSquirrel]

61. The Electoral College will soon be irrelevant. Probably within the next 8 years

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

It's already in the works.

[ddeclue]

166. Small states will never go for it and neither should Democrats

because it is a way to wipe out our advantages in NY and CA.

Doug D.

[SmokingJacket]

45. Yes, then finally someone would campaign in my state... nt

[TheKentuckian]

46. Maine and Nebraska due reflective proportions, so that would nulify

much of the "small states" would riot school of thought.

The Electoral College can be tolerated if each state were to cast it's votes in proportion to the popular vote, similar to the way we do it in our primaries.

Here in Kentucky, my vote in effect doesn't count and the same holds true for the Republican living in New York. Its plain and simple that it isn't right.

[Scooter24]

52. All it would do is drive the candidates into the larger cities

and areas where there is a greater number of voters. Why would a candidate spend money campaigning in small-town America with a population of 5-10,000 when they can go to Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, Miami, etc, where voters number in the millions.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. And why should this mythical small town america

have more say in national government, per capita, than the vast majority of citizens who live in major metropolitan regions?

Can somebody please explain why 'one person one vote' is unfair?

[last_texas_dem]

127. But ad buys are generally much cheaper outside of the larger cities

and, for better or worse, TV ads are a good deal of the campaigning that the candidates do. I don't believe voters outside of the larger cities would be ignored.

[WhollyHeretic]

54. Without a fucking doubt. Right now 1 vote in Wyoming is equal to 4 in California

How the hell is that fair?

Not to mention the fact that electoral voters are not bound to vote the way the people in the state vote.

[TheDonkey]

55. Yes. 1 vote should have the same power.

[BlueIdaho]

57. Nope

If that happens no presidential candidate will ever have visit a small state again - ever. So much for a 50 state strategy...

[WhollyHeretic]

60. So you think it's OK that a vote in Wyoming counts 4 times as much as a vote in California?

Plus I think they would visit small states, every vote would count the same. I don't buy that excuse, especially when we have the inequities we have now.

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. California has almost 1/8th of the national population.

11.95%. One state out of fifty, with 1/8th of all voters. The most populous six states combined have more than 50%. Why as a candidate would I waste my donations on a small state? Why, as the president, would I care about those states when I wanted to be re-elected?

As I posted upthread, I like the one state-one electoral vote idea. Since the presidential election isn't truly a "national" election, but a "state by state" one, each candidate would by vying for 50% +1 vote, a clear majority, or a simple majority if more than two candidates are on the ballot. Once a candidate receives a majority of votes, states like Wyoming cast their one electoral vote.

Each state should weigh the same in presidential voting regardless of their population. Otherwise, small states wouldn't be treated equally by those they've elected.

[WhollyHeretic]

70. I cannot believe you still think that is a good idea. It would give voters in Wyoming 71 times the

voting power of a voter in California. That is insane.

1 person, 1 vote.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. Around 80% of the people live in major metropolitan areas.

I could not care less what representation the real estate of Wyoming gets. Why should real estate have more representation than people? Under your absurd system, we would be living in Jesusland right now, under a tyranny of a vast minority of people from predominantly rural states.

[WhollyHeretic]

74. Hey, did you know that Sarah Palin is the Governor of the largest state in the country?

[last_texas_dem]

128. I disagree

The "one state, one vote" idea or the idea that presidents should be elected by states and not by individuals would only make sense if America was a confederacy.

[BlueIdaho]

73. Read this...

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/stateadvantages.htm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. Small states *shouldn't* have much power.

That's the idea of democracy - large groups of people have more power than small groups.

Drawing an arbitrary line, and saying "we have to give the votes of these people more weight, so that the two sides of the line are equal" is not democracy.

[tammywammy]

58. No n/t

[begin_within]

62. If there is one more election where the popular vote winner is not the electoral vote winner,

then it should be abolished. As long as the same person wins both, then I guess it's OK, but I don't see the purpose of it any more, it seems like a barrier to direct democracy.

[WhollyHeretic]

72. For the people answering no, could you please tell me if you think that

Al Gore should have lost the presidential election, Florida problems aside, when he recieved 540,000+ more votes. More than 1/2 a million more people voted for Gore.

[chascarrillo]

77. For the people answering yes, could you please tell me why the Founding Fathers were wrong?

[WhollyHeretic]

78. I already have. See my post upthread. Do you want to answer my question?

or were you just responding to me to be snarky?

Here is my answer to that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7673458&mesg_id=7674548

[WhollyHeretic]

82. Could you tell me why the founding father's felt that slaves were 3/5ths of a person?

[Warren Stupidity]

83. They also thought that slavery was acceptable.

They also thought that voting ought to be restricted to land owning white men.

The situation of a tentative union of 13 former colonies has long since been transformed into a tightly knit nation. We are no longer a union of independent states. We decided that in 1865.

The founding fathers were not omniscient, they did not pass on revealed truth, they were well intention and well educated and very bright men who created a deeply compromised system that only vaguely resembles anything they had in mind 221 years ago. Luckily they did not think that their system was immutable.

[chascarrillo]

85. Certainly, states aren't as independent as they once were (and that's a damn fine thing), but...

... I dunno. The electoral college is one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy, and despite the fact the the federal government is much stronger than it was in the past (and, I cannot stress this enough, that's a good thing - I am certainly not about to promote "states' rights" bullshit), there's still a lot of differentiation between individual states.

I totally see the merit in the opposing argument, and I admit that I don't have much on my side aside from tradition, but I'm just wary of such a drastic change.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. Easy - they were constrained by the realpolitik of the time.

The only way to get the small states to join the USA was to give them disproportionately much power.

[last_texas_dem]

129. For the people answering no b/c of any "Founding Fathers" justification

could you please tell me whether or not you also favor giving up your right to directly elect your U. S. Senators?

[muntrv]

75. Uhhhhh.....YEAH!!!

[FlyingSquirrel]

76. It's already in the works in 45 states.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

The EC will still be there but it will be irrelevant once enough states ratify this to control 270 EV.

So far it is, of course, the blue states that support the idea. It's been enacted into law in 4 states totalling 50 EV. It's passed both houses in 4 other blue states totalling 74 EV (Schwarzenegger vetoed it in CA).

So it's on the verge of being law in enough states to control 177 EV.

It's passed one house in Blue or Swing states controlling 39 EV.

It's passed one committee in Blue or Swing states controlling 46 EV.

If it becomes law in all of the above states, that's 262 EV.

There have also been hearings in Blue and Swing states controlling 74 EV.

In Red states, there have been hearings in states that control 8 EV; it's passed one committee in states that control 31 EV; and it's passed one house in states that control 6 EV.

This will, eventually, become law in enough states to control 270 EV. When it does, those states will assign their electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. It doesn't matter what the remaining states do, because they won't have enough EV to change the course of the election.

This will be a good thing, IMO. Too many states are just ignored as it is. Time for the president to be the president of ALL the states.

[endthewar]

81. It'll never pass

Won't even come close.

[FlyingSquirrel]

93. Did you even follow the link? It's ALREADY passed in 4 states

This is a movement that will continue till it gets passed in enough states to be triggered. All that needs to happen is for enough states to pass it. Once that happens, it gets triggered. There is no further action necessary. No change in the Constitution, nothing. The law begins to take effect as soon as enough states pass it. This will eventually happen, it's just a matter of time.

[endthewar]

94. Yeah, the small states will give up their electoral power, and be happy to do it.

Of course that makes sense. :crazy:

It's not like states care about their electoral power. The Michigan and Florida debacles were all in our heads. The small states know that candidates won't pay as much attention to them if this kind of amendment happens. A constitutional amendment like this will not be ratified by 2/3s of the states, case closed.

[FlyingSquirrel]

95. Once again. IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Go to the friggin' site, read and understand, or give up the yappin'

[endthewar]

99. I'm sure the red states will just bend over and take it

Those red states are just dying to give more power to the likes of California and New York. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[FlyingSquirrel]

108. They won't have a choice.

Lemme try to explain it one more time, then I'm done with ya.

This thing is either ALREADY A LAW or has passed both houses, in enough states to control 124 EV.

(8 states total)

It has also passed one house in WA, ME, NC and CO. (39 EV)

Essentially, if it became law in all the above 12 states - and it's already a law in 4 of them - then it would be law in states controlling 163 EV.

All it would take is for five other states to pass it:

NY, MI, PA -- all Blue states -- and FL & MO.

31 + 17 + 21 + 27 + 11 = 107. 163 + 107 = 270.

In the above scenario, only 17 states would need to pass the same law in order to make the Electoral College completely irrelevant. No 2/3 majority needed. The law simply states that once enough states have passed it to control 270, every state which has passed the law will award its electoral votes based on the winner of the nationwide popular vote.

There's no getting around it. Each of those states would award their EV this way, and it wouldn't matter what the rest of the states did.

The Constitution allows each state to award its electors whichever way they want. No Constitutional amendment is required. The law is completely constitutional - otherwise it would have been struck down by now in the four states that have passed it.

It does not matter that there are a lot of small states which would oppose the idea (mostly red, since as you can see Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont have gone along). Tough titties to them. Nobody goes to those little states anyway because they're reliably red. In effect, they don't even really HAVE any power to shape the agenda. The Republican candidates spend very little time in Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Alaska or any other number of small states during the typical presidential election. A lot of Democrats in those states don't even bother to vote because they know it won't make a difference. With this law passed in enough states, it WILL make a difference. (Unfortunately the reverse is true in blue states)

Whether it should happen or not, it will happen and the path to making it happen is much easier than you're trying to make it out to be.

[endthewar]

133. Take this to the bank:

The electoral college as it exists now will decide the election in 2012, 2016, and 2020. You can rant and rave as much as you like, but I promise you that will be the case.

The political will to enact this change was back in 2000, yet 8 years later we still have the electoral college as the same. If you actually played out the results of this kind of change in that brain of yours, you'd realize why it wouldn't work. States subscribing to this will automatically lessen their national importance if they had any at all. No swing state or battleground state would go through with this law if it came close to being a reality. States are trying to maximize their importance during the elections, not minimize it. :crazy:

[FlyingSquirrel]

145. You're from Massachusetts...

If the political will to do this no longer exists, why did it pass both houses in MA less than four months ago?

July 30, 2008 — The Massachusetts Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill on third reading (and engrossment). Immediately beforehand, a crippling amendment was defeated by a vote of 27 to 9. Under Massachusetts legislative procedures, an additional vote is required in both the House and Senate to transmit the bill to the Governor. Although this vote was on the agenda on the session's last day (July 31), no action was taken. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/articles/forbes_20080801.php">Associated Press story

On July 9, 2008, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill.

Following the link to the AP story:

Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said that over the span of a two-year legislative session, "there were a lot of big-ticket items and a lot was accomplished."

Wilmot pushed the (national popular vote) measure on behalf of Common Cause and won initial approvals in both the House and Senate. Nonetheless, she was unable to muster a final procedural enactment vote in the Senate — something that can often be done by voice in a matter of seconds — despite lobbying late into the night for the better part of the final week.

"Any time you come that close, within a hair's-breadth of success and don't quite make it, it's disappointing," she said. "On the other hand, when you have three-quarters of the votes in both chambers and the support of the leaders, it's just a matter of time. We will get this next year."

Change takes time, but as long as people are still pushing forward on it - which they are - it will eventually occur. As far as how long it will take, I'd like to borrow that crystal ball of yours 'cause I'll put it to better use (the state lottery comes to mind). :D

[endthewar]

154. Name the states that will get this to 270

Obviously it will pass in deep blue states, but which battleground states actually want their voice tempered? :crazy:

[dbmk]

112. I am not sure you get the idea

The state makes it a law that their EVs should go to the national popular vote winner. Then the rest can scream and shout all they want. They will have to bend over and take it, as far as I can tell.

If enough states carry that idea to fruition(covering 270+ EVs), then you will have a popular vote election without changing a thing in the Constitution.

[endthewar]

134. Why would a battleground state give up their disproportionate voting power

Also, why would citizens reelect their members of Congress who vote against how they voted in a Presidential election? Name the specific states which will add up to 270 electoral votes that will enact this law? You know, it pays to think ahead a little bit on this at least.

[FlyingSquirrel]

153. IL,NJ,MD,HI.. CA,MA,RI,VT.. NC,WA,AR,ME.. NY,CT,NM.. PA,VA,MO,AZ,OR,NV

There's 270.

It's law in IL, NJ, MD, HI
Passed both houses in CA, MA, RI, VT
Passed one house in NC, WA, AR, ME
Passed one committee in NY, CT, NM
Hearings held in PA, VA, MO, AZ, OR, NV

I included only Blue and Swing states above, except possibly NC and AR which many still consider to be swing states (because it's passed one house in each).

In addition, it's passed one committee in LA, AL, KY, WV, and MT for an additional 34 potential EV; and hearings held in NH for another 4, bringing the total to 308.

Bills have been introduced in 15 additional states, and bills are in drafting in MN and DE.

To answer your question as to why the states would give up their disproportional voting power: The issue here is clearly not that. The issue is Democratic vs Republican, as you can see from the fact that Blue states like this and Red states do not. The Republicans love the EC because they know they can win the presidency through a hodgepodge of small red states that will vote for them even if they nominate Satan himself (which some of us believe they did in 2000).

Many people in Swing states will vote for this because they actually believe in democracy and don't feel that a single state, even their own, should decide who the president of the entire country should be.

[endthewar]

155. Yeah, PA is really looking forward to getting rid of all of the attention that it gets

in both the primary season and the general election. :crazy:

[FlyingSquirrel]

156. Again, it's not about attention.

States like PA are gonna get attention still under the national popular vote. It's about truly representative democracy. And frankly, it's about who's in charge in each individual state. My state of WA gets plenty of attention - though not this year - because it is considered a battleground state by Republicans who would like to flip it to red at some point. They've been working at it a long time and they think (in their wet dreams) that it's possible.

But right now, they're not in charge. And while Dems are in charge, you're gonna see more and more blue and swing states passing this because they know it's key to preventing another 2000. The year 2000 has NOT been forgotten BY A LONG SHOT.

So in fact the conditions are ripe for this to happen sooner rather than later. With a huge Democratic shift to the country this year, this will accelerate the process of NPV. Democrats know what it feels like to be out of power and they know that it's only a matter of time before the worm turns again. They'll do whatever they can to build on their strength, and a very important part of that is preventing the Repukes from taking the presidency via the ability to steal it in just a few battleground states with rigged elections. NPV makes this much more difficult because they can't just focus on a few states. They'll have to steal a lot more votes in a lot more states, and that will be harder for them to cover up and get away with.

You get it yet?

:crazy:

[endthewar]

159. I think that PA, OH, and FL will be the biggest advocates to get rid of the electoral college as is

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Chichiri]

80. I sure as hell thought so in 2000. Now, however . . .

I'm really not sure. I mean, the United States is a union of sovereign states -- in structure it's actually closer to the European Union than to, say, France. Granted that our concept of Federalism has changed in 200 years, so I wouldn't complain strongly about abolishing the EC, but we may want to give it some thought first.

[Sebastian Doyle]

84. How about caucuses in all 50 states, on the first Saturday night in November?

No machines. No electoral vote. No DLC/corporatists trying to control the process. Those who give a shit enough to show up are those who make the decision.

[Guava Jelly]

86. Yes

.

[Rwalsh]

88. Please reread my post (#41)

I didn't say I approved of the 2 alternatives. I don't.

I do want the electoral college abolished, but realistically speaking, I don't see it happening. The smaller states will never go for it.

So I offered up two alternatives that I could begrudgingly accept, either of which can be done through the State legislature. Easier than amending the Constitution.

And my point about Nixon, et al. was eliminating the the electoral college by itself won't necessarily change anything. Other changes would have to be made, too.

[dansolo]

90. Absolutely not

But I do believe that the electoral votes should be divided proportionally according to the popular vote in the state, with 2 electoral votes going to the overall statewide winner. What I absolutely do not want to see is the system they have in NE and ME already, which is by congressional district. Gerrymandering is already a huge problem, and if the electors were also on the line, it would only get even worse.

[AZBlue]

91. If we went by popular vote, about 8 states would decide every election.

[Codeine]

105. No.

The American people as a whole would decide the election. As it stands about five states decide the election, and too many of them are podunk states.

[quakerboy]

121. Theoretically the top 9 in population

have half the US population. But for your assertion to be true, someone would have to win those states by better margins than they lost the other states.

The flip side is that right now, you can win with 11 states. You can theoretically win the electoral college with about 29% of the popular vote.

[last_texas_dem]

131. And how does that differ from the current situation exactly?

[Warren Stupidity]

136. No, 50%+1 of the voters would decide.

Oh the horrors!

[Sparkly]

92. Yes!

One person, one vote, all equal.

[donna123]

97. yes, does any other country use this?

I don't understand why it isn't by popular vote
Makes no sense to me

[BlooInBloo]

102. I'm open to all non-idiotic ideas on what to replace it with.

[sniffa]

103. No

[crossroads]

104. YES!!!

[Canuckistanian]

106. No. A proportional representation system should be implemented

That is, candidates should be represented in the same exact proportion that they voted in nationally.

The Electoral College is an artifact of ancient demographic shifts that were never fully understood or studied.

[FUCK_BUSH]

107. 110% YES YES YEAS YES. IT'S SO FU**ING STUPID.

[badacid]

109. Yes

I have never understood the reasoning for the Electoral College since Radio was invented.

My understanding is that it was to give those smaller towns a voice vs the Big Cities.

But now that just about everyone can connect - WEB/Cell Phones/TV/Radio etc - There isn't a voice that can't be heard. There isn't a concern that won't be addressed.

Now, they may be ignored, but that is another problem altogether.

[escapinggreatly]

113. No. n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

114. The electoral college is a disaster waiting to happening

I think the electoral college, far from stopping chaos like some insist it would, actually makes it quite possible for very chaotic situations to happen in which the wrong person wins in a shady way. I mean imagine if a candidate who we all hear lost on election day manages to bribe enough electors to switch their votes to secure themselves the 270 electoral votes when the EC votes a month after the election. If we woke up on November 5th to hear "Obama wins the election", then suddenly a month later we hear, "the electoral college's vote is in, and looks like McCain has secured the 270's to win, so he'll be our next president" (or visa vera switching the names around).

The people would be furious. Those who voted for the guy who was declared the winner a month ago would feel that their votes are in effect worthless if the electors can overturn their decision. Worst yet, what if the guy who originally lost on election day won the popular vote and at least had a convincing argument why they deserved to win? It would rip the country in half, cause massive protests all over the place.

[bigwillq]

115. No

But it couldn't hurt to change some things about it.

I was always for electing a prez by just the popular vote but then I was enlightened that it would be much easier to rig elections that way, and based on what I learned I realized that the EC does protect against some fraud, and I think we need to keep it.

[Quantess]

118. YES! Absolutely!

I believe it is the #1 reason why so few people vote. The electoral college means, basically, your vote doesn't matter unless you live in a swing state.

[LiberalPersona]

120. Yes

it makes no logical sense

Also, we need an instant runoff voting system, that would be the most accurate method.

[expatriate]

123. Yes.

When I learned that "theoretically", the electoral college system could lead to a candidate being elected without the majority of popular votes, I realised it sucked. Why keep using something invented for another century?

Of course, when I mentioned this, I told that it was "only theoretical, that it could never happen."

Presidential Election 2000. Need I say more?

We have the tools, we have the talent. Why not just have a popular vote? So it takes longer to count. Fine, employ some people. God knows there are people out there who would appreciate the jobs.

[gmudem]

124. Abso-freakin-lutely.

After 2000, how can anybody seriously defend the electoral college?? The person who gets the most votes should win! It's that simple!

[last_texas_dem]

132. Hell yes!

What's so bad about "one person, one vote"?

[BigD_95]

138. Yes

and HELL YES!!!!!

[Okie4Obama]

140. Yes. I'd like my vote to actually matter.

It'd be nice for us to leave the 18th Century to join the rest of the world.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. Pop quiz: what was the largest imbalance in state populations in a US census?

ie the proportion of the population of the most populous state to the least populous?

And how many times more did that make a presidential vote worth in the one state compared to another?

[Kajsa]

142. Yes!

The popular vote should determine the winner.

If that had been the case in 2000, Gore would have won.

[Aloha Spirit]

143. Insomuch as it fails the one person one vote spirit, yes.

[Recursion]

144. Imagine Florida in 2000 being repeated 50 times every election

The mind shudders.

[janx]

147. My thoughts exactly. What chaos. n/t

[last_texas_dem]

171. Then again,

if the popular vote had been what counted in 2000, FL wouldn't have even been an issue. GWB would've had a hard time scrounging up with 540,000 votes, especially in the 49 other states where his brother wasn't the Governor.

[Occam Bandage]

148. Obviously. Our current system is outdated and inefficient.

[AzNick]

149. Yes! It is unfair and allows for frauds

If all you need to do to win is concentrate your efforts on one State and rig these elections, then it is time to get rid of it.

Also it would force the candidates to campaign pretty much everywhere.

[riqster]

150. Lots of people don't vote because of the EC

...especially since 2000, when Gore won the popular vote, and didn't get into the White House.

When the vote of the people is overridden by the EC, the people say "Fuck it, why bother?".

[OnionPatch]

151. Yes, but every state at the same time.

The GOP would love to get California to do this before everyone else, so they can peel off half our votes for their fascist buddies. If this is done, it must be done for every state at the same time.

[TransitJohn]

152. Well we amended the Constitution to

make Senators popularly elected, which did away with States' interests being represented by Senators, so why not amend it to have the President popularly elected, too?

[faithfulcitizen]

157. YES.

[LostinVA]

158. Yes -- archaic and created to help the "big people," not the little people

At the very least, we need the electoral votes to be proportional, so we can break the two-party system.

[noonwitch]

160. Ask me on November 5!

Just kidding.

[David__77]

161. Yes, ideally. I would also abolish the senate and the presidency as well.

I'd create a single chamber of maybe 5,000 members, elected from equally-populated districts. That chamber would elect a cabinet that would include a president/prime minister.

[Azlady]

163. Yep

[surrealAmerican]

164. People ask this question every four years.

Yes we should abolish the electoral college, but it will never happen. It would require a constitutional amendment, which would need to be passed by the very states who benefit from the system as it is.

[No Elephants]

169. Definitely, but it will never happen.