NaBloPoMo Day #12 - Eliminating the Electoral College
by Nathan on Nov.12, 2009, under Politics
 |
Yesterday I blogged about what I would change in the U.S. Government if I could. Today, I’m going to talk about the answer a lot of other people would give. Eliminating the Electoral College. In case you don’t know, and seriously, you should know, but in case you don’t, the Electoral College is how the United States elects a President and Vice President. Each State is given one elector for each Senator and Representative in the House. Washington D.C. get’s three electors. There are 538 electors in total. Each State decides how to split up their electoral votes depending on the popular vote in that State. Most states use a winner take all system, where whichever candidate wins the popular vote wins all of the State’s electoral votes. So, if a candidate wins a large state with a slim margin in the popular vote, he or she still takes home a large number of electoral votes. This is how George Bush was able to lose the popular vote by 500,000 in the 2000 election, but still win more electoral votes and thus win the election.
Many people believe that George Bush stole the election in 2000 because of our flawed electoral college system. This isn’t really fair though, because candidates campaign to win the most electoral votes. Had George Bush been campaigning to win the popular vote, it is entirely possible that he would have done so. Of course Al Gore wasn’t trying to win the popular vote either, and yet he managed to do it. Regardless, the point is, we don’t know what would have happened in a popular vote election.
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who didn’t think the Electoral College should be eliminated. It’s just that it takes a constitutional amendment to change it, and it hardly ever makes a difference anyways, so why bother? The Electoral College does have it’s good points. It is supposed to protect the rights of small states. Which I think is a fair argument. There is a lot of group think going on in elections. I think most people vote for who their peers vote for, rather than making up their own mind. Just because some groups have more people in them, doesn’t make their opinions any more valid.
All in all, if it were up to me, I would probably eliminate the Electoral College. It doesn’t actually do much to protect the rights of small states, and to a small extent, it undermines the credibility of our democracy. It is interesting to think about how Presidential elections would change if we went to a popular vote system. Under our current system, candidates spend a vast majority of their time in a few key swing states, while a lot of other states are completely ignored. If we went to a popular vote system, I imagine that candidates would spend most of their time in major population centers, and the more rural areas would be ignored. This would probably be an improvement, since candidates would have to pay attention to a lot more of the country.
Wow, you have no idea how boring this blog post is. Oh wait, yes you do, you just read it. Why didn’t you stop and do something better with your time. I’m sorry. You have no idea how many times I stopped while writing this and thought, oh God, this is so boring, just post a Haiku or something. Oh well, at least I checked another NaBloPoMo day off. I’ll post pictures of my cat tomorrow. Everybody loves cat pictures.
5 Comments for this entry
Leave a Comment
MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter
Calendar
Recent
- French Wedding
- Graduation Note
- Italy Day 7
- Italy Day 6
- Italy Day 5
- Italy Day 4
- Proposition C
- Italy Day 3
- Italy Day 2
- Italy Day 1
Categories
- About Me
- Brilliant Ideas
- Daily Life
- Good Eats
- Good Reads
- Miscellaneous
- Modern Jackass Theory
- Music
- Politics
- Projects
- Spirituality
- Tech
- Telly
- Travel
- Women's Studies
- Wordless Wednesday
Archives
- July 2011
- June 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- March 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
November 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
November 16th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives “exclusive” and “plenary” control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.
Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.
In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.
What the current U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
November 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.
Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.