Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterPopular vote should be deciding factor
Sunday, Nov. 9, 2008 | 2:02 a.m.
Allow me to preface this letter by acknowledging that I am a whining liberal.
On Tuesday my candidate, Barack Obama, won the presidency of the United States of America. With more than 120 million voters casting ballots, Obama won 364 Electoral College votes compared with John McCain’s 162 votes (11 votes from Missouri still have not been called).
Today in Iraq, American men and women are still sacrificing their lives because we wish to export to that country our style of democracy. We talk about empowering the Iraqi people: We do this with the concept of “one man, one vote.”
Yet today those same Iraqis see that out of 120 million votes cast, one needs win only a majority of 538 Electoral College votes to become president. These same Iraqi people need look back only as far as 2000 to see that a candidate can win the majority of votes and still not become president.
Yes, I’m still whining about the election of 2000. The Electoral College is an antiquated institution and should be abolished. What was its purpose anyway? To me it was instituted because the framers did not trust the wisdom of the populace. The Electoral College allowed them, the framers and the elite of their time, to decide, regardless of the voter’s desires.
If we continue the desire to export “one man, one vote” democracy to other countries, shouldn’t we at least be practicing it when we elect the leader of the most powerful nation in the world?
Discussion: 14 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Fontainebleau contractors say sales process is flawed
- Where to watch UFC 106
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- The pull of a drug, a push to the brink
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
- Fighters make weight, Dana White talks Rampage/Rashad
- Reid clears major health care hurdle, daunting weeks ahead
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (6 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (1 Comment)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (4 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (2 Comments)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
The Chase at Downtown Cocktail Room
Downtown Cocktail Room | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Lady Gaga album release party at Revolution Lounge
Beatles Revolution Lounge | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food drive at Christian Audigier
Christian Audigier The Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Above & Beyond at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
In this election if we did not have the electoral college, not one Pres or VP candidate would have come to Nevada.
Obama would not have made his bogus promise to "End the notion of Yucca."
There would not have been ten of thousands of Califorina's coming here to register and vote in Nevada.
ACORN would not have sign up Mickey and Mini Mouse to vote.
There would have a lot less TV commericals and fewer phone calls and knocks on our doors.
Hey....you are right....lets drop the electoral college.
hey nance, where have you been, vacation?
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 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 bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators -- 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes -- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
What a great concept. The politicians running for President would only have to campaign in the big cities: New York, L.A., Chicago, the Midwest, as a whole, wouldn't be hit at all. Maybe Miami and Atlanta in the South. It would save tons of money. If anyone ever checked the U.S. map, by counties, after an election, one could see why this is unfair.
And as to why the framers of the Constitution did this, it is the same reason there is a Senate and House of Reps. Smaller states would never get a say in government, because they don't have the populace to be important. Maybe we could redraw the state boundaries to make all states have the same population. The resulting populace would have more in common with each other than they do now. While we are at it, why don't we outlaw the Rupublican Party as well? The Sun is more liberal than the New York Times or Daily News!
I understand the arguements against the electoral college... Yes every vote is important, etc...
However, eliminating the electoral college would significantly change our presidental elections and not in a good way. Those that have said Nevada and other small population states wouldn't see a presidient are correct. The candidates just wouldn't get their bang for their buck here.
The election campaign would basicically take place in less than 20 states, is that a good thing?
Also in a reasonably close election you can expect both parties to ask for recount after recount. It is possible that an election might not be called for months after the law suits, it could make the Florida mess in 2000 look like the minor leagues.
Exp #1 - 1960 Kennedy won the popular vote over Nixon 34,226,731 to 34,108,157
Exp #2 - 1968 Nixon - 31,785,480, Humphrey - 31,275,166
Exp #3 - 1976 Carter - 40,830,763, Ford - 39,147,973
Obviously everyone knows about 2000.... The point is, these elections would have become so bogged down that who knows how long it would take to name a winner.
Like it or not...The electoral college is still the most logical way to choose a president.
Maybe states would merge to become Megastates. Nevaztah! :-)
The ten biggest states have over half the population of the country. If the electoral college was eliminated (or circumvented, as by the state legislation someone mentioned above), the 40 smaller states would have little say in presidential elections.
However, since any attempt change this situation would require the cooperation of at least 28 of those smaller states (to pass a constitutional amendment), it's never going to happen.
Accept it and move on.
Durham, what's so hard to understand about the concept that 'majority rules'. Each vote should count equally regardless of the state a person lives in. This has nothing to do with smaller states not having as much 'say' as to who becomes president. It's about each person having a valid, viable vote that counts IN SPITE OF the state they live in. Let's make this truly a government FOR the People and BY THE PEOPLE.
The problem is how to balance out the large states from the small ones. It has been correctly pointed out that New York, California, Illinois, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a few others would effectively decide a race. This would leave Alaska, North/South Dakota, Idaho, and many other states in limbo. Presidents would bi-pass them. This isn't to say that some of those states aren't passed up already, but their vote seems to matter more.
Perhaps instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, apportion electoral votes according to district as Maine and Nebraska do already. That way liberals in Texas don't feel like their throwing a vote away, and conservatives in California don't feel the same way.
Any way you dice the apple, a large group of people will not be happy.
I'd like to see the electoral college enhanced so that each elector is assigned to a congressional district and must vote as that district voted instead of winner-take-all for a state as it is now. The two votes that represent seats in the Senate can be on a winner-take-all basis.
This would still allow the situation where the popular vote disagreed with the electorial college, but we have never been a democracy. We are a republic, which is better in my opinion.
BigStack....you are so correct.
Small states would lose so much power if they agree to do away with the electoral college.
It will never happen.
Leave it alone - it has worked for over 200 years - it provides for ways of resolving ties and is our tradition. We have a republican form of government - not a democracy. Ok, go Obama!
Another argument for the Electoral College: It prevents small parties and splinter groups from gaining disproportionate influence. For example: in some of our recent close elections, if the American Nazi Party could claim half a million members nationwide, it could try to make a deal with the Republicans and Democrats. "Give our leader a cabinet post and we'll tell all our members to vote for you." It's the sort of thing you see in some parliamentary governments where small radical groups hold cabinet posts. Since the Electoral College requires that the candidate carry the state to get its electoral votes, no whacko group can ever gain much influence.
don't know about the last comment - since I do believe that the two party system does not work and believe that more parties who could garner votes would be a better system - the dems and reps have some differences but their overall effect is ineffective government that cannot solve the great problems of our country and our world - with either party in office 25,000 kids starve to death each day in the third world and our government is disinterested in doing anything effective about that - and American kids die fairly often from dental infections because we don't have universal health care and we engage in unjust wars and imprison thousands of people unjustly. Ok, so on that cheery note - no - I don't want an American Nazi party in power but I also don't appreciate some of the righties who set a social tone which is taken as encouraging the killing of abortion docs and other hateful acts are blessed. Ok, a bit off the subject - but I would hope that the current parties are able at some point to evolve into more groups which might effectively represent the views of the citizens and put forward a vigorous agenda of helpfulness and love!