Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Each election, there are some who want to change how we elect the president. Specifically, there are calls to do away with the Electoral College.
I believe the Electoral College is a valid and vital concept. What I disagree with is that the electoral votes are awarded on a “winner-take-all” basis per state.
I think it would better serve our republic to award Electoral College votes on a per-congressional-district basis. That is, each vote is awarded to the winner of a congressional district, and the overall state winner gets the two votes represented by the Senate seats. There are a couple of states that already do this.
Changing this would have no impact on the several small states that have only a single congressional district. It is the large states like California, Texas and New York that would see a potentially dramatic change in how their votes are allocated.
It will be difficult to do this on a national level, but we can do it here in Nevada just as those other states have. We might wind up splitting our votes 4-2, but voters in both our rural and urban areas could feel as if their vote mattered.
The author is chairman of the Whig Party of Nevada.
In reply to Jim Bacon; I like the Whig Party. And you have a good strategy by wanting to focus on congressional districts. A third party could potentially get a larger proportion of the electoral vote than it would of the popular vote.
I must say, you play the strategy game of "Risk" quite well with a healthy dose of diplomacy.
Good job Jim, but your political cover is blown.
The real benefit would be that candidates would have to campaign all over America not just in Ohio and Florida
Jim, I suggest in the future you just come right out and say what you mean, and mean what you say with no hidden strategies or intents. I'm so fed up with these type politicians.
"A fresh rose should never be immersed with flaccid flowers."
>B. Chapline<
Jim:
What you failed to address/comment on is that the inherent inclination and design of the Electoral College [EC] preempts third parties in the US. It's [EC] structure allows two parties to compete well and one to win but not 3.
CarmineD
For years, I have backed the idea of eliminating the Electoral College and returning to popular vote that represents each voter. The writer, Jim Bacon, has offered a reasonable compromise worthy of pursuing. Change in the system must happen because the power of super PACs have drowned out the singular voices of the People. This is a good start and I truly hope it is possible to make it happen.
Blessings and Peace,
Star
This suggestion, in essence, creates 336 "states" instead of 51 (DC included). The electoral college that exists today can already defeat the will of the majority and is already distant enough from "one person, one vote". This suggestion makes it worse. If you want to make room for third parties, eliminate the electoral college completely and remove the House of Representatives from the election of the President by specifying a runoff election of the top two vote-getters if no candidate gets X% of the vote.
Another danger of this suggestion is that the election of the President would be subjected to whatever gerrymandering one party or the other could pull off in determining the boundaries of each congressional district. That reality alone makes this a scary proposition.
It is unlikely that the suggested changes would have any impact on third party success as the barriers to those parties would continue to be promulgated and enforced by both major parties. The current Electoral College is biased in favor of states with low population....Montana, Wyoming, etc. The Congressional District suggestion would further that bias especially in Western states. Much as it seems contrarian in these times I'm in favor of a more republican form of government, not less. Our elected officials run the gamut from genuinely hard workers with intelligence to complete vapid morons, but they are more easily dealt with than the mob of muddy-booted Jacksonians.
Not a word from Whig Party representatives. I was lead to believe that the Nevada Whigs political party were people who desired to be trustees of "The People" and believed in open, honest debates and dialog that were to be in the best interests of America as a whole.
Up to this point I'm seeing the Nevada Whigs are reliving their past history. That would be when pressing issues confront the Whigs; they run and hide into their political sanctuaries.
I warned you all that I would do more harm than good to this newly formed political party. But the truth is the truth. This is just another "flash in the pan" political party that was formed to give certain individuals a bit of political exposure. What else should I think if modern day Whigs won't answer my question as to whether they feel about Middle-Eastern and Hispanic immigrants, like their predecessors when they believed the United States was being overwhelmed by the German and Irish Catholic immigrants who were regarded as hostile to Republican values?
Well, Nevada Whigs, you have achieved your exposure early. Just like the Whig predecessors who were divided by the "Compromise of 1850", some joined the Democrat Party, and others joined the Republican Party. The leftovers joined the "Know Nothing" Party. Now there is an appropriate title for the rebirth of a political party!!!
I've always noticed that people want something changed only when it suits their purposes. Especially when it deals with politics. And getting into power.
Leave it alone. It works now. Don't need changing.
Besides that I like it when I can actually say that the people have spoken after an election.
Let's not change it to the people have spoken, but the elected officials have decided not to listen to them. Because they're too busy trying to rig the system in order to grab power.
Oh wait a minute!!! We already have a "Know Nothing" political party representing America. It's called the Republicans.
At the extreme ends of the Electoral College Wyoming gets 1 EC vote per 137,000 voting age population [not registered voters or actual voters] while New York gets 1 EC vote per 516,000 voting age population. So much for one man:one vote. Regardless, the system mostly works. Manipulating the EC in the hopes of introducing a third party into the mix is a pipe dream....possibly best argued in Colorado and Washington which recently legalized pot. I agree with the correspondents who note that this could make things worse than they currently are.
Don't get me wrong, I still like the Whig political party. Politically speaking, the Whigs are even easier for me to slap upside their heads than the idiotic Republicans are!!!
We need more dumb partys to take votes from the Republiklans.
So nice of the author to completely ignore the consequences of gerrymandering in his plot to ignore the intent of the founding fathers.
When you look at the House election in 2012, you see a very clear consequence of gerrymandering. If one were to take the popular vote totals, they were nearly equal. At last count, Democrats held a slight 0.6% edge in the popular vote for the House.
Yet the House remains firmly under GOP control with a 30 seat margin...
Jim's scheme to betray the founding fathers vision and substitute a new racket for electing the President would make it MORE likely that the candidate who won the popular vote would lose the Presidency.
That's the wrong direction for our country.
If this is the best the Whigs have to offer, maybe they should remain a footnote in history.
Yah, that is what we need, our presidential elections susceptible to gerrymandering! I'll take the current system, thanks!
If all (wo)men are created equal, our votes should be created equal as well. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote should win the presidency.
The winner-take-all system was not adopted by most states until the 1820s. It is no where to be found in the Constitution, and using the CD system that I advocate (such as what Maine and Nebraska use) is a step closer to what was arguably intended.
Winner-take-all is undoubtedly a means to enhance party politics.
As originally practiced, people would vote not for a given candidate for President, but for an elector who favored a given candidate. The results from early elections show how the electoral college vote was split in each state for different candidates (and after 1792, for both President and Vice-president.) The electors were not tied to a CD, only to the number of CDs in a state plus the seats in the Senate.
Just as the original design was meant to be a compromise between having the House elect the President and having a direct popular vote, the per-CD system is a compromise that retains the Electoral College but moves it closer to the people inasmuch as (gerrymandering notwithstanding) CDs tend to break large states into more regionally similar areas.
From what I can tell it was largely the Jacksonians who pushed through wiiner-take-all in various states following the 1824 election. Other states had little choice but to follow along in order to retain parity in the process.
We could of course return to the original system. It might entertaining indeed to see over 100 people campaigning in California as electors. Talk about being a battleground state. :)
Our founding fathers did not envision a system where corrupt leaders gerrymandered districts into ensuring their chosen party remained in power.
Given the recent election, where Democrats won a majority of popular votes for seats in the House of Representatives, yet are still in the minority by 30 seats, this half-baked plot is a recipe for failure.
Special interest money would flood state legislatures, electing well-heeled plutocrats who would rig the game. This scheme is inviting corruption.
The "modern" Whig party is a misnomer, given their policies are still firmly rooted in the past. The election of the President should remain free from the threat of gerrymandering.
Yes, the Modern Whigs do take inspiration from the Whigs of the past, but look to see how those principles can be applied to the current environment.
The original intent was that large states could not run roughshod over the smaller ones in the election process and was intentionally designed to give small states an advantage by including seats in the Senate in the calculation. At one point Virginia had 15% of the total electoral vote, but because it could be split the full power of that bloc was not felt.
The winner-take-all system has concentrated a large amount of power in only a few states such as California, Texas and New York. A direct popular vote is no different in that the large population centers would still be swamping rural regions (Nevada is a case in point.)
Per-CD voting addresses both those concerns in today's political environment.
As for gerrymandering, the practice is as despicable as it is pervasive. The only way to stop it is to nominate and elect representatives who value the good of the people above the good of their respective parties. And if you think gerrymandering is bad, look at the new open primary system in California.
"What else should I think if modern day Whigs won't answer my question as to whether they feel about Middle-Eastern and Hispanic immigrants, like their predecessors when they believed the United States was being overwhelmed by the German and Irish Catholic immigrants who were regarded as hostile to Republican values?" - BChap
Bradley, I don't recall seeing that question before but will take a stab at it (and go badly off topic in the process.)
The short answer is that the Modern Whigs support a modified version of the Dream Act with emphasis on a pathway to citizenship for those who served their country, i.e. military service (and I could argue by extension the Peace Corps and similar activities.) There is not so much support for students, but then again the party is more in favor of affirmative action based on merit rather than race or ethnic grounds.
There is no clear consensus as yet other than legal immigration needs to be streamlined while illegal immigration needs to be viewed in terms of what impact it has upon society and the infrastructure. I would point out that there is a diversity among the National Executive Committee including a Muslim (in Texas!) and a Filipino.
Our concern about illegal immigration is most likely a result of the concern about protecting American markets from undue influence/competition from foreign pressure without regard to anything else.
I'll put the question to the national Chair and forward his answer to you.
Jim
The following post should have appeared here but I made the mistake of posting in on another thread....
Sorry about that....
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college System not with the small states necessarily in mind, They created the system to keep from giving the people themselves the opportunity to directly elect the president....
Many of the Founders had serious reservations about giving the vote to the masses. Alexander Hamilton stated that to give the vote to the masses would be a great mistake because the masses would sell their vote to the highest bidder....
Presently, the Electoral College System favors the large states. Most people don't believe that but it's true.
A presidential candidate can currently win the White House by carrying a mere 11 of the 50 states.
Only in a very close election, such as 2000, does the small states figure into the mix. The larger states such as California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan. Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wisconsin receive most of the attention from the presidential candidates....
Of course, that's where the electoral votes are....
In many of our presidential elections over the year's it's has not been unusual for one or both of the candidates to completely ignore many of the smaller states.
Nixon made a grave mistake in 1960 when he pledged early on that he would visit all 50 states during his campaign.
The day before the election Nixon was in Alaska and his opponent, John Kennedy, was having lunch in Illinois with the mayor of Chicago.
Kennedy carried Illinois , with the help of Mayor Richard Dailey, by approximately 9,000 votes & became the president... An interesting fact about the presidential election in Illinois in 1960 was the fact that Nixon carried 92 of the 101 counties but got beat.
In this year's election Obama carried 11 of the 14 states that I have listed.
What did Bill Clinton keep telling us during the recent campaign? I believe he said it's all about arithmetic!
He wasn't talking about the Electoral College but he could have been and he would have been correct.
"Presently, the Electoral College System favors the large states. Most people don't believe that but it's true." - El_Lobo
I would disagree with this only in that it is not the system that favors the large states, but rather the current implementation, winner-take-all, that does that. I do agree that large states have a decided advantage, just as large population centers would in a direct popular vote.
If states were to go to a district system such I advocate (and ironically, so did Andrew Jackson, though his party pushed winner-take-all) then small states have a slight edge, as was the original intent, in my opinion. I submit that this would be the true compromise.
In reply to Jim Bacon; I'm really disappointed in you. I don't vote because political parties and their candidates do not earn votes; they look for strategic methods to get votes.
The issue of immigration is NOT off topic. I quote you as saying, "I'll put the question to the national Chair and forward his answer to you." Don't bother, for this serves as an appropriate example of the Nevada Whigs being the puppets of the national Whig organization, and therefore proves that there is no real debates and or dialogs on political issues. Political positions of the Whigs have already been determined. I don't play that game. This is why I'm an Independent.
"When the true colors of a politician come out, there are no bright ensigns."
>B. Chapline<
So Jim thinks gerrymandering is "pervasive" yet thinks that elections via gerrymandered Congressional districts are the smartest way to elect Presidents?
Is this really the best the "Whigs" can come up with? Gerrymandering and fraud, a system which is likely to punish the popular vote champion, and one that... oh, hey... benefits the GOP, who can't compete in the current system!
Jim doesn't need any Windex, we can see right through him.
Good try, Kevin, but I also decried gerrymandering and said what had to be done to stop it. What have you done to prevent it?
We deal with what we have until we can change it.
By the way, what do you think of IL CD4? And what party does it benefit?
BChap,
Immigration is off-topic for this letter, but I answered you, plus I put the question to the national Chair and sent you a private email on that. As I said, I won't duck a question. I just won't promise (or expect) that everyone will agree with my answer.
In reply to Mr. Chairman; you got caught with your finger in the political "cookie jar" where it didn't belong. You attempted to convince readers that your letter to the editor recommending changes to the Electoral College was in the best interests of voters of all persuasions, when in fact it is the best chance for a third party, such as the Whigs to win some votes.
These are the same "slick-n-sly" maneuvers that caused the disintegration of the original Whig Party. Once again, the same fate will hold true.
By the way, be it the normal Republicans or Democrats, no voter respects a "political sidestepper"! You may be the Chairperson of the Nevada Whig political party, but you do not determine in the Las Vegas Sun discussion rooms what is or is not within a topic range. The Las Vegas Sun room moderators do that; and apparently they do not see it your way.
You've collectively destroyed any credibility you may have once had as a Whig Party chairman.
Bradley....
I believe you're attempting to "get loose" with historical information about the "old" Whig Party.
You said:
"These are the same "slick-n-sly" maneuvers that caused the disintegration of the original Whig Party."
The #1 reason the Whig Party disappeared from the national scene during the 1850's was the disagreement over slavery. The party split right down the middle with Northern Whigs opposing slavery & Southern Whigs backing slavery.
If the leaders of the Whig Party (both north and south...) had been able to come to any type of agreement on the future of slavery, the Whigs would not have gone the way of the dinosaur.....
Of course, the Whig Party was never a tightly organized and highly structured party with a truly national agenda.
Yes, they agreed on certain things (tariffs & internal improvements for example) but the reason the party was organized in the first place was due to their great dislike/distrust of Andrew Jackson...
They considered Jackson to be a tyrant; a dictator; and a man who would do most anything to grab and hold power...
They nicknamed Jackson "King Andy," and that was the main thing that brought them together as a party..
As you may know, the term "whig" comes from England. That was the name of the party who opposed a strong king. They wanted a strong parliament and a weak king.
On the other hand, the party that opposed the Whigs (Tories) wanted a strong king and a weak parliament...
As I mentioned on an earlier thread, the chances of the modern Whigs becoming a major political party is "slim & none and slim left town last week on a bus headed for parts unknown." It's just not going to happen!
Sorry about that boftx, but that's the truth... I commend you for your effort but our two party system is "rigged."
In reply to El_Lobo; that's very good. What you do think the "Compromise of 1850" was that I referred to in my 9:41 AM post?
Go back to sleep.....
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Bradley attempts to be funny....Fat chance of that happening but the little guy should be given credit for trying...
I like the fact that you did mention the Compromise of 1850. Of course, I'm sure you're aware that the man behind the passage of the Compromise of 1850 was long time Whig leader Henry Clay.
The compromise did do one main thing.....it averted war, at least for a while. The South got the short end of the stick with the compromise & the North came out smelling pretty sweet.
In retrospect, the compromise actually moved the nation closer to war with the admission of California in to the union which gave the North control of the Senate.
The North, with its growing population, already controlled the House...
The fugitive slave law that was part of the compromise was impossible to enforce. The South quickly realized that with in months of the bills passage....
Yes, the Whig Party became divided over slavery and when the party broke-up Northern Whigs flocked to the new Republican Party. Southern Whigs had no choice but to join the Democrats.
Yes, the new Republican Party was a mixed bag with many different groups joining its ranks. It was a "regional party" and was established with the idea that there should be no further extension of slavery into the new lands of the west.
Speaking of immigrants at that point in time..........most immigrants settled in the North because they could not compete with the slave labor system that existed in the South.
Yes, the "Know-Nothings" (official name was the American Party) were very anti-immigrant. Many joined the new Republican Party, along with anti-slavery people & out and out abolishists.......as I said earlier, the Republican Party was a mixed bag!
A survey of Nevada voters showed 72% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 80% for a national popular vote among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 68% among Others.
By age, support for a national popular vote was 75% among 18-29 year olds, 61% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 73% for those older than 65.
By gender, support for a national popular vote was 80% among women and 63% among men.
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). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO -- 68%, FL -- 78%, IA 75%, MI -- 73%, MO -- 70%, NH -- 69%, NV -- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC -- 74%, OH -- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -- 70%, DC -- 76%, DE -- 75%, ID -- 77%, ME -- 77%, MT -- 72%, NE 74%, NH -- 69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, OK -- 81%, RI -- 74%, SD -- 71%, UT -- 70%, VT -- 75%, WV -- 81%, and WY -- 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR -- 80%, KY- 80%, MS -- 77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, OK -- 81%, SC -- 71%, TN -- 83%, VA -- 74%, and WV -- 81%; and in other states polled: AZ -- 67%, CA -- 70%, CT -- 74%, MA -- 73%, MN -- 75%, NY -- 79%, OR -- 76%, and WA -- 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
NationalPopularVote
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district method. Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote.
A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine's electoral votes,
* 71% favored a national popular vote;
* 21% favored Maine's current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
***
A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska's electoral votes,
* 60% favored a national popular vote;
* 28% favored Nebraska's current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
* 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote
Dividing more states' electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 "battleground" districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Jim Bacon is wrong, the Electoral College should be abolished conpletely. I have asked the following questions on previous letters to the editor, but nobody can give me an answer. If the Electoral College is so great, why don't any of the states employ a similar system to elect their governors? And why don't other countries use a similar approach to elect their leaders? Everyone who conducts elections to choose their cheif executive always use the popular vote, except for the U.S.
In reply to Jim Bacon; thank you for the answer to my questions that you got answered by the National Modern Whigs. I was quite surprised to have received this type of response.
As an ordinary American, I feel increasingly alienated from the American political process. I truly believe when it comes to elected officials, a good person is hard to find. During our most recent election, I would have loved to have voted for the "best man", but there wasn't a candidate who completely fit the bill.
Jim, I was upset that you took the route in your letter to the editor that was not what I call being "brutally upfront". I can get over this episode, if, I continue to see, as in reference to the reply I received from Mr. Andrew Evans, the following from Modern Whig representatives;
I look for candidates who have absolute integrity and intellectual honesty.
I look for candidates who treat their constituents like adults with a brain, and promote openness and transparency in government.
I look for candidates who have good ideas, with the ability and vision to turn those "vote-earning" ideas into action.
I look for candidates who can see beyond the next election and who have the political courage to lay the foundation for America. Even if it means making unpopular decisions today.
I look for candidates who are willing to work in good faith with those from across the aisle in order to get things done.
I look for candidates who are not afraid to challenge their party's headship when they are not acting and or producing up to expectations.
This is where I stand, without any compromises on these aspects whatsoever. If, you, Jim, are still interested in having me as a member of the Modern Whigs, I will consider your invitation. If not, I will truly understand. Sincerely, B. Chap
Bradley,
I thought I was being open and honest when I sent the letter in over my title and position. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
Without regard to third parties, I do feel that our winner-take-all system is doing us an injustice. I also feel the Adams and others were correct in seeking a compromise position between a popular vote and having a system like England to select the President.
I feel that having a district based system would bring things back in line with what was envisioned.
Jim