Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Regarding Joshua Spivak’s recent column, “Founders’ choice: the Electoral College”: The Electoral College was invented to shift the focus from the citizens’ direct popular vote and to conceal an unbridled intention by the Founders to keep power and control. The proposal that the people elect the president directly was soundly rejected by the Founding Fathers, who were in favor of indirect popular election. They wanted to attempt to control the presidency through political manipulation. One argument against scrapping the Electoral College at the time of its inception was that direct election might encourage third and fourth parties to rise up. ...
Mr La Porta is wrong. The Electoral College preserves the essential reality that the United States is just that, a union of sovereign States. It has been documented over the years that the effect of moving to a majority system would only ensure that more populated area receive all of the attention. The only useful change that would preserve the intentions of the founding fathers would be for each State to require that its Electors represent the percentage result of that State. Such a change would ensure that candidates for the Presidency would need to actually focus on the entire country in their campaign and political thinking.
There is a difference between a direct vote, and Direct Democracy.
I think there would need to be some studying by Americans to familiarize themselves about Direct Democracy or "Pure Democracy", with all it
s variations, before they would be able to consider such a thing rationally.
It would also require a radical change of our Constitution and system.
Our culture would have to become very much more responsible as citizens to be able to function in a Direct Democracy.
I am not sure we could function as a Direct Democracy in such a large country. Maybe on a State level, with a Representative Democracy or some other form, like a Directorial system on the Federal level.
Switzerland is a great example, and successful as a Direct Democracy, but it is very small compared to the US. The Swiss are a different people too, with 3 major cultures in 3 different regions related to where the borders are. (Austrian, French, and German, I believe).
I doubt we will ever seriously consider such a huge change in the US.
The electoral College would be fine IF it did not award all the electors of a state to the candidate that won a 'majority' of the popular vote in that state.
Take California and Texas as two examples. All of California electors are almost always awarded to the D candidate, and that is unfair to the R supporters in that state. It's like their wishes are NOT considered. The same is true in Texas, but it's the D supporters wishes that are NOT considered.
We don't need to abolish the Electoral College. We just need to modify it.
Michael
You don't scrub a tried and true system because it failed 4 out of 44 times in 225 years. That's as close to perfection it can get in an imperfect world.
CarmineD
News Flash:
Early voting returns show President Obama is leading slightly. Once the republicans get off work and vote, it will change.
CarmineD
Re Carmine. No it won't.
Carmine and Gary,
Either the polls in the swing states are wrong, as the polls were in Wisconsin , with the recall, in which case Romney probably wins, or the swing state polls are correct, and Obama probably wins. We should know soon.
Michael
@wtplv,
"Either the polls in the swing states are wrong, as the polls were in Wisconsin , with the recall,.." (Michael Casler)
Before and during the Recall in Wisconsin, the polls always showed governor Scott Walker leading. What poll or polls are you referring to?
Longtimevegan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/140...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100...
There were more and you can find them if you look. There were also polls showing him tied or slightly ahead. He won by a larger margin than almost any poll predicted.
In all honesty, I suspect the polls are correct and Obama will win today, although by a small margin.
As I said, we will see.
Michael
"It is time to abolish the Electoral College and put term limits on the autocratic thinkers..."
LaPorta -- what you've ignored is without the electoral college we might as well stay home today. California, with about ten times our population, will decide the national election for us.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -- George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (1945)
Michael,.....the information you provided on the polls??? Ok, ok.
A reminder,
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
It is time to end the electoral college. It made sense in the late eighteenth century to bring electors together, since it would otherwise take months to tally a popular vote. There really is no good reason why Ohioans (or Floridians, South Carolinians, etc.) should decide this election.
But the main source of our political impasses right now is the senate rule requiring 60 votes to invoke cloture. There's nothing in the Constitution that provides for such a procedure, yet that one rule is the primary reason for Congressional gridlock.
Rather than write another detailed post on why we should keep the Electoral College system but "tweak it, I'm simply going to repeat what I have said earlier...
"As I said earlier, let's keep the Electoral College but "tweak" it to better serve every single voter in this country...
I'm not a great fan of the electoral college as it presently stands, but I wouldn't want us to go to strickly a popular vote set-up.
Small states would lose all identify! With that being said, unless it's a very close election (like 2000) currently the small states play a very small role in the election...
What we need to go to is a system where we no longer have the "winner take all" of a state's electoral votes.
Use the Congressional districts (there's 435 of them) and award candidates electoral votes based upon the votes in each Congressional district.
If a candidate wins a Congressional district, he/she is awarded one electoral vote.
Also, the candidate who carries the state over-all in votes is awarded the other two electoral votes (one for each Senator) of that state.
Nothing would change with Washington, DC. DC would still have three electoral votes determined by the popular vote of the people.
That system would make all 50 states important in terms of the election...
The Congressional districts would all be equal...each one having ONE VOTE!"
Longtimevegan,
Thank you for at least acknowledging that I did not pull my opinion out of my behind with no supporting facts. It's not often that I can even get that. Usually, when I say something and back it up with facts, the opposing side changes the subject.... which is a big part of the problem.
I agree with you that President Obama most likely gets re-elected. By 6 or 8 points? I will be very surprised.
Michael
With a wave of his hand, Mr. La Porta dismisses the deliberations, debates, and arguments of our nation's Founders, some of the most esteemed intellectual minds of their, or any, time. He should have more humility.
The Founders were concerned about a number of potential problems with a direct popular vote. One was the election of a demagogue. Another was the election of "favorite sons" from each state, none of which would have a mandate of the whole country. Another was the dominance of the interests of certain segments of the population, such as states or urban populations. Another was how to recognize the will of each sovereign state. Are we no longer concerned about these problems?
But they also wanted the election to reflect the will of the people. So they devised the system of electors that we have today, in which each state, in its sovereign authority, decides how its electors will be appointed. The only direction in the Constitution is that each state's electors would mirror its congressional representation, which relects the mixed nature of the state: its population and its status as a co-equal sovereign society.
Anyone who argues against our electoral system should adequately research the logic of that system, or else their arguments cannot be taken seriously. The method for change exists, but a seriously researched and logically presented argument for change has the only chance of ratification as an amendment to the Constitution.
Michael, Obama loses by a landslide. remember you heard it here first.
Carmine said:
"You don't scrub a tried and true system because it failed 4 out of 44 times in 225 years. That's as close to perfection it can get in an imperfect world."
Hmmmmm.....it appears that Carmine has changed his tune from what he said earlier....
Earlier he used the number 3, saying that the Electoral College System had failed a mere 3 times out of 44 times....
He now says 4....
Hmmmmmm...Is that a case of Carmine doing what his favorite presidential candidate has done for the last year and a half....."FLIP-FLOP?"
Carmine the "flip-flopper," I like the sound of that, don't you?
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%), while 80% of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
If you support the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, then you are mistaken The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.
Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. In 2008, presidential campaigns spent 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state's electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That's over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans. Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don't visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.
With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn't give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.
It has not been documented over the years that the effect of moving to a majority system would only ensure that more populated area receive all of the attention.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also 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.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation's closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269--269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
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 possessing 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 presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
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.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
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.
NationalPopularVote
mvymvy said:
"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."
Link or two please....
Bob,
It is not difficult at all to divide up the Electoral College votes for a given state: simply give them out one per CD and the overall state winner gets the two for the Senate chairs.
El_Lobo advocates this, and I would be in favor of such a change, too.
It would maintain the ideal that States are separate entities and also tend to dilute the impact that high density population centers would have.
It has the added advantage that for a few States that have only one CD it would work exactly as the existing system does, but for the large States like California and New York that have a marked difference in political affiliation in different regions it would give a real voice to the people outside the large cities.
BTW, for those who didn't get it, the NEWSFLASH post was a joke, as in humor.
BUT this isn't. Once again the Electoral system worked.
CarmineD
"Earlier he used the number 3, saying that the Electoral College System had failed a mere 3 times out of 44 times...."
You used 3 and I responded to it. When I posted I used the correct number 4 which included 2000, unlike you who didn't. You must have slept through that election.
CarmineD
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. A smaller fraction of the country's population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 20%) that now get overwhelming attention, while 80% of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
Carmine said:
"You used 3 and I responded to it. When I posted I used the correct number 4 which included 2000, unlike you who didn't. You must have slept through that election."
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Hey little buddy. Believe what ever you want...that's what you normally do...
Today I was trying to remember what you said about the Obama v Romney election in terms of the Electoral College break down....
Can you go over that again for all the posters on this board? How many electoral votes did you swear that Romney would get & how many electoral votes did you assign to Obama?
Also, what was your statement about Romney carrying ALL the battle ground states? Every one of them?
I'm getting "long in the tooth" (I borrowed that fron you...Ha! Ha!) and some times I forget the silly things that right-wingers such as you say....
Oop's I'm sorry! You claim to be a moderate who leans a little bit to the left, not a right-winger!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
You win some, and lose some. And some you get a draw. No bearing on politics and party. It's just the way it is.
BTW, winning as Obama did is just the start. He still has to finish the job! And he's facing a GOP controlled House JUST AS I SAID HE WOULD.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH
CarmineD
BTW, if you were as smart as you think you are, you'd know that we've had 44 presidents but 57 presidential elections. It's not an issue of 3 or 4 misses out of 44, but really 4 misses out of 57. Right! Pretty darn near perfect.
CarmineD
Why should it be considered a failure of the Electoral College system if the final vote goes to the House? It has functioned as designed, hardly a failure.