Electoral College

[rraley]

I am not sure if this has been debated before on the forum here, but the issue of the electoral college is one that I think needs to be addressed by Congress after the 2000 Election situation of the popular vote winner losing the electoral college, and as such the presidency. It should also be addressed because the electoral college is in effect disenfranchising the many states in this nation that are solidly in support of one party.

Now there are a couple of proposals for electoral college reform. The easiest and most extreme one would be the repeal of the electoral college system and the institution of a completely popular vote system. Another one that is commonly floated around is the split of electoral votes in a state based on the statewide winner receiving two electoral votes (for the senators) and the winner of a congressional district taking that district's electoral vote. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have this system currently. And one that I have heard, but much less is the idea of proportional electoral vote totals to candidates. For instance, if John Kerry wins 38% of the vote in Idaho, he will win 40% of the state's electoral votes (rounding up).

Now the proportional electoral vote scheme seems the most distorted and unworkable proposal because it is questionable how to round and the equal distribution of electoral votes would be hard to come by. That leaves two proposals that I must consider: the repeal and the congressional district proposal. Now from a preliminary look, the congressional district proposal seems to be the most sensible scheme. In a perfect world where congressional districts are constructed as continuous tracts of uninterrupted land, that proposal would be fine. But our wonderful political landscape believes in this thing called gerrymandering, which has been used in the past two election cycles to create districts that are solidly in support of one party or another. Out of 435, it is estimated that only 24 will be contested because of the lopsided voter registration and voting patterns in the other four hundred and some odd districts. In Maryland, for example, there is not a single congressional district that did not provide less than 55% of its votes to the winning presidential candidate for that district. In Florida, where the statewide margin for president was 537 votes, 18 of the states' 25 congressional districts, voted for George W. Bush. In Pennsylvania, a state that Al Gore won by five points, 12 of the 19 congressional districts voted for Bush. Congressional districts are just so unevenly drawn that a congressional district scheme would only reward the party that does the best job of drawing congressional lines.

I argue that the entire system needs to be repealed. There are only seventeen states that the two presidential candidates are running campaigns in - the rest are taken for granted and forgotten. There is honestly no purpose for a Republican in Maryland to vote nor is there a purpose for a Democrat to vote in Idaho. Candidates for the presidency need to run national campaigns because they will be the president of all of us. If the system was strictly popular vote driven, candidates would spend time in cities, rural areas, the suburbs, all across America so that they can fight for every single vote. The Electoral College keeps many Americans removed from the political process and that is something we should strive to change.

 

[Pete]

The founders had a good reason to not want a pure democracy. They founded us as a representative republic and thats the way it should stay.

I would say that even if the 2000 election were reversed and W lost to Algore.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by Pete
The founders had a good reason to not want a pure democracy. They founded us as a representative republic and thats the way it should stay.

I would say that even if the 2000 election were reversed and W lost to Algore.

I agree that a pure direct democracy is not the way to go. We should have representatives in Congress to speak for us and we should have an unelected Supreme Court that ensures that the excesses of the mob mentality of people and their representatives are checked upon. These are the true forms of republican government; the Electoral College is not - it is just a bad tradition that we should stop so that people do not feel so out of the process.

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by Pete
The founders had a good reason to not want a pure democracy. They founded us as a representative republic and thats the way it should stay.

I would say that even if the 2000 election were reversed and W lost to Algore.

It should also be addressed because the electoral college is in effect disenfranchising the many states in this nation that are solidly in support of one party.

So what you're saying is that the majority of states should be disenfrancised by a minority of states that are solidly in support of one party??

 

[Voter2002]

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones.

...this is from the history of the EC on the FEC website.

 

[Kizzy]

If we did away with the electoral college, wouldn't the presidential candidates be more focused on only those issues in large cities and not those elsewhere?

I know that Maryland is more democrat than republican, but that could change, you just never know, which is why I will always ensure I cast my vote.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by otter




So what you're saying is that the majority of states should be disenfrancised by a minority of states that are solidly in support of one party??

California and New York do not reflect the fabric of the nation.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by otter
So what you're saying is that the majority of states should be disenfrancised by a minority of states that are solidly in support of one party??

No you missed my point. The current system makes it so that 33 states and the District of Columbia are solidly in support of one party over the other. Thus, neither party's candidate is going to spend time in those thirty-three states nor are they going to invest in building a strong campaign infrastructure. They will only concentrate on the seventeen swing states and craft their messages to those states. When that happens, the rest of us in America are left out. If candidates are forced to merely get the majority of the popular votes (such as gubernatorial candidates) they will be much more likely to travel and visit every state and establish a ground team in the states. For example, George W. Bush will not set a foot in Maryland during the campaign because Kerry will win here with a solid margin and as such gain all ten of our electoral votes. But if the electoral college system was abolished, the prospects for Bush to come here would increase because he could aim to increase his turnout fromt the typical low forty range that Republican presidential candidates get to the mid to high forty range. He would also be forced to visit New York or California (two of the largest states that are solidly Democrat) and try to increase his winning rates there. It just seems to me that more states would be visited and campaigned in if the electoral college was gone.

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by Pete
California and New York do not reflect the fabric of the nation.

exactalackly

 

[blacklabman]

I suppose that if you are in favor of the popular vote only, then I also guess that you would want the World Series winner be given to the team with the most runs after seven games as opposed to the winner of the best of seven?

 

[Roy]

Feel free to discuss.

 

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by rraley
These are the true forms of republican government; the Electoral College is not

I'm confused....Do we not elect the members of the electoral college to represent our wishes/vote for our choice?

Maybe more to your point, IIRC some state allow spliting of their electoral votes based on the district votes....But this is up to the state. Would you prefer MD go to such a system?

 

[SamSpade]

Clearly if the electoral college was eradicated, the candidates would only concentrate on population centers. Period. You say that Bush need not campaign in Maryland, because with the votes in Baltimore and Montgomery and PG Counties, he has virtually no chance of winning the state. I say, NO ONE will bother with the Dakotas, Wyoming, the Plains states and the mountain states, and some of New England - because there aren't enough PEOPLE to matter.

I've been reading about Canada's latest change of government. One of the things they've been facing there is that the East, and Quebec, totally dominates the nations politics - leaving the Western part of the country totally out of it. But, a great deal of revenue gets taken from the West. So while they pay money into the system, they really don't get much of a voice, because they don't have enough people. There's been murmuring for many years of a Western Separatist movement (which will probably never happen).

And that's what the electoral system was partly designed to avoid. It was designed to keep populous parts of the nation from dominating the rest. How would you feel if the natural resources down here in Southern Maryland were totally at the whim of people who live in Baltimore? Don't they have more people? Shouldn't THEIR voice be heard above ours? Can you see my point? This is partly along the lines of what Jesse Jackson used to term as "the tyranny of the majority". If you depend strictly upon popular decision, the minority NEVER get a voice. That's why I prefer representative government. The minority may have a minor voice, but they GET one.

 

[Larry Gude]

First off...

...rraley makes the greatest case FOR the electoral college that could be made; the potential, and unknown, pros and cons of changing a system, SOME how, that has produced the greatest nation and force for freedom and individual rights the world has EVER known.

Why would ANYONE, except opponents of our greatness, want to change this?

It is the epitome of shortsightedness to look at the electoral college through the lens of 2000.

Maryland went for Carter, along with 5 other states in 1980 proving we were un-educated, idealistic and stupid. BUT it was only by 46,000 votes proving we were not hopeless.

Maryland went with Reagan in 1984 proving we can learn and make up for our mistakes; Reagan by 92,000 votes.

And Maryland went Bush over the Duke in 1988 by more votes, 53,000, than Carter beat Ford by.

How many people here knew that??? How many Dems lost their minds when KKT was sent home? Don't count Maryland out, I say!

Here's another practical consideration: Gore.

All this talk of changing the way we choose our President is soley because on the graceless, ugly, cry baby way that Gore went about losing AND then people jumping up and down like organ grinder monkeys DON'T EVEN WANT HIM the next time around.

The entire Democratic party needs counseling. Beaten spouse syndrome.

"I love you. Go away. Ah, memories. Go away."

Ad nauseum.

Hell, what are we to make of a moron like Clinton who gained a majority in NEITHER '92 or '96?

Most of us, the majority, just went along and tried to get rid of him when he proved to stupid to hold the job. If Democrats weren't so emotionally commited to and damaged by him, they'd have tossed his stupid ass back to Little Rock and Al Gore would likely be looking forward to re-election this fall having kicked Al Queda and Saddam Huissiens ass.

Instead of changing our institutions, why don't we just seek help for people who want to change the rules everytime things don't work out their way and can't deal with it when they make it worse?

All in favor?

 

[FromTexas]

Yes, we want to encourage the politicans to be concerned about more places by removing the electoral college.

Here are some statistics for you -
I added up the top 25 counties in population size by the 2000 census. Those 25 counties make up approximately 60 million people. The 2000 population at census was 281 million. That means 25 of the counties have a little under 1/4th of the total population. The top 10 states have over half the population.

The top 200 counties make up close to 4/5ths of the population and there are over 3000 counties in the United States. Most of those 200 counties are right next to each other. The most populous counties are, of course, urban centers. Its funny how the Democrats scream the most about wanting straight popular vote when all the population is centered in urban sprawl they tend to control voting wise. Yet, weren't you the one that was complaining the other day about Republican redistricting? Going to a popular vote is no more than drawing a huge district for Democrat around heavily controlled urban centers like Miami-Dade, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc...

However, if that didn't happen to just cross your mind and you sincerly think it will encourage more stumping across all states, then look at the above figures. Less than 10% of all counties have a gigantic majority of the population. Screw those conservative great plains states, we don't need their stinking voices in our Democratic America. After all, we know California and New York know whats best for America.

Some interesting facts you should note - Republicans won more square mileage of the US (by district) in the 2000 election. The percentage is something over 80% of the United States. It is funny how the Democrats want to disregard the people in over 80% of the country.

 

[Roy]

I especially enjoy how the elitists dismiss the rest of us by referring to the heartland as 'flyover country'.

 

[ericw]

Originally posted by FromTexas
It is funny how the Democrats want to disregard the people in over 80% of the country.

Democrats always disregard people who don't support them.

 

[ericw]

The problem with the electoral college is that most states now have laws requiring all their electors to vote for whoever carried their state (which is probably unconstitutional), and only two states (Maine and Nebraska) allow electors to vote by congressional district.
Perhaps requiring voting by district is the way to go. In Maryland, for example, Kerry would get two votes for carrying the state, plus one vote for each district he carried, but Bush would get the votes from the districts HE carried (almost certainly the 1st and 6th districts), and might come to southern MD to try to get the 5th as well.
The state of Washington gets written off to the Democrats, but 6 or 7 of its districts are fairly close - it's the heavily Democratic districts around Seattle that tip the state to the Dems.

 

[Tonio]

Just a thought...

How about changing the Electoral College so that each state has three electors? If one candidate wins in that state, the winner gets two electoral votes and the loser gets one electoral vote.

I agree that a popular vote system would result in the candidates focusing only on the large cities. But as it stands now, the candidates only focus on the most populous states--California, Rust Belt, Texas and Florida.

 

[rraley]

My thoughts about this were also sparked by a column I recently read in the Washington Post. As we all remember, more people voted for Al Gore in the last election than George W. Bush. The 500,000 vote margin that Gore won by was exclusively built on his lopsided victories in California and New York. Now in this election, it is very likely that the Gore margins of 2000 will not be the same Kerry margins of 2004 in those two states because of the resurgent GOP in both states (due to 9/11 in New York and Arnie in California). Now if the rest of the nation stays just as divided and Kerry picks up Ohio as many political scientists believe is the most probable state for a pickup for Kerry, then we have Kerry winning the Electoral College and losing the popular vote. Two straight "misfired" elections as the columnist refers to them would cause serious discussion about repealing the Electoral College system. Would a scenario like that provoke anyone here to reconsider the system's value?

Back to the concerns that some of you have risen. Many think that repealing the Electoral College will cause the presidential candidates to focus SOLELY on the big cities and suburbs (well in a way that is all that they do right now, but that is besides the point). I do not believe that that will happen if the electoral college is abolished. Rather, I think that abolishing the Electoral College will cause Republican candidates, who don't give a rat's ass about getting votes in cities, to reach out towards the cities, and will cause Democrats to reach out to rural areas where they have done very poorly. Look at races for governors: candidates travel to all parts of the state to get out their message because it is a popular vote system. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend came to St. Mary's County many times (didn't do her much good) just so she could get as many votes down here as she could. If it was a an Electoral College scheme in this state for governor races, she would have never come here because she knows that a Democratic gubernatorial candidate will not win St. Mary's County unless something drastic happens.

Now I admit, a congressional district scheme would be the best way in the perfect world, but with gerrymandering from our state legislatures, it just is not fair due to the packing of each party in a district. If the redistricting process was taken out of the hands of the state legislatures all across America and lines were drawn without respect to political composition, then I would fully endorse that system. But that system will never exist unless some serious lobbying by the people happens.

As for Maryland going to that system, I would support that.