The right way to reform the Electoral College

[GaryC 7]

This seems reasonable. As it stands now the large cities decide the allocations of the electoral votes. In effect, the election in Illinois is decided by Chicago. It makes everyone else's vote immaterial. To make the electoral votes dolled out by districts seems much more fair.

Ray Haynes

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Since the 2000 election, proposals to reform or abolish the Electoral College have proliferated throughout the country. An initiative to change how California's votes are apportioned has been submitted to the state attorney general, and the Democrats are going nuts.

The initiative, based on a constitutional amendment that I, as a state senator, proposed in 2001, would award 53 of California's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the plurality of the votes in each of the 53 congressional districts. The remaining 2 would be awarded to the candidate who receives a plurality of the statewide vote. Democrats are not opposed to reforming the Electoral College. They have made their own proposal, which was introduced by former Assemblyman Tom Umberg last year, and would award California's Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the plurality of the nationwide vote. His proposal would have required 15 other states to agree to this proposal before it would take effect. It was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Democrats' proposal is also constitutionally suspect.

The Electoral College system was created by the Founding Fathers because of the fear the smaller states had of being dominated by the larger states of New York, Virginia and Massachusetts. Much like the U.S. Senate, where each state has two representatives regardless of population, the Electoral College awards votes to presidential candidates on a state-by-state basis.

The presidential election, for this reason, becomes 50 separate state elections, where campaign organizations in each state become critical, and the national "results" are irrelevant. In 1787, the smaller states believed this was critical to protecting them from the larger states, and would give candidates from smaller states an ability to run for president. The Constitution allowed each state to determine how its Electoral College votes would be apportioned.

Election of electors on a state-by-state basis has worked for this country. Today, where large urban areas predominate, a popular vote would have the presidential candidates spending all of their time in those large urban areas. Candidates would start in New York, fly to Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and hit Dallas-Fort Worth, New Orleans and Atlanta, and start all over again. Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and several other swing states, would fall off the election map. The Electoral College requires candidates to pay attention to small states in close elections, because, as 2000 demonstrated, 2,000 votes in Wisconsin, 500 votes in New Mexico or 900 votes in Florida could have changed the election outcome for presidential candidate Al Gore.

So, why award electoral votes on a congressional district basis? First, it is constitutional. It has been in effect in at least two states, Maine and Nebraska, and has survived constitutional scrutiny. It preserves the integrity of the Electoral College system constructed by the Founding Fathers, and forces candidates to pay attention to different states, and different areas of those states, rather than to just focus on the large urban areas. It respects representative democracy.

In 2004, Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush got 44 percent of the California vote, but not one Electoral College vote in California. In California, where approximately 10 congressional districts could be in play, candidates in a close election would be forced to come to California and compete for votes, not just campaign for money. Under this system, the concerns of Fresno or Antioch or Pomona or San Diego would become just as important as the concerns of Los Angeles or San Francisco to a presidential candidate.

Finally, the measure would force the national parties to focus on state legislative elections. Winning the statehouse in a redistricting year would have an effect on the presidential elections. Fair redistricting would become a priority throughout the country. The reform of the Electoral College that preserves the Electoral College's intent but distributes the votes in a more democratic fashion, strengthens the American system of government by helping the large and small states equally.

It is constitutional, democratic and it is fair.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...p;type=politics

Edited September 10, 2007 by GaryC

[Jason-Sasha 1]

I have been screaming about this since I learned about US elections in the 10th grade. Its such a screwed up system.

[russ 1]

I have been screaming about this since I learned about US elections in the 10th grade. Its such a screwed up system.

Why? People mistakenly believe that the US is a democracy. It isn't.

We are a Constitutional Republic. The Republic is made up of States. The states can do pretty much whatever they want to choose their electors, as long as they comply with federal election laws. Guess what? The electors aren't even compelled to vote for the candidate who is "elected." They are within their rights to vote for anyone (rare, as they are chosen for their fierce party loyalty, but it does happen).

Almost all states have chosen to be "winner take all" with their electors. Changing that system would elimiate the power that small states have, and would make electoral results closer to the popular vote. Unlikely to happen. It was also cause even worse gerrymandering than we already have.

One of the strengths of our political system is the competition it creates between the states. Don't like high taxes in Mass? Move to NH.

[Fuzzness 2]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is stupid anyway. Go with popular vote. That's what real democracies do.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is stupid anyway. Go with popular vote. That's what real democracies do.

Popular vote certainly has its advantages but I'd personally like to see some form of control that prevents NYC, Chicago, Dallas and LA from complete control of the country.

The Federal model is a good one, in theory.

[William33 110]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is stupid anyway. Go with popular vote. That's what real democracies do.

I agree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is stupid anyway. Go with popular vote. That's what real democracies do.

Popular vote certainly has its advantages but I'd personally like to see some form of control that prevents NYC, Chicago, Dallas and LA from complete control of the country.

The Federal model is a good one, in theory.

I see both sides making valid points. Hmmmm....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's because both sides have valid arguments. Balancing each citizens vote against the balance between states are two goals that seem at odds with each other, and yet as a nation we're charged with seeing to it that both happen.

[Dan J 277]

Had we used a popular vote model in 2000, Gore would have won and we would have avoided the whole Iraq mess in the first place. Gore did have more of the popular vote in that election. But due to Florida, the election went to Bush.

[mawilson 2,133]

Popular vote certainly has its advantages but I'd personally like to see some form of control that prevents NYC, Chicago, Dallas and LA from complete control of the country.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Had we used a popular vote model in 2000, Gore would have won and we would have avoided the whole Iraq mess in the first place. Gore did have more of the popular vote in that election. But due to Florida, the election went to Bush.

What makes you say that? You think if Gore had won the election, 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Had we used a popular vote model in 2000, Gore would have won and we would have avoided the whole Iraq mess in the first place. Gore did have more of the popular vote in that election. But due to Florida, the election went to Bush.

This country will survive a war and a bad President. It has survived much worse before.

But if you change the way we elect our President, you change the country in a much more permanent manner. It's important to make sure it's done right.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is stupid anyway. Go with popular vote. That's what real democracies do.

Popular vote certainly has its advantages but I'd personally like to see some form of control that prevents NYC, Chicago, Dallas and LA from complete control of the country.

The Federal model is a good one, in theory.

Also of historical note:

The country the US fought to be FREE FROM (and later, botched an attempt to take the rest of North America away from) uses the "popular-vote, constituency-wise" approach, where the country is divided into constituencies, the one who gets most votes in the constituency represents it, and the party that gets the majority of constituencies gets power. An obvious flaw in such a system is when there are lots of parties--what to do in that case, assume that the single-largest party should form the government*** (as two or more smaller parties can stymie efforts at government business if combined they are bigger)?

*** In practice, the situation leads to "horse-trading" where a coalition is formed and the largest party in the coalition becomes the government as shown notoriously in Israel and India; due to such a result in 1997, the Times of India wrote an editorial which stated that the American-style federal system may be more suitable for India than the current "Whitehall" system it inherited from British colonial days.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Had we used a popular vote model in 2000, Gore would have won and we would have avoided the whole Iraq mess in the first place. Gore did have more of the popular vote in that election. But due to Florida, the election went to Bush.

What makes you say that? You think if Gore had won the election, 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

If Gore was elected, global warming wouldn't happen, the fish in the ocean wouldn't have so much damn mercury, our groundwater would be so pure that drinking it would make us all immortal (thus eliminating the need for healthcare) and the Ay-rabs would love America so much they'd nuke Russia just to prove it.

[Dan J 277]

Had we used a popular vote model in 2000, Gore would have won and we would have avoided the whole Iraq mess in the first place. Gore did have more of the popular vote in that election. But due to Florida, the election went to Bush.

What makes you say that? You think if Gore had won the election, 9/11 wouldn't have happened?

If Gore was elected, global warming wouldn't happen, the fish in the ocean wouldn't have so much damn mercury, our groundwater would be so pure that drinking it would make us all immortal (thus eliminating the need for healthcare) and the Ay-rabs would love America so much they'd nuke Russia just to prove it.

Exactly, better than this Iraq mess anyway.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is stupid anyway. Go with popular vote. That's what real democracies do.

Popular vote certainly has its advantages but I'd personally like to see some form of control that prevents NYC, Chicago, Dallas and LA from complete control of the country.

The Federal model is a good one, in theory.

Also of historical note:

The country the US fought to be FREE FROM (and later, botched an attempt to take the rest of North America away from) uses the "popular-vote, constituency-wise" approach, where the country is divided into constituencies, the one who gets most votes in the constituency represents it, and the party that gets the majority of constituencies gets power. An obvious flaw in such a system is when there are lots of parties--what to do in that case, assume that the single-largest party should form the government*** (as two or more smaller parties can stymie efforts at government business if combined they are bigger)?

*** In practice, the situation leads to "horse-trading" where a coalition is formed and the largest party in the coalition becomes the government as shown notoriously in Israel and India; due to such a result in 1997, the Times of India wrote an editorial which stated that the American-style federal system may be more suitable for India than the current "Whitehall" system it inherited from British colonial days.

Excellent points. That explains why we end up with a two party system.