Ever since George Bush became president in 2000 by winning the most electoral votes, even though his opponent had the most votes overall, there have been people who want to see the electoral college done away with. These people believe the winner of the presidency should be the person who got the most votes nationwide on election day.
There are arguments to be made for both sides. The electoral college puts more power in the hands of the individual states, and the supporters of the electoral college ask a valid question -- aren't we supposed to be a collection of United States rather than simply a federal governmental system? Opponents of the electoral college simply believe that the person with the most votes should win in a democracy, regardless of how the voting broke down state by state.
The electoral college is provided for in the U.S. Constitution, so it cannot be discontinued without an amendment to that Constitution. And right now, there is little to no support in the U.S. Congress to pass such an amendment for ratification by the individual states. That would seem to say that, like it or not, we are stuck with the electoral college for a while.
But that may not be true. There is now a movement afoot to make the electoral college a moot point rather than doing away with it. Five states have passed a law that would give all of their electoral votes to the candidate that gets the most votes nationwide, regardless of which candidate got the most votes in that state. Those five states are Washington, Maryland, Hawaii, New Jersey and Illinois (although the laws would not go into effect until enough states have passed similar laws to make the idea work -- enough states to control a majority of the electoral college).
There may now be a sixth state with such a law. In the last few days the Massachusetts legislature passed a similar bill over Republican objections. The bill now goes to Governor Deval Patrick, who has said in the past that he supports this effort.
If enough states pass these kind of laws to control a majority of the electoral college, it will not do away with the electoral college (only a constitutional amendment could do that) but it would force the electoral college to elect the candidate who won the nationwide vote -- making the electoral college a rather useless and archaic institution (and probably signaling its demise).
Will the supporters of the popular vote electing a president succeed? It's too early to tell. It does have a better chance of succeeding than a constitutional amendment does though. For these laws to take effect there will only be enough state needed to make up 51% of the electoral college. For a constitutional amendment, the ratification of three-fourths of all the states would be needed.
There are currently 538 electors in the electoral college. The six states that have passed the majority vote laws have 73 of those electors, which means they need enough other states to provide another 197 electors (although the 2010 census could make some minor changes to the number of electors for some states). So there's still a long way to go to change our current system of electing a president. But it could happen.
There are those who say the current system is both constitutional and traditional and should not be changed. But that was also true of the selection of U.S. senators until the 17th amendment provided for their direct election by the voters. Very few people now would argue that was not a good change. Maybe someday we'll look back at the electoral college and wonder how we ever thought that was a fair way to elect a president.
I'm sort of torn on this issue. I do believe the president should be chosen by a vote of the people, but I would also hate to see the demise of the electoral college. What do you readers think? Should we do away with the electoral college?
(The above picture shows the number of electors apportioned to each state by the 2000 census.)
This is an excellent post, Ted, in that there's no knee-jerk liberal/conservative position on this subject. That causes everyone to react with their head and not with their gut.
ReplyDeleteI remember just before the 2000 election, my brother (a dyed-in-the-wool liberal) told me that he had heard that there was a possibility that Gore could lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote. He asked me what I would think if that happened. I said in essence that if Gore won the electoral vote, he would be the duly elected 43rd presdient of the United States. As we all know, it turned out just the opposite. I've found that since then, a lot of Democrats instinctively want to do away with the electoral college. What they don't stop to realize is that the next time, it actually could be the Democrat who wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote.
We need to look back at the origins of the electoral college to understand its usefulness. Like the Senate, it was a compromise to level the playing field between the more populous and less populous states.
Just as Nevada and Alaska get the same number of senators as California and New York, the electoral college gives less populous states a proportionately greater voice by virtue of the fact that they're states. If it were merely based on the popular vote, the presidential candidates would spend all their time in major population centers (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) and never campaign in places like North and South Dakota, Montana, etc.
You can see this here in Texas, where elections are based on the popular vote. Ted, how many times have you complained that the Panhandle gets short shrift in statewide elections, because the candidates do all their campaigning in places like Houston and the Metroplex. The reason for that is simple: that's where the votes are. As a result, we in the Panhandle are often left out in the cold.
We need to remember that the United States is not a democracy; it's a republic. And as tempting as it is sometimes to advocate direct democracy, we also need to remember that it can sometimes result in mob rule.
Bottom line: The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they set up the electoral system. If we, as a nation, want to do away with it, fine and good. But we need to do it in a more cautious and deliberate way - through constitutional amendment.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The current winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
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 uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College. 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, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
ReplyDeleteNeither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.