Scrap electoral college, says New York Times

[rawstory]

From the liberal alternative to Drudge, http://rawstory.com

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should abolish its electoral college because it creates the possibility that the president will be a candidate who loses the popular vote, the New York Times said on Sunday.

The electoral college "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis," the paper said in an editorial.

In the last presidential election in 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) by more than 500,000 votes.

"Most people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors," the editorial said. "It's a ridiculous setup."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040829/pl_nm/campaign_college_dc

[HysteryDiagnosis]

It's a ridiculous setup<<

Not for the people whom it is setup for. It's called democracy... get used to it!!! :)

[Ediacara]

33. It was set up to artificially inflate the power of small states

and slave states (remember the 3/5 of a person rule?). It's archaic in the modern era.

[Gore1FL]

36. Actually it is called "Republic"

Democracy implies popular vote = winner.

[salin]

56. Ever notice tha the whole "republic, not a democracy" meme

kicked in around 2000... never heard it used in popular rhetoric until AFTER the election.

Indeed, if I recall, the rightwing was expecting the opposite result - that bush would win popular but lose the electoral college - and that they were preparing arguments to overturn such a situation. Thus the quick and handy meme.... prepared as the counter argument. Ten to One that if the results they had anticipated as a possible outcome had occured - the meme we would have heard for the past 4 years would have been the exact opposite... about us being a democracy, not a republic.

[IndianaGreen]

1. Amen to all that!

But we knew this back in 2000 and nothing was done about it by either party! Why is the NY Times mentioning this issue now? Could it be that it is because the polls show Kerry leading in the Electoral College by a wide margin over Bush?

:shrug:

[lostnfound]

43. Bingo. OK NYT, let's make it effective for the 2008 election. nt

[madmax]

2. Why can't it be abolished?

I know it would take a Constitutional Amendment but, hey why not. What is the argument in favor of keeping it?

One man/woman - One vote

[still_one]

9. the bush administration

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. The President has no power to veto a Constitutional Amendment

It is up to the Congress and and legislatures of the states.

[Dookus]

11. It will never be abolished

because the requirements for a constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths of the states to approve such an amendment. The vast majority of smaller states benefit from the EC, and would never vote against their own interests.

Sadly, we're stuck with it.

[Terran]

50. Kind of points up the flaw in the "system"

Those who think that the Founders created a perfect system will note that they built in an inability to change this this particular aspect of it.

[LiberalFighter]

60. Vast majority of smaller states really don't benefit that much any more

When it was first set up we didn't have 50 states and we didn't have as many states with substantial number of electoral votes.

I could see where electoral votes were decided congressional district by district as balancing the power between states. Only because individual states are currently ignored when they are considered a lost cause if unwinable whereas congressional districts would be more contested.

[alittlelark]

13. That is one Constitutional amendment

I would be behind 100%.

The electoral college is a relic.

[Cha]

3. Yeah, we get stuck with some yahoo who doesn't know

how to think for himself.

I heard that the fascists were going to wage war if bush had won the popular vote and Gore had won the electoral vote. They would have their president one way or another.

[Q3JR4]

24. Maybe because they thought that

the Dems were going to roll over and take it. What do you know, they did.

[bemildred]

4. Ridiculous and undemocratic.

Ought to be straight national popular vote.

[0007]

42. Absolutely, no more and no less a straight vote

I never thought the reasoning for the electoral system made good sense.

[madaboutharry]

5. The electoral college was created because

our founding fathers believed that the people (the white men who were allowed to vote) could not be trusted with the responsibility of electing a president. Hmmmm. However, if one looks to the presidential election of 2000, I suppose the American people aren't as dumb as some think!!!

[Yupster]

19. Our founding fathers did not even

assume that there ever would be a popular vote for president.

The statte legislature would choose electors, by whatever system they chose, and the electors would elect the president.

That way the states would choose the president which is just the way the founding fathers wanted it.

[Carla in Ca]

6. Electoral College

I've heard some rumblings about possible changes. I think Wyoming? just changed from "winner take all" to a share among candidates depending on % of votes.
Would that work here in CA? I want Kerry/Edwards to get them all!!!

PS-I'm new to DU-please explain what n/t is....thanks

[Dookus]

12. Careful what you wish for

Colorado is now considering changing their plan. If California changed, it would ADD electoral votes to Bush and take them from Kerry. Same in NY.

[marlakay]

16. I wouldn't want that system

All gone or keep the same.

[stevedeshazer]

29. Exactly right

Better to leave it alone for now.

[alittlelark]

15. n/t is 'no text' - just subject line

n/t

[thecrow]

22. N/t means

no thread, as in no message.
eom also means no message or end of message
There's a DU glossary around here somewhere.... ah yes, (on edit)
Here it is!
http://dug.seattleactivist.org

[loudsue]

51. n/t means "no text"

:kick::kick:

[bluestateguy]

7. I favor a district system

The small states will never give up their advantage under the EC, so we have to be realistic. Keep the EC and enact a federal law mandating that all states allocate their votes on the basis of congressional districts, with an incentive of +2 votes for winning in a whole state. This will also spread out the campaign considerably more: there would be districts where John Kerry would find it worthwhile to campaign in Indiana and Texas, while Bush would find districts in California and New York worth campaigning in.

[struggle4progress]

25. The district system is a bad idea: it reduces the chances of the House ...

... ever voting against the President, hence reduces the checks-and-balances constraining an imperial Presidency. Instead, each state's electoral votes should be allocated in direct proportion to the total statewide number of votes for the major party candidates.

[TahitiNut]

26. It also increases the incentives for Gerrymandring.

Redistricting would then be a full-fledged national political game.


I would, however, support an apportionment of all but two (who'd be pledged to the plurality winner) of the electors according to the popular vote in the state. In California, that would mean someone who gained 2% of the popular vote would also win an elector. It'd put California and New York and Texas back into play - big time.

[yardwork]

28. Problem is that congressional districts are gerrymandered

That's what Tom DeLay is accused of doing in Texas, and the gerrymandering in NC to benefit one side or the other is not to be believed.

I don't trust congressional districts to represent the will of the people. Linking them directly to the presidential election would make the stakes that much higher and the corruption and manipulation that much worse.

[marlakay]

8. I want it gone!

My 25 year old daughter said to me yesterday, why should I vote mom, our vote didn't count last time. I said what do you mean and she was talking about Gore. I said please don't not vote because of what happened before its even more important this time!!

[LiberalFighter]

61. All the more reason to vote!

Otherwise all those that would vote for Democrats would not be voting and Republicans would have it easier to win.

[marlakay]

10. dupe

[ranosgol]

14. split each states vote by percentage of votes

if bus gets 52 then he gets 52 % of electoral votes for state. The state winner gets the benefit of a rounded up vote.

[olddem43]

17. It should have been eliminated when the 3/5 of "other" persons

rule was discarded after the civil war. I'm sure it must have been somehow tied to the compromise with the slave states so that they could have more influence in national affairs.

[Yupster]

20. When the 14th Amendment was passed

after the Cicil War, South Carolina had still never had an election for president. They had their first ever vote for president in 1868, and by all accounts, it was hardly a fair vote of the people.

According to the returns, the men of South Carolina in 1868 voted for Ulysses Grant. Somehow I think not.

[LimpDickCheney]

18. I am all for it.

I don't think the small states would be against it... I think the swing states would be against it! They elect the President while I go through the motions in Utah. I think voter turnout would be higher in non-swing states and the campigns would have to campaign in every state.

[Dookus]

21. all small states

would oppose it. It gives them more power.

Wyoming has MUCH more representation in the EC than California. No small state would vote to give up their overrepresentation.

[Jade Fox]

30. They are already over-represented by having the same number of ....

Senators that every other state has, regardless of size of population
density.

My understanding is that getting rid of the College would have the practical
effect of lessening the power of a lot of traditionally conservative states.
So I say bring it on.

[Dookus]

32. It doesn't matter if it's the best idea EVER...

it will NEVER pass, precisely BECAUSE the small, conservative states benefit from it. They will never vote to reduce their own power.

[Ediacara]

35. NO small state actually benefits, EXCEPT Wyoming

Wyoming has one electoral college vote for every 150,000 people. California has one electoral college vote for 625,000 people. All other states fall somewhere in between. Even some 3 ECVs states are screwed, like Montana, that has one electoral college vote for 300,000 people....

[flaminbats]

23. If the New York Times supports this...so should Kerry!

To put it simply, Kerry has nothing to lose but everything to gain by taking that position. Even most living in small states think the President is and should be elected by the people. If the majority understood how the President is really selected in America, public rage would be limitless...:grr:

[shanti]

31. how would it make a difference

if the ballot boxes are rigged?

[Ediacara]

34. I live in Montana, population 900,000, 3 ECVs

I have friends that live in Wyoming, population 450,000, 3 ECVs.

My vote counts as only half of a Wyoming vote.

And man, if I lived in California..... my vote would only count as a QUARTER of a Wyoming vote.

It's a myth that small states benefit from the Electoral College, the ONLY state that gets ANY benefit is Wyoming, all others suffer.

[Bill McBlueState]

45. I don't think you can say Wyoming gets the "only" benefit

Wyoming makes out the best, but votes in Montana are still worth more than votes in New York.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/unofischal/7145.html#cutid1

The link above compares a state's percentage of the US population with a state's percentage of the EC vote.

The bottom 33 states all have a greater share of the EV than the US population; thus, they have more influence than they would have in a direct popular vote. The top 17 states lose influence.

[Bo]

37. I always wondersd why the Mayan calender

ended when it did.

[loudsue]

52. LOL!! Good one, Bo!!!

:bounce: You hit THAT nail on the head!! :bounce:

:kick::kick:

[laconicsax]

38. Abolishment is stupid

The electoral college isn't about giving more power to small states or less to big states. It's about equal representation.

If the college is abolished, then you wind up with the fact that major metropolitan areas will decide the winner, while rural areas won't count for crap because their vote is outweighed, and as beneficial as that scenario can be for the left, it isn't just.

The fact of the 2000 election is that Gore won the popular vote and was cheated out of the electoral college by vote fraud and the five Supremes. The only other time that the popular vote lost was when Samuel Tilden was cheated out of the electoral college (Florida again) by his own party when they voted against him in the legislature to settle the dispute over which candidate Florida's votes went to. Barring any foul play in the election, the popular vote winner has been, without exception, the electoral college winner.

The rethugs like to gloat about how many more states/legislative districts * won than Gore in 2000, and it's an example of how the electoral college equals representation--Gore's support was more localized than *, but because of population density, it was greater in numbers. Since *'s popularity was mainly in the much more numerous and larger (area-wise) areas, but a smaller number of high density districts had more votes, he lost the popular vote.

If it were known before the election that the winner is essentially decided by the high-density areas, then there's really no point for candidates to campaign anywhere else, or try to appeal to other areas or non-metropolitan interests, and we can have endless elections that are very close in the popular vote and about half the country not being represented in the results.

For example, you have a country with 1 million voters and 6 states. the 1st state has some large cities and has a high population density. The other are widely varied in make up and have much lower density. 1st state has 550,000 votes for candidate A with no support for candidate B, and states 2-5 vote for B with 450,000 votes and no support for A. You then have one state deciding the result with the remaining 5 not having their vote worth the paper it was cast on. 17% of the country has 55% of the voting power.

That sounds an awful lot like the fact that in the US, something like the top half of the top 1% has almost as much wealth as the 90-95% below.

[Gore1FL]

39. How about this compromise?

eliminate the 2 "Senate" electors. Those two votes per state cause the imbalance that we see.

[loudsue]

53. Good point, Gore1FL.....

THAT may be where the REAL problem lies.

:kick::kick::kick:

[tkmorris]

41. Nonsense

First of all in your scenario in 2000 let's hypothetically just grant Bush 25000 more votes in Florida. He wins it outright and no legal challenge or USSC ruling ever takes place yes? But he STILL would have lost the popular vote by a largish margin. So, does he deserve the presidency?

In your scenario you argue that the smaller states would be disenfranchised in a way if the vote were simply a popular one. But isn't the will of the people more important than some esoteric "states rights" issue? If the vast majority of the people live in one state than why on earth SHOULDN'T their votes determine the outcome?

I live in Delray Beach Florida. I have no idea what the population is here but let's call it 50k. Do I think that Delray should count as much as New York city? NO! One person, one vote. New York matters more than Delray because more PEOPLE live there.

Let's throw another hypothetical at you. Say that you have 3 states, each with equal electoral votes. In the first 2 states only 3 people live in each. 2 of the 3 in each vote for candidate 'A'. That's 4 votes for 'A'. In the third state there are 50,000 people. They ALL vote for candidate 'B'. However, due to the wacky electoral college, candidate 'A' wins with 4 votes versus candidate 'B's 50,002. Is this just in some way I am not privy to? Of course not! It's nonsense.

Yes I hear you. This is a ridiculous example. In the real world though the injustice is just the same though on a smaller scale. To hell with what "states" want. States don't matter, people do. Count the people. No matter what state they live in.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. your example

But in your example, 550,000 people voted for A, and 450,000 voted for B. Shouldn't A win, since she got more votes?

If state 1 has 55% of the country's population, then state 1 *is* 55% of the country, and *should* have 55% of the voting power.

[Ediacara]

48. Um perhaps I've missed something

But candidates today DO ignore small states. This whole "focus on urban population core" stuff is nonsense, because that's what candidates do now.

[fujiyama]

40. I agree with the Times

on this, but the EC has absolutely no chance of ever being abolished, for the simple reason that it does favor small states (though I found it interesting to know that no state benefits quite as much as WY).

As an alternative I would favor tweaking the system, but that too is unlikely to happen. I would get rid of the extra two senators added to each each state's electoral count. So instead of WY having three electoral votes it would only have one. It would follow the number of representatives allocated to each state. It would allow a slightly fairer distribution of the electoral votes since the count of two senators artificially inflates the electoral count of each state.

[Bread and Circus]

44. I agree, the electoral college, is antique garbage....

and frankly disproportionately over-represents the power of select
people's votes.

Two things should be gotten rid of

1.) the Electoral college
2.) Iowa and New Hampshire getting their cheap first shot at the Democratic nominee.

[Bill McBlueState]

46. i like your idea #2

2.) Iowa and New Hampshire getting their cheap first shot at the Democratic nominee.

Hear, hear to that! I say, you have to go blue in one election to get an early Democratic primary in the next. Why do red states get to select our nominee?

[AP]

49. At the very least, get rid of the 2 ECVs states get for senators.

That's BS.

[leetrisck]

54. In the book "bush v. Gore, says bush expected to lose

electoral vote and win popular. They intended to take the Presidency anyway - they would just reverse the argument. If it happened this time, he would still be "selected" President because he's got the "supremes." I think it's a "feeler" by the New York Times.

[loudsue]

55. None of this means ANYTHING if our votes are gerrymandered.

Our whole election process is so totally broken that we're all sitting here stewing about what fault to look at first. But what we're ALL saying is that we're NOT feeling like we're represented, because we're NOT!!

Between redistricting gerrymandering, and a house and senate whose representatives have been elected by machines that did not reflect the votes of the people, we've ALL been feeling the "vibe" that what is going on in America is NOT what Americans HAVE voted for, nor WOULD HAVE voted for.

Schools that can't/don't teach our kids, police having rights to do things we never thought our country stood for, corporate politicians selling our jobs to the country w/ the lowest bidder, laws designed to protect our food and air and water that were thrown out when our country went "global", and news media that fails to INFORM the public about the impacts on PEOPLE of legislation being proposed before congress.... etc.

All these things have our entire population split and divided... each blaming the OTHER side, when in fact, it's all happening as a result of our congress, who, come to find out through BBV research, weren't really ELECTED!! Privatized voting machines SELECTED them.

Problems with the entire election process is at the root of every problem we're having right now. And at the BASIS of this "root" is the Election Center and programmable and uncertified/uncertifiable voting machines.

Couple that with a corporate media that is in bed with the voting machine corporaations, and you have the biggest mess any of us could have only DREAMED about 30 years ago.

One has to eradicate THE ROOT.....THE VERY ROOT of the problem.... before ANY OTHER type of changes can be made.

:kick::kick::kick:

[ensemble]

57. The only problem with scrapping the EC....

Is that you could still get funky results in a system with more than 2 parties. I would like to see an EC where delegates are chosen by national %. e.g. if you get 5% of the national vote you get 5% of the national delegates. Then delegates of lessor candidates vote with delegates of stronger candidates to determine the president. Heck, I wish the US Senate was chosen this way - it would lead to much more diversity. The House is OK - large turnover and relatively local representation have their place. I think this whole state's rights issue is just a smoke screen to keep the entrenched parties in power.

[Catherine Vincent]

58. I agree, it should be scraped.

The majority of the people should decide who is president.

[davhill]

59. A Very Real Posibility

If you believe the polls, is that 2004 will have Bush winning the popular vote by a small margin and losing the electoral vote to Kerry. Expect the Freepers to yell loudly about how the election was stolen.