RWer comes out against one-man/one vote, big surprise, huh?

[KG]

President by popular vote sounds good, but . . .
By DAVID S. BRODER Washington Post Writers Group
Published April 5, 2007

WASHINGTON - When it comes to persistence in pursuit of a political goal, no one can beat Birch Bayh.

It has been almost 40 years since the former Democratic senator from Indiana became the prime sponsor of a constitutional amendment for direct popular election of the president. The measure to abolish the Electoral College passed the House but lost in the Senate in 1970 and again in 1979.

Bayh, now a Washington lawyer and father of Evan Bayh, currently representing Indiana in the Senate, has never abandoned the cause. This year, he has been an unpaid but effective lobbyist in Annapolis, helping persuade the Maryland Legislature to become the first in the country to endorse a plan that would - if it succeeded - achieve the direct election of the president, without the need for a constitutional amendment.

The National Popular Vote Plan, as it is known, passed both houses of the Maryland Legislature last week and is headed for signature by Gov. Martin O'Malley.

MORE (if you got the stomach for it)>>> http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/05/Opinion/President_by_popular_.shtml


no doubt, RWers find elections inconvenient.

[aquart]

1. Well, I'm completely against abolishing the electoral college myself.

So there.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Interesting

I've heard there are arguments both pro and con on the Electoral College. What are your reasons for supporting it? I'm undecided, and would like more information.

[wake.up.america]

3. I am interested in both sides as well.

[ck4829]

4. We should have a double majority requirement

The person has to win the Electoral College AND the popular vote to become the next President.

[salin]

6. and what happens when no one wins both?

[ck4829]

9. In the rare instance that happens - revote.

[salin]

11. what prevents a recursive loop where the same results

keep occurring?

[ck4829]

14. I don't know

It'd would be odd if that kept happening, but it could. Maybe a sort of compromise executive branch could be formed between the two candidates.

[salin]

24. A "Coalition" government, if you will

now that could be interesting...

[H2O Man]

5. One person, one vote.

It is time for votes to count. Making the voice of the people heard would encourage more people to participate in elections. There are, of course, certain groups in America who have little or no voice. If one person, one vote becomes a reality, there will be greater participation by those who are in the lower economic classes. That's a good thing.

[Lerkfish]

22. I"m in agreement with you. see my post further down.

Of course, I'm often in agreement with you...since you're usually right.

:)

[salin]

7. Birch Bayh - was my senator before I was able to vote for

him. He was a man of integrity and big ideas. Quite a big deal issue.

[Sadie4629]

8. This is how it was explained in my h.s. civics class

(Back in the dark ages, but I don't think much has changed.)

There is no limit on the number of candidates for president that can be on the ballot. (Which is how Ralph Nader managed to screw us in 2000.) It is possible for every special interest group in the country to put a candidate on the ballot. On the "right" you might have anti-choice, neo-Nazis, anti-gun control, theocrats, and a gazillion others. In that case, the Republican party would be fractured. But the same could happen to the Democratic party as well. If the Democratic vote were split twenty ways, and the Republican vote also, you could end up with a president elected by 20% (or possibly less) of the popular vote. A one-issue president would be elected by one-issue voters.

Maybe a better solution would be run-off elections, or a limit to the number of candidates on the ballot, or something. I'm just not ready to pitch an idea that has worked pretty well--with one notable exception-- for this long.

[rman]

10. Interestingly this is not perceived to be a problem in countries that have more than two big parties

The solution is for a number parties to form a coalition (after election) that represents the majority of the votes.

[LiberalFighter]

16. One of these days it will happen... when minor parties realize

they need to start locally and work there way up from city to county to state.

[MadHound]

17. Such countries have a parlimentary system,

With proportional representation and a runoff system in place also. A bit different than here in the US.

[no_hypocrisy]

The Nazi party won (Hitler) in a plurality election in 1932 with 13 or 16% of

the vote. A small minority of the German electorate put him in power and Hitler more or less called it a "Mandate" (sound familiar?). Had there been a run-off election, it's debatable whether Hitler would have continued his ascension into power.

[rman]

19. wrong: Hindenburg got reelected in 1932

The presidential election (Reichspräsidentenwahl) of 1932 was the second and final direct election to the office of President of the Reich (Reichspräsident), Germany's head of state during the 1919-1934 Weimar Republic. The incumbent President, Paul von Hindenburg, had been elected in 1925 but his seven year term expired in May. After two rounds of voting, on the 13th March and the 10th April, Hindenburg was re-elected to a second term of office. His major opponent in the election was Adolf Hitler of the Nazi Party (NSDAP).

Under the Weimar system the presidency was a powerful office and, following his re-election, Hindenburg played an important role in the coming to power of the Nazis. For example he agreed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in 1933.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

[no_hypocrisy]

23. You're right. Let me qualify my previous statement.

The Nazi Party had a plurality in the Reichstag (Congress) election. Hitler was their leader. Hindenburg did agree to appoint Hitler with that appreciation of shifting political winds -- and it was charged by Amerian journalist, George Seldes in his book Facts and Fascism, that the Nazi Party discovered a serious incidence of tax evasion by Hindenburgh which threatened his ability to stay in power. Hitler was the price he paid for their silence.

[LiberalFighter]

15. 2000 election screwup wasn't the first time

[Sadie4629]

18. If you mean that 2000 wasn't the first time--

--that a president who had lost the popular vote was elected via the electoral college, you're right. But I'm not sure what the long-term effect of such previous presidents has been. I just meant that it was the first time we ended up with someone like GWB. His "legacy" could very well be with us for centuries.

[kimmylavin]

12. Sorry...

I'm for the abolishment of the Electoral College myself...
Having seen the direct result of the usurpation of the popular vote, I would have to say I find it "inconvenient".

[rodeodance]

13. I am against abolishing the electoral College.

[Lerkfish]

20. the thing about the electoral college that concerns me is Jeb Bush in Florida

in 2000 threatened to DISCARD the popular vote entirely and allow his republican-dominated state congress to PICK a winner.
although this is allowed in the electoral college system, as we saw, this opens a window where the votes of an entire state can be nullified by unscrupulous governors, in this case, directly related to one of the candidates and inherently interest conflicted.

Potentially, that could have meant a majority for Gore (which it was, actually) overridden by an EXISTING legislature. If the existing legislature is corrupt, and the people are voting AGAINST that legislature's party, then the odds of their votes being nullified are GREATER than the reverse.

THEREFORE the system can be "gamed", and is corruptible.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Proportional Voting

I've long been in favor of eliminating the Electoral College as it was set up by our "founding fathers" since they didn't trust us (the people) and wanted a safety valve to control elections...such as what we saw in 2000.

I've long been in favor of a direct voting system eliminating the winner-take-all process we have now. Simply stated, the electoral college would be selected based on who wins your congressional district...and only the two electoral votes for the Senator would be winner take all...the 2 votes given for the candidate that won the popular vote in the state. Thus, if a Democrat carries your district, your electoral vote would go for that candidate...however, if he/she were to lose the state, the other candidate would get the two state electoral votes reserved for the Senators. This is a far more direct and representataive process than we have now.