I’ve been predicting the end of the Electoral College for a while now, but few understand my exact rationale. So here is an essay explaining the reasoning. Yes, it’s counter-intuitive and suggests offbeat forces behind it all..
Why the Electoral College Will be Banished — read it by clicking here
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 11598 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I will be happy to see it go,unlike most of the posters here.
With the EC,my vote only counts if I vote the way of the majority in my state.This just breeds voter apathy as well as contempt for the EC.
However, I doubt the power brokers will ever let the EC go away.It would take away too much control and erode their ability to manipulate the elections.
Most of you guys talking about federalism and stuff that happened in 1789 or 1860 are totally missing Dvorak’s point: US politics is driven by interested parties with money, in this case big media corporations. He’s not talking about what _should_ happen to the Electoral College; he’s talking about what _will_ happen, and why. If you’re interested in improving election competitiveness, voter turn-out, and the quality of political representation, you should bail on this site and check out the Center for Voting and Democracy .
If you’re more interested in Dvorak’s somewhat more pragmatic argument, the most relavent consideration is the advertising revenue cost/benefit analysis. Even if big media corporations can muster enough dough to muscle this change through the constitutional amendment process, it may turn out that a popular election would not increase total advertising revenues enough to justify the cost of lobbyists, etc. If you want to make a relevant comment, analyze whether a popular election would cause a large enough shift of advertising revenue from local stations to national networks. Seems a little implausible to me, but I’m no expert on advertising revenue and lobbyist fees.
WHY THE ELECOTRAL COLLEGE WILL NOT BE BANISHED
John, I can’t imagine what possessed you to make this article public. As has mentioned by #19 above and others, it’s HARD to amend the consitution. Considering that, plus the fact that 48 states out of 50 now prefer the winner-takes-all voting made posssible by the electoral college, there is no chance in hell that the EC will go away in any of our lifetimes, period.
Let me offer a little math. As noted above, winner-take all electoral college voting gives smaller states disproportionate power. If you’re the fine citizens of state X, you gotta ask yourself: what gives us more power and influence, nationwide proportionate voting where states cease to matter? Or the current system? For states who benefit from the electoral system, it would be downright irrational for them to give up power by switching (by similar reasoning, 48 out of 50 states big and small choose winner-take-all electors).
So, bearing in mind that to change the constitution requires 38 states to say yay — if only 12 states choose to vote against an amendment or not vote on it at all , it will not pass. So how many states benefit from the electoral college and so would be unlikely to abolish it?
The answer is 33 states. 33 states would lose power by abolishing the EC. For those of you wanting to be “pragmatic”, that is the reality.
You can roughly count on a bloc of AT LEAST 33 states opposing any change — nearly 3 times what you need to kill the ammendment.
But what about those 17 larger states? Would even THEY support an amendment and be moved to cast a losing vote? Actually MOST of them, 10, are red states, hence likely to have a conservative view on the constitution.
There you go John, not only is there no chance that 38 states would ratify the abolishment of the Electoral College, I seriously doubt you would need two hands to count the votes in favor of such an amendment.
I think that the Electoral College is an important mechanism for keeping our Republic in balance. It does force Presidential candidates to spend time campaigning for my vote here in Ohio.
When elections are too close for comfort, like the 2000 race, Americans have a tendency to come back and correct the problem in the next election cycle. President Bush won reelection, in spite of an on-going war, and an antagonistic mainstream media, by over 3 million votes, in an election that saw more voters than ever in the history of presidential campaigns. MoveOn.org should take its own advice — for better or worse, Mr. Bush is our nation’s current president. You didn’t hear me whining when Mr. Clinton won two consecutive terms with less than 50% of the vote!
“The fact that Bush lost the popular vote (by one account) to Gore in 2000…”
What do you mean (by one account)?
The popular vote difference was about a half million votes!
BTW, elimiinating the Electoral College will not change the fact that the voting system in the USA has been privitized, and the extremists of one party control the companies that control manufacturing of voting machines and the software used to count vores. No democracy can withstand placing the control of voting into the hands of a small group.
John,
You can forget about the US abandoning the Electoral College. I can cite two reasons:
1. The Electoral College gives political clout to states with smaller populations that they other would not enjoy. Otherwise, Presidential elections will be determined by our most populous states: California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida and a few others, which would give WAY too much clout just these few states.
2. Because the Electoral College concept is written into the Constitution itself, it would require an Amendment to the Constitution to change it. Given the fact you need 38 states to ratify an Amendment, all the states with small populations will effectively block such an Amendment from passing pretty easily.
Thank You
In my opinion the electoral college serves little if any usage in present day politics and techonolagically advanced society. The argument proposed is why the lack of initative basesd on common sense thughts and rational in the aboloishment to the EC. It is diffucult for me to comprehend the merits of stiil using an antiquated forum of electing an individual to be president of one nation. Especially since the president represents all Americans; at least that is the premise,the reults can often vary. The US constition unless misunderstood gives the popolous, the people the final say, not the other way around. The founding fathers of this great nation being themselves human, realized th falibility of humans,thus penned a very good instrument, although perhaps not perfect but pretty darn close.
At the time the Constitution was written, communication between or among the people was very slow,not to mention sporadic. The Nation was at its infancy,therefore the Constitution eas based on past govermental experience rather than future events but never the less worded for future eventualities ,becaused of past goverment inadecquacies. What may have served well at that time period in the case of the electoral college,does not mean that it is issential present day. Now we have instant communication as well as rapid dissemenation of news events,even the poorest residents have a leat one television and least some access to quick information. Whether the information is good or bad or somewhere in between, it is fast.
The people can form their own opinion on a given event, or topic. In the case of the EC, my opinion does not really matter because it is subject to whether or not my supposed represantative’s viwes align with mine,or not;sometimes yes sometimes no. In this case then my vote has no real recognition because it is rather forced by having to go along with the supposed majority. The other is that someone else knows is whta is best for my situation,which it is not always the case.
The population argument has little validity because people are voting for one president not four or five,whether or not a state has a population of 100 or 2 does not really matter, either ,one wants to vote for that person, or does not. The other matter that has to be said that one can vote republican or demecrat, he or she is not forced to vote democrat only or republican only but has a choice; at least for now anyway. The electoral college causes a republican vote to be democrat or vice versa even though that migh not have been the voter’s intent but, that is how it ends up being. At least that is my perception. The people are voting on the person that is supposed to represent the greater majority of the nations ideology, not just democrat or just repiblican, but of both. Unfortunatly the EC tends to devide the people rather than unite it. Since it s called the United States of America, and every person in every state is an Amercan, then why not vote all American rather than blu state,or red state or yellow state, but rather one Nation indisible under one President.