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 5330 access attempts in the last 7 days.
The one counter I can see off the top to your argument is it ignores the very real possiblity a third party could form that could get somewhere without the electoral college. A centrist party that represents the majority of the population instead of what we have which has been moving election after election to the extremes. This is probably the only way in which one could ever rise to overtake our current two party mess, the Dems and Reps know it and won’t allow it.
I agree that the electoral college is useless and needs to be eliminated. The question is how do we eliminate it? The politicians aren’t about to get rid of it, specially the ones who benefit form it.
I might buy that the media is the one that wants to eliminate the Electoral College, but I guarantee that the smaller states do not. With the Electoral College, the small states actually have a say in the election. Without the Electoral College, the election will be decided by a half-dozen to a dozen high population *cities*. Eliminating the Electoral College condemns the rural areas of the country to no vote.
Another problem with removing the Electoral College is that it moves the country closer to a Democracy and further from a Republic. This mistake would be on par with the insane Amendment that made Senators elected by popular vote. Originally they were appointed by the State governments so that the State governments’ would have an equal say in the Federal government. The people should have power through their State governments. It is one of the reasons that I’m against States with large populations.
Yet another problem with the elimination of the Electoral College is that will encourage what I call the “sheep vote.” While cities do provide an arena for greater discourse about issues, they also encourage uniform thinking rather than independent thought. The effect is that you have numerous voters simply voting in line with their friends. This happens in rural areas as well, but the Electoral College balances theses interests so that “sheep” votes in one part of the country are somewhat balanced against “sheep” votes in another part of the country with population effects mitigated. Without the Electoral College, the overwhelming populations of the cities would completely dominate the elections for good or ill.
A far better solution that would achieve the same effect would be the elimination of the “all or nothing” allocation of electoral votes. If states allocated their votes by popular segmentation, then states like California could not be ignored by the media and candidates but would still be balanced against the interests of smaller states.
John how on earth are you going to convince these political parties and organizations to surrender this much power. Right now state political power brokers in CA can greatly effect national elections and policy with the promise of 55 votes. It’s been my experience that power is seldom willfully surrendered.
The abolition of the Electoral College is long overdue.
And had it not existed in 2000, AL Gore would have won the election.
But the Democrats did virtually nothing to that end, in the four years following that election. So none of them have any right to whine about the fact that under the Constitution one can lose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote.
Keeping the Electoral College, but ditching the “winner takes all” rule will make things even worse. Instead of having 1 “Florida” you will have 535 Floridas.
Umm, I’m pretty sure Bush beat Gore in 2000, not 1990.
Also, if the two parties never compromise on campaign finance reform what was it that happened in 2001? How about in 1974?
The Electoral College may disappear some day, but only as part of the growing Federalization trend of the US. States have consistantly been weakened as the federal government usurps more power and authority. The increasing polarization of the Democrats and Republicans may actually extend the life of the Electoral College.
Remember that the US constitution is the second one, the first has virtually no federal government. I forsee an eventual third constitution recasting the US as a federal democracy.
The League of Women Voters has been saying scrap this since 1970 and before 1970. Way before the Internet, but now it’s on the Internet.
http://www.lwvoakland.org/Electoral_Report_1970.htm
It had been tied up due to delaying tactics by Rep. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. See THE EVENING STAR
Washington, D. C., Friday, January 16, 1970
It’s no wonder why women tend to vote Democratic. I think the LWV was really a pioneering force that was ignored by the old boys club, or U.S. Senate as they were known. But what do i know?
The Electoral College is going away because it favors small states.
In a democracy, the bigger majority is stronger because it is a bigger majority. The bigger states tend to have bigger problems as well, but that is another matter.
Small states have less power because they are smaller and have less people, less votes, less money and less power. Plus the smaller states tend to have less trees to save. With the Electoral College, the smaller states can act like bigger states and the bullies that run things can be bigger fish in smaller ponds. This is a great idea in Washington, which isn’t a good place to study reality. The smaller states tend to have more local control, which in Washington DC means less federal control over our lives. Call FEMA and wait for hell to freeze over after your big state has a big storm. All politics is local.
>And had it not existed in 2000, AL Gore would have won the election.
Great reason to keep the electoral college. Bush won 30 states. Of course without it, Bush wins even if Kerry had won in Ohio.
Getting rid of winner takes all doesn’t give you 535 Floridas, it gives you 0. Many of the districts aren’t that close, and it keeps fraud in one place from spreading too far. If Philly can only affect a few votes, it’s not the same as changing Pennsylvania’s 20. It’s the elimination of the electoral college that would give you 50 Floridas.
> Right now the smaller states are OVERLOOKED and forgotten.
> If the election was based on teh popular vote both parties
> would go after every vote they could get.
The smaller states have substantial power. Look at a state like Rhode Island. They have four electoral votes out of a total of 538 for a ratio of 1 / 139.5. RI’s voting population is about 247,403 while the US total voting population (note that is not the total voting. It is simply the total potential voters) is about 74,738,112. That’s a ration of 1 / 302. RI has three times the effect on the election under the Electoral College as they would under a purely popular vote. That doesn’t even account for their power in the Senate where they have an equal say as any other state.
> Keeping the Electoral College, but ditching the “winner
> takes all” rule will make things even worse. Instead of
> having 1 “Florida” you will have 535 Floridas.
Bullshit. It would make each state’s allocation match closer to the sentiment of their constituents. The worst example is California. In 2004, Bush took 45% of the vote in California. Even if a candidate wins by one vote, they get the full 55 electoral votes as if the entire state voted for them. Changing California alone to allocate its electoral votes based on the popular vote alone would completely change the dynamic of the election. If every state did that, it would maintain the power multiplier for smaller states, but would force candidates to campaign in every state, especially CA (not that I’m really thrilled with that idea). In addition, it would make it substantially more difficult for a candidate to win the electoral vote and not the popular vote.
> In a democracy, the bigger majority is stronger because it
> is a bigger majority. The bigger states tend to have bigger
> problems as well, but that is another matter.
The US is NOT a Democracy! It is a Republic (or Democratic Republic if you wish)! They are very different. It is the STATES that have ultimate power. The people have power through the states and their state representatives. If the states so wished it, they could completely disband the Federal government and replace it. Pure democracies suffer from the “sheep vote” effect. It’s exasperated in large population centers where people tend to follow along with everyone else.
I have to give marks to everyone that has posted on this topic. While I might disagree with you, every post is thoughtfully written.
I think this country is better for having the Electoral College. Throughout history, many nations have tried the Republican system, mostly modeled on the American experience. Only the United States has succeeded, partially because only the U. S. used the Electoral College. Power bases cannot be localized but must take into account all areas of the country.
Originally the Electoral College was created to counter act the power of Virginia. Even though Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all came from Virginia, the Electoral College made them more responsive to the rest of the country.
As imperfect as the College may be, I think the greater shame is the voter turnout in this country. When 50 % is considered a high turnout, something needs to be done. The process should be easy and painless. Line-ups should not be more then a few minutes (less then five or ten minutes). Ballots should be clear, easy to understand and use, and verifiable. Voting places should be well marked in advance and serve communities and not be cost conscious.
Part of the problem with voting is the number of offices open. Make local elections on a different day then the National / State elections. Maybe, every even year for Federal / State and every odd year for local elections. Just a thought.
Well, I could counter-point this to death, but let’s just say it’s a good thing John is not a lawyer. 😉 This spins the Constitution on it’s head. It has zero to do with “national campaign spending dollars” or the modern conception of the media.
The ‘majority’ was just as much an oppressor as King George III. All Presidential candidate’s have to resonate with the nation as a whole, and not just win in populational heavy ‘favorite son’ states. We never wanted a direct democracy, the excesses of the French Revolution further bore that out in the minds of the Founders. The Electoral College protects the wishes of the States against the power of the Federal Government. Without the Electoral College, you will merely have machine politics at the large populational areas. No it’s not all about the ‘media’, it’s all about the Constitutional philosophy behind it all.
And never mind the reasoning, you will have to get a Constitutional Admendment for it to happen, not likely at all. In fact, were the Supreme Court to decide that that the Electoral College and the 12th Admendent was itself unconstitutional (as unlikely as anything), that would only prompt a new Admendment in its favor. The 1800 election and the resulting 12th Admendment is a precedent that has withstood all takers, the 20th ‘Lame Duck’ Admendment only shoring up the time. So be cyncial all you want, but 205 years of history is against you. Not going to happen and not a good idea either.
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…” — James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
“A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town.” –Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65
“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.” Thomas Jefferson, “Notes On The State of Virginia”, 1781-1782.
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm – for fun 🙂
Predicting the demise of the electoral college? OS/2 will sooner replace Microsoft XP in corporate America. Eliminating the electoral college will require a consitutional amendment. That would require two thirds of both houses and three fourths of the states. The only states that would benefit from this move would be California and New York. Really now, as a political commentator, you are a great technology reporter.
We live in a competitive society. I guess the idea of electoral college is having a planned society, with fewer people making more decisions. All for our own good and for a more just and free society. This is how we have ended up with malls on earthquake fault lines, the modern beach condo and the below sea level city of the future. The government planners figure people should live on top of a volcano, so suddenly there is plan for a freeway that goes to the volcano and some nitwit developer is selling lots and building model homes in Lava Heights and the goofy realtors are promoting the view. Democracy is like physical development and once you get rid of competition you end up with something worse, like everything being worse at ten times the cost, $5.00 a gallon gas and people waiting in lines for soup and a wish sandwich.
This is from the FEC website,
Can non-US citizens contribute?
“Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that “green card” holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our “Foreign Nationals” brochure.”
What it all comes down to in the end is money, power and politics.
The brochure says, “The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment. ” The people we don’t elect can send billions of U.S. dollars to a foreign country never to return, along with troops, supplies and food. This is how you end up with more federal debt, a big casket bill and marches in Washington and of course $5.00 a gallon gasoline. Before making Iraq a model democracy, we tried feeding various parts of Africa and helping Columbia eliminate the cocaine plants with all the efficiency of the CIA and the planning of the State Department. The Africans are still starving and somebody is still snorting a line of cocaine someplace, but the planning in Washington can never keep pace with the innovation of the marketplace. Electoral College is like any other Washington command and control operation.
Sample Letter from the Archivist to the Governors
The Honorable Madison Jefferson Monroe
Governor of Anystate
State Capitol, US 00000-0001
Dear Governor Monroe:
I am writing to inform you of your responsibilities in the upcoming Electoral College process and to offer the assistance of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). This year the Presidential election and selection of electors will occur on November 2, 2004 and the State meetings of the Electoral College will be held on December 13, 2004.
The Governor of each State performs certain duties to carry out the functions of the Electoral College. Each State is responsible for documenting the selection of electors and the electors’ votes for President and Vice President, and for ensuring that properly executed certificates reach the appropriate Federal and State officials.
NARA administers the electoral process by receiving Certificates of Ascertainment of electors and Certificates of Vote from the States and the District of Columbia, reviewing them for legal sufficiency, making them available to the Congress for the official accounting of electors and votes, and providing the public with access to electoral documents and information about the Electoral College.
To assist you in carrying out your Electoral College duties, I am enclosing a set of procedural instructions and pamphlets containing the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the United States Code that relate to the election of the President and Vice President. Please make these materials available to the officials who will administer the electoral process in your State.
I would greatly appreciate your assistance in ensuring the smooth operation of the Electoral College process this year. It is essential that the electoral certificates be prepared accurately and submitted as promptly as possible within the time periods allotted by law. If you have any questions regarding Electoral College procedures, please have your office or the appropriate State election officials contact the Legal Affairs Staff of NARA’s Office of the Federal Register at (202) 741-6030.
Sincerely,
JOHN W. CARLIN
Archivist of the United States
Who Selects the Electors?
Enclosures
Who Selects the Electors?
The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State.
Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate.
Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/selects.html
As you can see the entire process varies throughout the United States.
The process varies, so what you do is send a form letter out and ensure all the guvs that the Legal Affairs Staff will ensure all of the various processes are within the letter of the law according to three lawyers in some bureau in Washington DC. I’ve seen this sort of thing done at the local level. If you ask for names, they say it was just staff, that’s all. Staff always varies, like the process it is faceless nameless and blameless. This way when government planning ruins your life, business or local community you can be sure that it was done with the full knowledge of nobody in particular so give the Legal Affairs Staff a ring and try to get answers about the Electoral College. Chances are if you ask the same question to ten different staff people in three different federal agencies each answer will vary just like the process varies from state to state. If you spend enough time digging into the ABC’s of Electoral College, you might find enough information to become a UN staffer or an aid to Fidel Castro planning the uncompetitive world of the government planned society.
As goofy as the Electoral College seems when viewing government publications, it is the result of the best laid plans in the same spirit of a FEMA evacuation plan or the plans for chasing the wolves out of Yellowstone Park. For the federal government, less wolves and more park rangers seems like a good plan. Then there is nature which can’t be planned. Nature is like competition and then all hell breaks loose and what you get for your money is a federally funded airport full of bankrupt airlines and an iron curtain style security force. The funny thing is that if security was in demand, the airlines would provide the supply and pocket the change. Instead you have some federal screeners with their hands in your pockets and some electors with a college which relies on none of us and preys on all of us.
Welcome to Fed Rock, yaba daba doo!
Pat I agree with you except for the ‘balloting should be easy and painless’ part. This argument has been used for too many reforms. Absentee voting, elections by mail, same day voter registration, and multiple day voting all used that argument, and all have problems, primarily fraud. Of course the Palm Beach butterfly ballot was used to make things easier for their votersI have no problem with shorter lines. I doubt the local elections really interfere with anything. In places where they are separate, you get even lower turnout.
“The League of Women Voters believes that the office of elector has become unnecessary and supports its abolition.”
“The League of Women Voters has shown concern about present national nominating procedures, about campaign financing and the use of the media in presidential elections.”
http://www.lwvoakland.org/Electoral_Report_1970.htm
This makes too much sense for the minds without imaginations, which are most of our federal government, to begin to process. They should see it now. Then you have the nuts on the right, offering dittos and excuses for the whole mess. The good old boys can stall and delay things and you have a federal government that can’t find the light switches in a national emergency.
There was a study somewhere that showed the electoral college system increases the power of voters to change an election over direct democracy. Basically for your vote to count in a nationwide popular vote total, you would have to have a tie or one vote margin nationwide. There is a better chance of getting a tie or one vote margin in a smaller group, and for the state to then change the results of the overall election.
There was a study somewhere…Right there was a study everywhere. Here a study, there a study old McDonald had a study e.i.o.e.i.o and on his study he had some pigs. With an oink-oink here and oink-oink there. You had a brain somewhere and now you have a study explaining how you had power and more power. You are an idiot and don’t know it until the NIH does a study of the study the EPA did, showing dead trees make nice homes but kills the trees. The solution is more living trees and more homeless people. Save the world, buy a fake Christmas tree to match your fake religion. In Trees We Trust. Disclosure: I have a chainsaw.
The Electoral College itself isn’t the problem. It’s the winner-take-all system
that most states use for their votes. This is changeable on a state level,
and if a large state like California or New York or Texas implemented it,
a domino effect would ensue.
Actually, there will be less and less spending on once every 4 year prophaganda, since the party in power, as Stalin said, counts the votes, it just academic. They will always win when they count the vote. The MIC (military industrial complex) really hates giveing media money it could be spending on $5000 commode lids. Your are pessimistic, but not enough saisan. They are doing a dry run right now in Iraq on thier style of democracy, soon to be in a state near you.
I like the article and I like the discussion. However, I don’t think there’s a realistic chance of getting rid of the electoral college, because it gives small states a disproportionate share of power, and you’re never going get 3/4 of the states to go along with the change.
Doesn’t this just make it easier for politicians to ignore rural areas? Why campaign in middle of nowhere when New York has millions of votes in a few sqare miles.
We will not eliminate the Electoral College. States elect the President, not individuals. The state legislature decides how to appoint ‘electors’. Popular elections aren’t even requred but have become the norm. If the state of Florida decided to have no presidential election and instead allow the Governor to appoint electors that is well within their ‘rights’ and constitutionally acceptable.
Power = Money; My take is 3 elements are involved. One is power; present world is power envious. Two, of course, money. Money likewise is envied for power plus our society runs in an highly inflated state; (money only speaking here) so money is an ever conscious consideration. Three, the peculiar acceptance by our economy of the sales pitch; be it fear, terrorist, flood, hurricane, new car, fancy clothes, etc. Most especially we have become hype orientated – no hype, no interest.
If the media, the politicians, the advertisers were shown a public opinion otherwise the trend would be otherwise. Now we are beginning to learn about choice. It is yours, mine, and everyones.
Until then we will get what we are conditioned to want. Clearly, I want a real and fundamental choice.
Sorry John. Wishful thinking on your part. The EC plays a significant role in national elections of the USA and I’m not ready to abandon it on a whim. The Founding Fathers had a vision for the political development of this country, and the EC is central in that vision.
The Constitution is the core of this country’s laws, and favors no political agenda. Politicians all play fast and loose with the interpretations, but final interpretation lies at the foot of the courts.
We are blessed with this privelege granted us by our forefathers; let’s keep it this way. We are still young.
amen.
Not a good idea. A popular vote will only compound the problem described in the article (where presidential campaigns effectively “write off” safe states).
With a popular vote, the presidential candidates will only bother campaigning in the big cities – where all the votes are concentrated. Thus we will have Los Angeles, New York City, Atlanta, Chicago and a few other metropolises basically deciding our president. The interests of the rural voters will be completely ignored because they won’t matter anymore.
I do support a refinement of the Electoral College where the electoral votes are apportioned to congressional districts instead of the entire state. So instead of “winner-take-all”, the electoral votes would be divided among the congressional districts and a candidate would get electoral votes based on how many congressional districts won. Under this system, George W. Bush would have captured some electoral votes in California and John Kerry would have gotten some votes in Texas.
I believe there are a couple of states doing this already, such as Maine.
Sorry I come so late to this party; Mr. Dvorak is wrong on many points.
The day that the Electoral College is eliminated is the day we see the end of our federal republic. The Electoral College was part of a carefully crafted compromise between the large and small states to keep the smaller states from always being overrun by the larger states. The makeup of the U.S. Senate is another part of this compromise, wherein each state has two senators regardless of its population. Likewise, in the Electoral College each state has a number of votes corresponding to its total representation in Congress, i.e., the sum of its representatives and senators. This gives Wyoming, for example, three Electoral College votes, or roughly three times the weight it would have based on population alone. Furthermore, should any candidate fail to achieve a majority of the Electoral College votes, the election goes to the House of Representatives where each state, regardless of population, has one vote. Thus it is possible for a combination of states representing far less than a majority of the population to join together to elect a president. Fortunately, changing the Electoral College requires amending the Constitution, and such a move can be and would be stopped cold by the smaller states, which are, no doubt, unlikely to give up their power under the present system.
This careful attention to the voice of the minority is a key element in the 200+ year stability of our federal republic. Minorities can be assured that their voice will be heard and that any compromises reached will include their views. This is largely repsonsible for the fact that our minorities (and I’m talking politics here, not race or gender) have for the most part worked within the system instead of taking their case to the streets.
Additionally, there were in 1789 and there are today, practical reasons for the Electoral College. With the Electoral College it is possible to reach a result without every last vote being known. That was an issue in 1789 when communications with remote areas was problematical and slow, and it is still an issue today. We can pretty much know the result even before every last box in Hawaii or Alaska is reported. On the other hand, if we must wait until every last box reports in every state, every election will be a replay of Florida 2000 in all fifty states, with interminable recounts of every box in every state.
We should take note also, that before the passage of the seventeenth amendment providing for the popular election of senators, there was no federal office that was elected even statewide, let alone nationwide. This was by design, as there was nothing the Founders feared more than a direct democracy. Direct democracy is nothing more, after all, than legitimized mob rule. Pure democratic majorities change from minute to minute and from issue to issue, making governing impossible. It is one thing to elect a representative by majority vote in each local congressional district out of 435 districts; it is quite another to choose a president by straight majority vote in a 300-million strong republic. We have seen the results of nationwide popular elections in many much smaller countries when the ballot has dozens or even hundreds of nationwide candidates for a single office. It is pure chaos, with armed gangs roaming the streets attempting to affect the outcome by the simple method of killing the other candidates or their supporters. And don’t think it can’t happen here.
And we should not forget that these United States are just that – STATES, not counties, districts, regions, precincts or oblasts (look it up). England is a soverign state, Spain is a sovereign state, Columbia is a sovereign state, and Nebraska is a sovereign state. If we override state sovereignty with the direct election of the president, we will have driven the last nail in the coffin of our once-glorious federal republic. We will descend into chaos.