A Vote to Quit the Electoral College
SACRAMENTO — Lawmakers sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill Wednesday that would make California the first state to jump aboard a national movement to elect the president by popular vote.
Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide — not the most votes in California. Get enough other states to do the same, backers of the bill say, and soon presidential candidates will have to campaign across the nation, not just in a few key “battleground” states such as Ohio and Michigan that can sway the Electoral College vote.
[…]
If Schwarzenegger signs the bill — AB 2948 by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) — California will be the first state to embrace the “national popular vote” movement, though legislation is pending in five other states: New York, Illinois, Missouri, Colorado and Louisiana.
related link:
Why the Electoral College Will Be Banished
I have always wanted to be a member of the electoral college but if it was abolished it would help all the people who feel their votes don’t matter because they are in states dominated by an opposing party.
This is a long article, but it’s worth reading. The electoral college has some significant and subtle benefits…until we have 50:50 elections.
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm
I am continually amazed at the foresight our founding fathers possessed. They were some smart mofos. 🙂
I think that if you view the USA as a collection of states the electoral college makes sense.
If you view the USA as one giant county then the popular vote makes more sense.
This is silly because it still doesn’t solve the problem of the “winner take all” system. If one were say a Republican in California, and voted for the GOP candidate, but the Democrat won the majority of votes in Calif, you get represented by……ta da….an elector pledged to vote for the Democrat!
I’d favor dumping the EC entirely, nationwide in favor of popular vote, but I don’t think that will happen in my lifetime or even in the lifetime of the USA.
David
let me get this straight – if the popular vote in a majority of states elects a Republican, all of California’s votes (dominantly Democrat) will go to that Republican!?!
I can here the howls. nae screems of “Disenfranchisement” already.
I wrote an article a while back about this:
The link didn’t make it in the first comment.
http://ronnieswafford.newsvine.com/_news/2006/05/17/199681-the-electoral-college-must-go
🙂
The only reason this is taking in consideration is because despite the fact that more than half of the nation hates Bush Jr he won the reelection.
Disregarding the irregularities and the intervention of the Supreme Court, the Presidential election in the year 2000, is a good recent demonstration of the need to reform the Electoral College. “We the people” chose one candidate but had to surrender to “us the electors.” The College is a remainder element from an earlier version of the constitution that had in its design the perpetual rule of land owning white men over all others. Reforming the system to vote by the popular will of the people would encourage voter turnout and help reestablish trust in the democratic process.
Hmm, so by eleminating the EC, the opinions and values of those living in the cities of LA, Chicago and New York could trump the opinions and values of all of those living in the states of Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Montona, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Hawaii?
I can see why the Democrats would want this.
I know the dems hate the electoral college, and Bush, but they have to know that they are just shooting themselves in the foot on this one. I can already see the scenario playing out.
The Republican candidate is down by just a few votes, whoever takes California will win. But, the Republican has more of the popular votes. The democratic candidate wins, California but not by much. Uh oh the law kicks in, and the republican wins the elections. The cries of disenfranchisement would go through the roof. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
Sorry folks, the electoral collage is not going anywhere, all these little laws to try to screw with the electoral system will do is simply make their own states less relevant when a close presidential election comes around (i.e. why should I campaign in California when I have over 50% of the population locked in?)
What I would like to see however is instead of assigning electoral collages by state, assign them by districts.
Ya, this is a pretty retarded idea. Long live the electoral college.
#2Doesn’t feel any better to be in a state that is dominated by the same party — neither the GOP nor the Dems ever visit Maryland, so Maryland’s issues are completely ignored by both parties.
Comment by Sagrilarus — 8/31/2006 @ 8:27 am
What issues? The only issue Maryland has is that damn Blair Witch that haunts Maryland’s seemingly endless square miles of backwoods and wilderness. And really, do you think witches should be a Federal issue?
(obviously, I’m going for the laugh – Maryland is a beautiful state and I’m sure it has hundreds of serious issues in need of attention)
🙂
The electoral college is a wonderful thing! Remeber all the crap from the 2000 election in Florida?
The electoral votes don’t have to go along w/ the state’s popular vote. There is no question about who they voted for. I’d hate to see a popular vote elect the president. The election wouldn’t make it out of court before it was time to vote again!
those who think that the Founding Fathers were geniuses in setting up the Electoral College should bear in mind that, under the original Constitution, the runner-up became VP. what a swell idea that was.
there is strong evidence that the FFs thought that most Presidential elections would produce no majority in the EC and thus would be decided in the House.
thus, it is far from clear that even the FFs thought the Electoral College was a good idea …
It was set up to protect the smaller states. Just as each state having 2 Senators.
California may be big, but it’s not the Federal goverment and they are the only ones allowed by the Constitution to make changes to Federal elections(ie: Confress and President). No state can decide how to use it’s electoral college votes, it’s pre-ordained by the big parchment in Washington.
#18: you might want to re-read that big parchment in Washington, because a state may appoint its electors in any manner which the legislature of that state decides. Just so long as they do not discriminate based upon race, sex or age (for those over the age of 18) if they decide to choose those electors based on popular vote. Hell, it would be perfectly legal for a state to not hold a general election for the choosing of its electors.
#17
Actually that was a great idea to have the VP be the runner up. It was stupid to get rid of it. It meant that the Vice President was an adversary to the President rather than a lap dog.
#18
As Mike said, you should re-read the Constitution. The States do not provide votes per se. They provide voters. Theoretically, the Electoral voters could vote for a guy at the bottom of the ballot if they wish. For the most part, the States are at liberty to choose their Electoral voters however they wish as long as they are consistent (which was the problem is Florida).
The Electoral College was one of the greatest ideas devised by our Founding Fathers. It mitigated the sheep effect in the high population centers. Now, that said, they never expected a State to be as big as California and have 55 or 56 electoral votes. IMO, no State shoud ever have more than 25 votes. That means either the States are capped or that States that have too many are broken into smaller states (which is what I think should happen with California).
We have made changes to the Constitution which IMO have severely hurt the original ideas of the Founding Fathers. I am thinking of two specific changes. The first was changing the voting for Senators to popular vote. Originally, the Senate was a body that represented the States and only the people within the State through their elected officials. Those Senators were appointed. Second, we capped the number of Representatives at 435. The Constitution calls for a Representative for every 100K people. That would mean 3000 Representatives but at least the voice of the people would be clear. If that body is too unwieldy, then some other means of breaking up the Federal government and giving a voice to the people needs to be devised.
It should be noted that if California had determined its Electoral votes by population percentage in 2000 or 2004 instead of its current all or nothing, Bush would have won in a landslide both times instead of a close election.
The Electoral College gives voters more power. The chances that your vote will swing the election is higher under an Electoral College system, then a national popular vote system. Run the numbers yourself. Assume 300 million voters and a 50-50 chance of voting for either party. Calculate the odds of coming within one vote of a tie, then do the same thing on a state-by-state basis, as well as youtr state tipping the electoral college.
20. I agree. The country would be better off with an opposing viewpoint to the President’s if the VP were the other candidate instead of a collection of “yes” men/women that seem to proliferate like in this administration.
I also agree that the EC was the proper method in the past but I think a change to popular vote might be prudent. I think it would stimulate voting and it follows the idea of Democracy where the majority rules. At least this way, no one can complain about the results. The only people to blame would be the apathetics who didn’t make their voice heard. This might also reduce the number of complainers of inadequate government response during tragedies like Katrina since people would be directly responsible for the gov’t that they did or didn’t choose. OTOH, with the Hispanic population set to become the majority, we might soon be annexed into Mexico with a change to popular vote.
#22
> I think it would stimulate voting and it follows
> the idea of Democracy where the majority rules
Which is exactly why the Electoral College should not be abandoned. The Founding Fathers created a Republic not a Democracy specifically because it was too easy to sway the public.
The real problem is that the Founding Fathers never envisioned a single State having the Electoral power of 15 States. If California simply based its Electoral College votes on the popular vote in California that would be sufficient. That would mean that the people in California would be heard and that a balance of votes would go to the appropriate candidates. Basing it on the current national election results is silly IMO as it defeats the purpose of the casting Electoral votes based on the sentiments of the people in your constituency.
22. If the runner-up was VP, the only thing he would do would be preside over the Senate. Anybody know who the president pro tempore of the Senate is, off the top of their head? Anybody care? Note that presiding over the Senate is the only duty prescribed for the VP in the Constitution, so he would no doubt be marginalized from the get-go, rather than some sort of shadow president. I imagine resignations would become routine.
and states can choose their electors however they want – for a long time, South Carolina’s state legistlature chose them and there was no vote for president in SC at all.
and for the record, I think the CA idea is a bad one. the EC should be eliminated, but on a national level, not through piecemeal changes in the States.
If we had gotten rid of the Electoral College after 2000, then what conspiracy theory would liberals have come up with for how Bush stole the election? Ohio wouldn’t have mattered any more.