That’s the premise of a bill to be introduced in Congress by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.
Abolish the Electoral College… the candidate who wins a majority of the votes should win the presidency.
Establish rotating interregional primaries
Provide for nationwide early voting
Allow absentee ballots on demand
Improve vote verification
Fund pilot vote-by-mail and Internet voting
Establish standards for voter registration lists
The article has the details. Shouldn’t be much of a wait for the smokescreen from politicians who want “electoral reform” – as long as it doesn’t challenge the status quo.
No, I have no idea if this will ever get past the do-nothings in Congress – at least part of this proposal will require a Constitutional amendment.
Democracy. Too radical for America?
We’re not a democracy – we’re a republic.
Besides the choice of candidates for a party is the function of the party. They set their own rules.
Long live the republic.
While I agree with most of these ideas they would require one or more constitutional amendments.
Do you really want our federal legislators to change the constitution during this time of hysteria over terrorism ?
Opening the constitution to change right now could be disastrous. We would probably end up with the bill of rights being amended out of existence.
I would rather have an out-dated electoral systems then whatever changes our legislators would choose to make these days.
#1 This does not change anything about being a Democratic Republic so you comment is pointless. We would still be electing a Representative.
Now why this idea is wrong and will never pass. The Electoral College was set up for the same reason we have a Senate. To keep the larger states from over powering the smaller ones. Since this will take a Constitutional Amendment to change and 2/3rds of the state will need to pass it. The smaller states will never give up that power, so you’ll never get 2/3rds. Anyone care to tell me why this is even being suggested. I believe only twice in history that the most popular vote getter didn’t win Bush and someone else.
#1 “We’re not a democracy – we’re a republic.”
[cut-and-paste the standard response to this nonsense]
“Republic” and “democracy” are not mutually exclusive because they sit on completely different axes:
Republic (n) A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.
Democracy (n) Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them.
Republic (as opposed to monarchy) describes who wields the executive power of the state: an elected official, rather than some hereditary rank.
Democracy (as opposed to dictatorship) describes who decides how the government is put together: the general public, rather than a single despot.
Between these two axes, you can have any kind of combination:
Democratic republics (US, France, Germany, India); Dictatorial republics (ye olde banana repulic); Democratic monarchies (UK, Sweden, Australia, Canada); Dictatorial monarchies (ye olde feudal state).
Neither of the two terms can exist on their own. You cannot simply be “a republic” because you need to decide who that republic represents: the people or the one guy in charge, and without that representation you have no claim to sovereignty as a nation.
Likewise, you cannot simply be “a democracy” because you need to determine what the people is deciding on — without it, you have no state.
Therefore, claiming that “we are a republic, not a democracy” is the equivalent of saying “we have these elected guys in charge of something, but we are not a sovereign nation.”
Although I have never liked the electoral college system, I don’t much care to go for a straight popular vote. I think it would make the states with larger number of voters more important that the states with fewer voters.
This could effectively disenfranchise them from the process, because canidates would only focus on the larger states.
I think we should go with a popular vote within state type system, popular vote wins state, 26 states wins election, incase of a tie, the total number of votes would then be used.
We could also go back to the old system of the runner-up becoming the vice-president, that could shake-up things.
Corporations have SUBVERTED BOTH THE REPUBLIC AND THE “DEMOCRACY” OF AMERICA !!! See the previous posting here on “Corporate Fascism” and votenader.org/issues – “ending corporate personhood” !!!
see also:
http://endcorporatepersonhood.tribe.net/
I would simply be happy with having a real democracy, which you find in Germany, and in many other parts of Europe, where the cabinet is actually made up of reps from many parties, so many possible views are represented. Here, we have two antiquated parties that take charge of everything, and fight each other all the way. Interesting how Germany became democratic much later than us, and already have it pretty well worked out.
Talk about good intentions/bad idea. Direct democracy would result in every single election being won in court not the polls like it intends. That’s the idiocy of the new American Government the rule of frivolous lawsuits not actual law.
#8 – And where you don’t have a real bill of rights or free speech… Yep, sounds good to me…
#10 – Do you realize that Germany is in the top 10 of free speech countries, and the US is way down by China – a Communist country? Also, the US ranks in the worst for protection of it’s citizens privacy. Research is the way to complete understanding. Just because the government says we are the best, doesn’t make it so.
> Abolish the Electoral College… the candidate who wins a majority of the votes should win the presidency.
I’m surprised the Senator from FLORIDA would do this, but OK. I’d prefer they make the state votes more like the electoral college to avoid messy recounts.
> Establish rotating interregional primaries
So now he wants to dictate what the parties do.
> Provide for nationwide early voting
The Constitution says votes should happen on the same day, so they should probably drop the existing early voting. Spend some money and open some more polling places.
> Allow absentee ballots on demand
Makes the next item harder
> Improve vote verification
OK. If his proposal doesn’t include a requirement to show ID, then he’s a fraud.
> Fund pilot vote-by-mail and Internet voting
Contradicts the previous item. Pilot vote-by-mail is called Oregon.
> Establish standards for voter registration lists
OK.
http://www.popularchoice08.com
…numbers don’t lie…lets prove our point this election. Perhaps if something like this had gotten more media coverage with the last two elections there wouldn’t be a need to argue the point now.
More Corporate Reform ideas at:
http://www.citizenworks.org/admin/press/corpreforms.php
Corporate funds ANNIHILATE ELECTORAL CHOICE !!!
I like the idea of four regional Super-Tuesdays over eight weeks in April and May.
And, to that, I’d make it play-off, elimination style. (like March Madness or American Idol. 🙂 )
That would encourage grass roots candidates while still seeming totally fair to Americans.
@#15 – I like your way of thinking. 🙂
So maybe we should just eliminate the voting system? Americans vote counts for one vote in every state in America. How much more fair can you have it?? I really think eliminating the party elections should be the way to go. Let every run a election as long as they want and may the chips fall where they may.
1) As others have stated, we have the electoral college to balance large and small states. If you want to abolish that, you should also want to abolish the two houses of congress, as well as several other state-size negotiations. If that is truly what the people want, that is fine, but clearly that IS a constitutional issue.
2) Maryland’s law is exceptionally stupid. In order for this to “work” (IE, elect the popular candidate) at least one state would have to change their electoral votes away from the person that state specifically voted for. In effect disenfranchising that entire state. how is that democracy?
The genius of the electoral college is that it prevents major population centers from consistently choosing the President. It assures that rural areas of our country have a BALANCED say in who becomes president. It levels the playing field and forces candidates to campaign in and answer to states that have smaller populations.
Eliminate the electoral college, which would need to have the Constitution amended to do, and New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles will choose the President every four years.
Screw the popular vote!
When I run for President, if I can’t buy the Presidency, I’m gonna sue!
It’s the American Way…
#8: “Interesting how Germany became democratic much later than us, and already have it pretty well worked out.”
– Except for the minor slip-up in the 30s when Hitler became Chancellor.
—
Interesting how the U.S. has democracy pretty well worked out.
– Except the the minor slip up in 2000 when Bush became President.
#11 – Do you realize that Germany is in the top 10 of free speech countries, and the US is way down by China.
Oh, the Germany where you would go to jail for saying something about the holocaust that isn’t approved by the gov’t? You crack me up! LOL
With only two political parties, Direct Election vs. Electoral College isn’t as different as you think. Only 4 times in the history of the republic as there been a discrepancy between electoral college and popular vote. It’s only relevant in the minds of voters since it happened only 8 years ago. We may go generation before it happens again.
Seriously, If the winner of 2000 was reversed, and Bush had received the popular vote and Gore had the electoral vote, no one would be talking about it.
The Demoncrats have been complaining about losing the Presidency since 2000, and will continue to complain till they get it back. The sad truth is that McCain’s lead is being cemented with all the Democratic candidates’ infighting.
Just think this might even restore peoples faith in democracy… NAH! Never happen, democracy in America’s never been more than a smoke screen. The real power is money, always has been, always will be. The electoral college is the system by which the real power can make sure they can control who gets to portray that power. Without all those complications, any direct manipulations would be obvious. One person one vote, wake up and smell the politics boys and girls.
>> # 19 Matt Garrett said,
But why should rural votes be worth more than urban votes?
I agree with your analysis but I don’t think it’s a good thing.
This reminds me of a debate I had on this blog a week or two ago. I was complaining that OK sentaror Coburn was UNILATERALLY blocking a park program here in Oklahoma. Someone from Oklahoma sniped at me that we Oregonians can’t get all we want from the government.
So, I Googled it. Oklahoma SUCKS WAY MORE from the federal government than they contribute. We Oregonians give a little more than we take.
It was a learning experience for me. Generally, the RURAL “red” states are tax suckers and the urban “blue” states are tax givers.
This is just wrong. I can’t help but think this is caused by this whole governing philosophy which favors rural voters.
correction:
“…parks program here in Oregon”
Sorry for my slopping posting.
Here’s an article about how an Oklahoma senator is unilaterally blocking a relatively minor but well-needed and supported parks program here in Oregon.
http://tinyurl.com/2wfzcg
It’s outrageous. This time it’s Oregon but next time it may be a program YOU want. All from a Senator from a state that sucks federal tax dollars like crazy.
If you look at this map, created by the U. S. Census Bureau, you will see why this is a bad idea.
http://tinyurl.com/yt2mkt
A full 1/2 of the united states would essentialy loose thier vote. The people in the densly populated eastern states would be able to vote for what would be better for them, and those in the west would be forced to live with it. The electoral college evens this out.
#28 You mean the Founding Fathers were more intelligent than most of the people who visit blog sites?
#29,
I dont know if they were more intellegent, but I do know that they had lived under a monarchy, and that experience gave them great insight into the potential problems in a government. I think it was this experience which allowed them to create this great country that we live in.
#1 – We’re not a democracy – we’re a republic.
There’s always a pedantic dweeb who wants to trundle this tired canard out anytime someone utters the word “democracy.”
Yes, professor, we are a damn republic. We also vote. We refer to that as the democratic process. Our politicians and leaders constantly refer to our democracy. We talk about spreading democracy. We have democratic values.
We are a democracy.
No go teach a community college class in political science and let us have just one thread where some annoying Eggbert doesn’t want to sully the discourse with a lecture on Republics and Democracies.
—
#3 – Do you really want our federal legislators to change the constitution during this time of hysteria over terrorism ?
If it ends the legacy of disenfranchisement? Yes.
—
#6 – I think it would make the states with larger number of voters more important that the states with fewer voters.
It does no such thing. It makes the candidate that gets the most votes from the most Americans the winner.
This could effectively disenfranchise them from the process, because canidates would only focus on the larger states.
I live in Indiana. I am disenfranchised with every ballot I cast. Even though I do vote, there is no point in it since the state is going red no matter what.
We are 300 million citizens. Not 50.
—-
#9 – Direct democracy would result in every single election being won in court not the polls like it intends.
You have no evidence to support that claim. Why should that be true?
—-
#19 – Eliminate the electoral college, which would need to have the Constitution amended to do, and New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles will choose the President every four years.
I don’t have a problem with that.
It’s also not true. Those three cities are roughly the population of Canada, or 30 million, when you include not only the cities but the surrounding metroplexes.
The United States is 300 million plus. Those three cities cannot rule the elections.
All that would happen is that whomever gets the most votes would be President.
Had we had that happen in 2000, we wouldn’t be in the world of hurt we are in today.
—-
#23 – Only 4 times in the history of the republic as there been a discrepancy between electoral college and popular vote.
That’s 4 times too many.