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?
#31
There is also allways someone who has to resort to name calling when they are caught trying to gloss over the fact that we are a republic.
There’s always a pedantic dweeb who wants to trundle this tired canard out anytime someone utters the word “democracy.”
It is said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner”. Thats what the people who want to abolish the electoral college are advocating.
Thanks Les (#32 & #33). That’s pretty much the answer I had for #31. BTW I couldn’t teach, the cut in pay would be too great.
Democracies led to rule by mob. Look at how well it’s working in Iraq or Palestine.
Why do we elect the parties candidates? Why can’t they select a candidate? We spend millions on elections.
I want campaign finace reform. No corporation should be able to contribute to any capaign, period! But it will never happen until we, the people, DEMAND it.
We hold the leash people and it is time to bring polititions back in step.
#33 – It is said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner”. Thats what the people who want to abolish the electoral college are advocating.
No it isn’t.
Whether we are electing a school board president, an alderman, a mayor, a state representative, a governor, a US congressman, a judge, or whatever else, we do so with a direct election. The candidate who receives the majority of votes always wins.
Aside from restoring voter confidence, preventing atrocities like the 2000 election, and taking the advantage away from the rural states to even the playing field, there is no downside to direct elections for President.
The wolves and lambs metaphor doesn’t apply here.
#31 – There is also allways someone who has to resort to name calling when they are caught trying to gloss over the fact that we are a republic.
If my use of the name “dweeb” actually cut poor David to the core, I’ll apologize.
This isn’t the Algonquin Roundtable. It’s more like a corner bar located between office buildings and a factory, where a bunch of common people hang out after work. I do this for fun and distraction, so I’m sorry if a little color in the language upsets your delicate sensibilities.
But I did defend my point and post number 5 made a pretty good response as well.
Let me sum it up. The notion that “we are a republic”, expressed as an absolute statement, is… wrong.
More to the point, the old “we are a republic” speech is also not in any way useful, and contributes nothing to the discussion.
#35 – So, only individuals could contribute? No organizations? Sounds good to me.
gregallen, it happens because the ‘blue’ states keep voting to raise taxes on their own richer constituents. But they don’t do it at the state level, they do it at the federal level which opens up a piggy bank for people in all the states. Maybe if they would cut the federal taxes and cut the welfare programs, then the states would handle their own.
#31, “We are 300 million citizens. Not 50.”
Except you seem to have missed that this country is a federal union of 50 states. The states send their Senators and Representatives to Washington, and the states are who choose the President.
The electoral college needs to be left alone. If it goes away, about 10 major metropolitan areas in the US will decide the presidential elections and the rural states (98% of the land area) will have no say in it.
The senate elections should also be taken from the people and given back to the state legislatures. The founding fathers knew the dangers of “popularity contests” in electing officials and that’s what we have degraded into. Only the House of Representatives was directly elected by the people.
For that matter – originally only landowners/tax payers were allowed to vote since they were paying for everything. That should also be brought back so that the people who get “earned income tax credits: ie get a tax refund even though they paid zero income tax” can’t dictate how my money is spent. Think about: letting people who don’t pay taxes vote is taxation without representation for all of us who pay taxes (it dilutes our vote).
Okay you want a real change to a general democratic election?
Stop all income tax withholding.
Send everyone their tax bill on April 1st (of course).
Make the tax due by April 15th.
Hold the general election of all federal offices on April 16th.
Now we’ll see mob rule.
#40. Go even further. Proportional votes based on how much you contribute to the common good (taxes). That would be a fair tax.
#39 – Except you seem to have missed that this country is a federal union of 50 states. The states send their Senators and Representatives to Washington, and the states are who choose the President.
I didn’t miss it…. I’m advocating changing it. It’s archaic.
#43 – Dn’t hold your breath. I don’t think you are going to muster 3/4 of the States (many of them small) to give advantage to the larger ones…
#43, It’s only “archaic” because you don’t agree with it. I don’t feel the same way.
#40 – The electoral college needs to be left alone. If it goes away, about 10 major metropolitan areas in the US will decide the presidential elections and the rural states (98% of the land area) will have no say in it.
Bullshit. Everyone who votes will have 1 vote. Do you people really think there are no blue voters in red states? Do you really think there are no red voters in blue states?
The way it is now, we are held hostage by rural America. My vote doesn’t count as long as I live in Indiana. How is that fair?
The President should be elected by the citizens of the United States. Period.
#42 – #40. Go even further. Proportional votes based on how much you contribute to the common good (taxes). That would be a fair tax.
I would argue that taxes are not a contribution to a common good.
I would also argue that since Washington is able to spend trillions of dollars that they did not collect in taxes… deficit spending… then it must stand to reason that Washington can spend anything they like whether they collect our tax dollars or not…
Thus, they don’t need our tax dollars…
Thus, we shouldn’t pay them.
#46. “Thus, they don’t need our tax dollars…
Thus, we shouldn’t pay them.”
I concede. You’re idea is better than mine. 🙂
#32 “There is also allways someone who has to resort to name calling when they are caught trying to gloss over the fact that we are a republic.”
I repeat: the fact that you are a republic does not change the fact that you are also a democracy. One does not exclude the other, no matter how much the founding fathers used the two words in completely new ways to distinguish two different variants of popular voting procedures.
The issue as OFTLO so correctly points out and Sea Lawyer pretends not to be archaic (ie–a product of the history/concerns AT THE TIME) is direct vs representational democracy.
On what “issues” do “States” have a legitimate interest?? If any at all it is certainly regarding issues of state concern? Typically local health and safety.
Is the Office of President of the United State a state/local/health/safety issue or more one of interest to each and every citizen equally?
“Logic” mandates direct elections. The only thing preventing in now, will be the only thing preventing it originally==politics.
Politics==individuals seeking as much power as possible by hoodwinking those that are gullible. (Sea Lawyer?)
#49, What the hell are you talking about? Using your line of reasoning, Senators (who are just glorified representatives of the states) shouldn’t be approving or disapproving of Presidential appointments and treaties either.
And I’m not sure if making up your own clever definitions to words actually serves to prove your point.
“Direct Elections Now–Because mass advertising money doesn’t play enough of a role in campaigns currently.”
#41 and #42: Rather than your suggestions, I’d prefer to see a complete elimination of the federal income tax and to replace it with a single federal sales tax. This would include an annual refund check to ensure that you don’t pay taxes until you reach a certain level of spending. The taxes you pay are clearly visible on your sales receipt, which prevents hiding of taxes and ensures that you know exactly how much you are paying in taxes.
If this is not possible, then I’d like to see a 100% percent deduction for all tax preparation fees from your taxes (not taxable income). This way, there is an incentive to keep taxes simple and reduce the cost of preparation (example: Your taxes for the year are $1,200, it costs you $300 to have your taxes prepared, then the government only gets $900 in taxes).
Simply put, it has been tried before, many times, it has yet to pass. This one is a perennial “I think I may not get re-elected better do something attention grabbing” law. Odds of it passing committee let alone into law, slim to none.
#50–Sea Lawyer===HAH!, I say HAH!
Your lack of a coherent return argument fails to hide your complete capitulation. Address the argument–and you can’t, or atleast don’t==but you get a second chance.
Senate confirming appointments is a check and balance mechanism. If my humorous definitions that actualy highlight the underlying issues are viewed as irrelevant, what do you make of your own argument?
It feels good to win so completely. I must be right?
Don’t colleges have enough problems already?
First the shooting in Virginia, and now people attacking the Electoral College?
It’s a college, for pete’s sake!
We need more electoral colleges because the population has increased.
Have the vote for president be the bottom line of the tax return!
1. Do you want to donate $3 to the Presidental election fund?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
2. Select president:
[ ] George H. W. Bush
[ ] William Jefferson Clinton
[ ] Ross Perot
[ ] The libertarian guy
[ ] The Ralph Naderish guy for this year
#56 for the win!
#54, Yay for you, you won the “I make witty posts to win arguments on teh Internets” award. Woo.
As I originally had said, every aspect of the design of the federal structure of our government is because It was 13 sovereign states coming together to bind themselves under a single federal union. The government created over them was still chosen by those who created it – the states. The states send their representatives, they send their senators, and they choose who is the President. That is the rationale for its design. As an extra benefit, it helped with the communication and travel problems of the day, but the nonexistence of those problems today does not invalidate the other reasoning.
If you want to go hunting for things still in the Constitution to crusade against because you feel they are archaic, why don’t you try to get the presidential power of recess appointments removed. There is certainly no reason today why the President can’t wait until the end of a holiday weekend to send a nominee’s name up to the Senate for debate. And since he may convene the Congress if something needs immediate attention, I’m not sure if the few hours it takes to fly to Washington poses much of a real problem for getting that judge or ambassador in place and working either.
#58–Sea Lawyer==I certainly don’t want to be accused of being witty, but when you are in a hole, stop digging.
The subject of this discussion is “Should there be direct election of the President or should representation thru the electorial college be maintained.”
A boring, self evident, compeltely understood by all recitation of the history of the original provisions IS NOT ANALYSIS!
Use my own post #49 as a guide–give some definitions, some argument, some LOGIC, as to what justifies either position, balance the two, make a judgment. That is called “THINKING.”
what reasons TODAY do you find make representation democracy the way to go in electing our president. This is your third and final chance to be relevant. Fail this, and I will ask Bubba to award you the Double Dip Dork Award. Both events are unprescendented, but called for.
I demand a recount!
#59, I really fail to see where you have used any real “logic” in your posts – you know, logic as in “that is true; ergo, this must also be true.”
All you did was make a statement of your own opinion that states have no legitimate interest in how the President is elected, so they should be removed from the equation and have him elected directly (again in your own opinion). You clearly don’t like my criticism of the use of the word archaic since you pointed out a half-definition of the word. Every aspect of our government is from another era and could be called archaic, yet that is clearly not the connotation being implied by OFTLO who feels it is also obsolete… which was the cause for my objection, as I also clearly disagree. And on top of that, you come up with some silly made-up definition of “politics” that has no relevance to the discussion. So what argument have you won exactly?
As I’ll say one more time, the Electoral College is a device of our federal system of government. I happen to be a very large supporter of the principles of federalism and the structure of the government as it was created. Like the one commenter above, I would also like to see state appointments of the Senate again instead of a direct popular vote, as the Senate is not meant to be just another body of representatives with a six year term instead of two.
So, you don’t happen to agree, good for you…