Abolish the Electoral College

Marmadogg · September 22, 2006, 12:54pm

"Dr. Koza has concocted a plan for states to skirt the Electoral College system legally to insure the election of whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide.

snip

Working with state lotteries as chief executive of Scientific Games in Atlanta, he had learned how interstate compacts work. Multistate lotteries like Powerball are based on such compacts. What, he wondered, if a similar agreement bound states together to thwart the Electoral College?

snip

The first fruit of his effort, a bill approved by the California legislature that would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it, a decision that may well determine whether Dr. Koza’s scheme takes flight or becomes another relic in the history of efforts to kill the Electoral College."

doogie · September 22, 2006, 1:25pm

90% of people are morons. Thank god we have the Electoral College as one last chance at sanity.

rainjack · September 22, 2006, 1:26pm

Won’t happen.

thunderbolt23 · September 22, 2006, 1:39pm

Bad idea. The nation is a nation of states - always a good idea to remember that. And, there would be too much influence overweighted in highly populated, urban areas - the anatomy of a bad idea.

nephorm · September 22, 2006, 12:56pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bad idea. The nation is a nation of states - always a good idea to remember that. And, there would be too much influence overweighted in highly populated, urban areas - the anatomy of a bad idea.[/quote]

Which is why the revamping of the Senate was a horrible thing. Sigh.

BostonBarrister · September 22, 2006, 1:05pm

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bad idea. The nation is a nation of states - always a good idea to remember that. And, there would be too much influence overweighted in highly populated, urban areas - the anatomy of a bad idea.

nephorm wrote:
Which is why the revamping of the Senate was a horrible thing. Sigh.[/quote]

Precisely – it would be much better repeal the 17th Amendment to return the choice of Senators to the states than it would be to muck with the electoral college.

Marmadogg · September 22, 2006, 1:48pm

The electoral college has oulived its usefullness.

The popular vote winner should win.

thunderbolt23 · September 22, 2006, 3:00pm

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The electoral college has oulived its usefullness.

The popular vote winner should win.[/quote]

But you don’t say why on either count.

What purpose did the EC serve then that it doesn’t now?

If something has outlived its usefulness, surely can say why.

BostonBarrister · September 22, 2006, 3:52pm

It’s more useful now than it ever was, if you believe the reasons for its initial Constitutional enshrinement.

BostonBarrister · September 22, 2006, 3:56pm

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Won’t happen. [/quote]

This is surely correct at any rate – why on earth would states other than the top 10 by population ever agree to this? And you would need a 3/4 supermajority of the state legislatures to pass the amendment.

Marmadogg · September 22, 2006, 4:06pm

The Electoral College was suppose to allow 1 EC vote to be equal from state to state.

That just is not the case anymore.

Senate representation is more important to Wyoming and South Dakota than having 3 EC votes each.

thunderbolt23 · September 22, 2006, 8:18pm

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

It’s more useful now than it ever was, if you believe the reasons for its initial Constitutional enshrinement.[/quote]

Absolutely agreed.

And, why don’t those opposed to the Electoral College call for the abolition of the US Senate?

The Senate serves the interests of the states themselves, all as equals, to act as a counterweight to the popular-based House. If the EC is getting in the way of good old fashioned majority vote democracy, so is the Senate…?

lucasa · September 22, 2006, 8:33pm

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bad idea. The nation is a nation of states - always a good idea to remember that. And, there would be too much influence overweighted in highly populated, urban areas - the anatomy of a bad idea.

nephorm wrote:
Which is why the revamping of the Senate was a horrible thing. Sigh.

Precisely – it would be much better repeal the 17th Amendment to return the choice of Senators to the states than it would be to muck with the electoral college. [/quote]

Personally, I’d rather dissolve the two party system than either of the above.

Marmadogg · September 22, 2006, 8:38pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

It’s more useful now than it ever was, if you believe the reasons for its initial Constitutional enshrinement.

Absolutely agreed.

And, why don’t those opposed to the Electoral College call for the abolition of the US Senate?

The Senate serves the interests of the states themselves, all as equals, to act as a counterweight to the popular-based House. If the EC is getting in the way of good old fashioned majority vote democracy, so is the Senate…?[/quote]

My assertion is that the Senate serves the states best while the President should be winner take all.

Bush won by millions of votes but won the EC my less than 100K.

If Kerry received just 100K more votes in Ohio then my assertion would take on a whole new meaning.

My point is Bush won the popular vote but won the election literally by the skin of his teeth.

thunderbolt23 · September 22, 2006, 10:40pm

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

My assertion is that the Senate serves the states best while the President should be winner take all.

Bush won by millions of votes but won the EC my less than 100K.

If Kerry received just 100K more votes in Ohio then my assertion would take on a whole new meaning.

My point is Bush won the popular vote but won the election literally by the skin of his teeth.[/quote]

You sound you couldn’t care less about the Electoral College institutionally and that what you really want is for your candidate to win.

semper_fi1 · September 22, 2006, 10:51pm

I might be wrong about this but most of the time isn’t the winner of the EC also win the popular vote?

thunderbolt23 · September 23, 2006, 1:48am

[quote]semper_fi wrote:
I might be wrong about this but most of the time isn’t the winner of the EC also win the popular vote?[/quote]

I think it has only happened twice that the popular vote didn’t equate to an EC victory…?

That is my guess - it is worth checking to verify.

cap_nsalty · September 23, 2006, 3:21am

[quote]lucasa wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Bad idea. The nation is a nation of states - always a good idea to remember that. And, there would be too much influence overweighted in highly populated, urban areas - the anatomy of a bad idea.

nephorm wrote:
Which is why the revamping of the Senate was a horrible thing. Sigh.

Precisely – it would be much better repeal the 17th Amendment to return the choice of Senators to the states than it would be to muck with the electoral college.

Personally, I’d rather dissolve the two party system than either of the above.[/quote]

How exactly does one dissolve the two party system?

knewsom · September 23, 2006, 3:24am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
I might be wrong about this but most of the time isn’t the winner of the EC also win the popular vote?

I think it has only happened twice that the popular vote didn’t equate to an EC victory…?

That is my guess - it is worth checking to verify.[/quote]

twice, correct, and as I can recall, both times, people were pretty pissed about it.

Varqanir · September 23, 2006, 2:21pm

[quote]knewsom wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
semper_fi wrote:

I might be wrong about this but most of the time isn’t the winner of the EC also win the popular vote?

I think it has only happened twice that the popular vote didn’t equate to an EC victory…?

That is my guess - it is worth checking to verify.

twice, correct, and as I can recall, both times, people were pretty pissed about it.[/quote]

There were four instances, actually, of the winner of the popular vote not making it to the WHite House.

1824 - Adams vs Jackson: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote AND the most electoral votes…but but did not attain the required majority. So the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams instead. The fact that John Q. had a daddy who was an ex-president with lots of friends in Congress had nothing to do with anything.

1876 - Hayes vs Tilden: Sam Tilden won the popular vote by a pretty good margin, 51% to Rutherford Hayes’ 48%. Tilden also was leading in the EC, 184-165, with 20 votes disputed. There was a squabble as both parties claimed victory in South Carolina, Louisiana and (wait for it) Florida, so Congress set up an Electoral Comission, which decided that all twenty votes ought to go to Hayes.

1888 - Harrison vs Cleveland. Clear-cut and dried, with no evidence of fraud, voter “irregularities” or “disenfranchisements”, and not even a single pregnant chad. Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral vote.

2000 - Bush vs. Gore. Not quite as clear-cut and dried, with lots of monkey business on both sides, and a Supreme Court decision to settle the mess in the end. Al Gore won the popular vote, George Bush won the Electoral vote.