Is the Electoral College Obsolete?
Print This Post
In 2000, then Vice-President Gore defeated then Texas Governor and Republican Presidential nominee George Bush in Maine, 49% to 44%. But unlike in Iowa and Minnesota where Mr. Gore won by slimmer margins and still captured each of the states’ electoral votes, in Maine he was awarded the support of only six of ten electors.
Having electoral votes awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote and individually by district—as they are in Maine and Nebraska—started in Maine in 1972 after reformers argued that the winner-take-all system did not accurately represent the choices of voters. In 1992, Nebraska passed its own amendment to the state constitution and followed suit, though Nebraska’s five electoral votes would never be split until President-elect Obama captured one in 2008.
Since the establishment of new systems in Maine and Nebraska, many who previously voiced opposition to the American Electoral College have used the two states as models for a possible overhaul to the system. And yet despite that more bills have been introduced to Congress seeking to alter the Electoral College than any other single subject, and that the majority of Americans oppose the College, it has remained largely intact.
Even if Mr. Gore’s 2000 electoral loss—though he won the popular vote—proves that the system does not reflect the collective endorsement of the country, it does serve a purpose: it isolates recounts and generally brings a decisive winner. In 2000, when Mr. Gore earned nearly sixty million votes, he led the nationwide popular vote by less than one half of one percent. Had America relied on the popular vote to declare its new President-elect, a national recount or run-off election would have likely been necessary. Either way, after spending tens of millions of dollars and requiring tens of millions of citizens to take time from work, a more satisfactory result might not have been reached. Nonetheless, since Florida became the only state where a winner was too close to call, the College made the state the only place that required a closer counting of ballots. Had the Electoral College found a decisive winner instead—where Florida was not necessary for a candidate to secure 270 electors—a recount would have been completely avoided.
Philosophic battles will persist over the manifestations of American democracy and more bills will come before Congress, some supporting a popular vote system and some looking to modify the electoral system. Thus far the only changes made have been made by states in their individual constitutions. The Electoral College was founded in a now distant country of greater emphasis on the rights of states. But convoluted or not, and whether it should be abolished or not, the Electoral College is not necessarily the dinosaur that most people think it is.
-David Lamb
- Team College Bound - Students Who WANT To Go To College...
- College Is Our Destiny!
- Science and College Awareness T Shirt Project
Related posts:
- The Electoral College Explained
- Can we change our government when we want?
- CNN Reports Massive Benefits for Illegal Aliens at US Taxpayer Expense
- Just What is a Bill and How Does it Become a Law?
- U.S. v. Barack Obama: The slippery slopes of the Constitution
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
[...] and that the majority of Americans oppose the College, it has remained largely intact. … More How to Get Paid To Blog Use Your Blog To Make Money. Increase Your Blog Income Now [...]
What the U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Reply to susanThe major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Reply to susanThe state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’s 55 presidential elections. The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.
If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.
Reply to susanIt is questionable whether anyone in Congress or elsewhere is more deferential to an incoming President on those occasions when the current system gives him a larger percentage margin in the Electoral College than his margin in the nationwide popular vote. However, if anyone thinks that an exaggerated margin is desirable, the National Popular vote plan would do an even better job of creating this illusion than the current system.
Under the National Popular vote bill, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive an exaggerated margin (roughly 75%) of the votes in the Electoral College in any given presidential election. The reason is that the National Popular Vote bill guarantees that the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) will receive at least 270 electoral votes (51%) coming from the states belonging to the compact. This bloc is what enables the compact to guarantee the election of the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Then, in addition to this bloc of 270 or more electoral votes, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive some additional electoral votes from whichever non-compacting states he happened to carry. Because the non-compacting states would likely be divided approximately equally, the nationwide winning candidate would generally receive an exaggerated margin (roughly 75%) of the votes in the Electoral College.
Reply to susanDividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if the a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Reply to susanSusan, thank you very much for this information and furthering this discussion greatly! It is much appreciated!
Reply to Matthew UrdanSusan,
We appreciate the interest you have taken in this issue. While many might see the primary idea you endorse–that American presidents ought to be elected via a popular vote–as desirable, others might disagree with your conception of democracy.
You say: “[A] shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.”
For some this isn’t necessarily a problem. If you consider yourself as a citizen to your state first–and your country second–the winner-take-all system makes sense: you are voting for your state to support your candidate. Indeed, as you say, the Electoral College, does mean that the brunt of campaigning occurs in a handful of states, but this does get candidates to spend time in small and often not-so-populous states–namely New Hampshire and Iowa–that they wouldn’t otherwise. One reason to fear the National Popular Vote amendment is that it would increase the financing necessary to run a successful campaign for the presidency. The small but important states in the College mean that candidates who are not able to raise as much money can convince people to vote for them face-to-face, and since the votes of the people within these states have greater relative importance, personal conversations can make an impact. In a national popular vote this would not be true, and instead of active campaigning, major candidates would need to rely on national television advertising to win support. In other words, a more direct democracy could lead America to a more transparent plutocracy.
David Lamb’s last blog post..Is the Electoral College Obsolete?
Reply to David LambIn a democracy any system which permits the candidate who achieves fewer popular votes than his rival to win an election is nonsense.
The UK’s “first past the post system” in parliamentary elections is similarly nonsensical and unfair . 3 examples. In 1951, the Labour Party won 51% of the votes in a general election and lost . In 1974, Labour got 42% of the votes and over 300 seats. The Liberals got 18% of the votes and got 14 seats . And in 2005, Labour got the backing of only 25% of the entire electorate and yet had a majority.
Caledonian Jim’s last blog post..WHY DOESN’T BRITAIN JUST THROW THIS SCUMBAG CREEP OUT ?
Reply to Caledonian Jim