Popular vs. Electoral Vote

[Coda]

I'm really really surprised that there wasn't a huge push by the democratic party to reestablish the popular vote as a way to elect the President after Gore lost in 2000. Does anyone know why this wasn't debated?

My understanding is that the electorial vote was established because it was felt that most citizens were not educated enough to cast an informed vote. This was before TV was widely used and when our level of literacy was much lower than it is today. Have we as a society progressed enough to revert back to the popular vote?

On the local level (at least here in MA), this same process is at work where 'districts' are carved up for local congressmen. The politicans slice and dice these districts based on republican/democratic historical voting and often redistrict as a way to keep certain elected officals in office. Same principal at work, just a more micro level.

Question: Do you still feel that the electorial vote is the right process for the USA?

[Al in NYC]

The Electoral College was established in the Constitution from the very beginning, so there's really no "reverting back" to having the popular vote decide presidential elections, the popular vote has NEVER decided presidential elections. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a popular vote for President at all, the Electoral College is, and always has been, the final authority.

The main reason that there was no push to abolish the Electoral College was that it would take a constitutional amendment to do so, and the bar for that is very high. It must pass each house of Congress with a 2/3 vote, and then must be passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures. There are enough states advantaged by the present system (states with a small population that get a disproportionate Electoral vote, and large states that get more campaigning and more money because of their huge Electoral College weight) that there is no chance such an amendment would pass. So why push for a losing cause?

Personally, I have always thought that the Electoral College was an unfortunate relic and that the President should be directly elected. Since that is unlikely to happen, I think that states should be encouraged to divide their electoral votes proportionately (as only 2 do at present) rather than the winner-take-all system that currently prevails.

[Coda]

Moving to a proportioning electorial votes would be a good first step towards reinstituting the popular vote. If this is decided state by state then no constitutional amendment would be needed.

This brings up the question of why states are not moving in this direction? If Bush wins the electorial vote again but loses the popular vote would this be enough to cause some folks to rethink their states position and move to proportional electorial votes?

[Gary Sisco]

It isn't an issue of technicality but of democracy. If the United States is one thing, one country, then the president, if he is the president of the people of the United States, should be elected by the people of the United States.

This hasn't always been the case. Regardless of other arguments (and the fact that the EC was one of the buttresses of the slavers is hardly ever acknowledged, by anyone) in its favor, it's been a very long time since the people of the United States viewed the country as a plural, that is, as the United *States.* Which people did for much of the country's history but not for the last century or so.

The Constitution was specifically written to be flexible enough to keep up with the changes wrought by history or desired by the people or both, and if you actually read the document (very few Americans have and fewer still have read it after having left school), you'll note that it is the people who hold sovereign power in the US. Not the government, not the Supremes, not the states, and certainly not the parties (there is no provision for political parties or even a mention of them in the Constitution): the people and the people alone.

And, if you view history, there has been, until very recent years, a broad trend to *widen* and *deepen* the concept of democracy and freedom. In recent years, we have seen the first ever attempts to amend the Constitution in such a way as to purposefully deny or restrict democracy or freedom, in the whole marriage argument.

There is no legitimate, democratic argument today (from outside the government and party points of view) to justify the EC.

It should go the way of other things in the original Constitution that have been found by the people over time to be antidemocratic or a restriction on their freedom.

[Dr Dave]

We have representative government. If it is the will of the people that there be direct election of the President, then the people must press their representatives to do their will. No special interest is so entrenched in this country that it doesn't have to bend to the wishes of the people of the United States. Yes, the system is resistant to change--this is not a bad thing, in my opinion--but it is not unchangeable. Here are two organizations I've found that actively promote the idea of direct election of the president of the United States:

The League of Women Voters

The National Center for Policy Analysis

In searching, I found many organizations equally dedicated to preserving the Electoral College. People have great fears that direct election will result in multiple parties, and the consequent election of a president who actually gets, say, 25% of the vote. These fears can easily be made baseless--there's a discussion elsewhere of such formulas as "first past the post" and so on. But the fears are real. For those who want a tough fight, here it is.

[John L]

The logic behind the Electoral College is related to the nature of American democracy, which gives power to States as well as to sheer numbers of people.

Certainly, some changes should be made (IMO). If the EC is not abolished, they should at least get rid of the anti-democratic winner-take-all rule that exists in a number of States. If two candidates are running, and one receives 49% and 99% of the vote, respectively, in two equally-weighted States, it is ridiculous for this to be a tie in electorial votes.

[clinthopson]

I believe that the electoral college was created primatily because of the difficulty of travel and communication in the 18th century.

It's an outdated, outmoded reminant of earlier times.

But to expect Congress to do anything about it, is being pollyannaish.

[Brian Olewnick]

Which two states allot their electoral votes proportionally?

[Gentle Giant]

FWIW, Lincoln lost the popular vote in 1860, partly because there were four candidates running that year, so the Electoral College has at least that to recommend it.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Which two states allot their electoral votes proportionally?

I believe they're Maine and Nebraska.

Edit: double-checked, this is correct.

[Gary Sisco]

Believe whatever you want, but if you want to *know* what the people were thinking when they wrote the Constitution, it's entirely possible to read what they had to say. Distance and travel had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the EC. It was meant very purposefully to be a brake on democracy, which many of the founders feared as much as they opposed monarchy (and some of the founders remained monarchists, for that matter). The created the Senate as an unelected body for the same reason -- to be a brake on the popularly elected House -- and, even after the Senate was changed to an elected body, it was still granted six-year terms for the same reason -- to act as a conservative force that would put brakes on the House, which is and was (rightly) seen as the institution most vulnerable to popular will.

These are historical facts. They aren't a matter of belief. The history of the Constitution isn't a mystery that requires belief.

But whatever the historical reasons for it, they've been exhausted by history itself, already. None of us think of the US as a confederacy of states anymore. We think of it as one thing, and it is. That there should be an intermediary between the popular vote and the election of the president -- one that is not even bound to vote according to the popular vote's results, at that, and purposefully so -- is unacceptable in 2004, in a democratic society.

Unless, of course, one opposes democratic society. But that's another question.