Electoral college reform amendment

[crispini]

Couldn't find the AP story but it's got it as well.

http://www.columbian.com/09162004/clark_co/189771.html

Congressman Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, wants to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a system where the president would be elected directly through a national vote.

Baird announced Wednesday he has teamed with Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, to introduce a constitutional amendment that would kill a feature of the Constitution.

If the Baird-Green proposal had been in place for the 2000 election, Al Gore would be president today. Gore won the popular vote by more than 540,000 votes, but George W. Bush captured the White House after winning Florida's 25 electoral votes, which gave him a majority in the Electoral College.

[aquart]

1. Vancouver is in which country?

Because this may be a great idea for Canada, but it's idiotic for the United States. (And would never, not ever, be ratified, just so you know. This is up there with flag burning and gay marriage amendments. Busywork of no value.)

[crispini]

8. Vancouver, WA

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Remember why the electoral college was created

in the first place. Without it, why would anyone who doesn't live in New York, California or Texas even vote?

[unblock]

6. well, no, that's not it

individual voters count just as much in any other state in a straight nationwide vote.

what's more to the point is that the campaigns wouldn't leave the large metropolitan areas.


as for the reason why it was created, that probably had more to do with the fact that it was the STATES who were creating the u.s. constitution, so of course the states made sure that the vote was made along state lines rather than nationwide.

[crispini]

9. I dunno, why was it?

I always heard it was technology. I.e. had to send representatives from far-off states to a central area.

and, no, if you didn't have it, EVERYONE would be MORE likely to vote. Right now the campaigns spend all their time in those stupid swing states. ALL voters in 'safe' states (be they blue or red) get totally left out of the national dialog. It's annoying as hell.

[supercrash]

11. Ummmm...

In a direct democracy the rest of the country could beat California, Texas and NY if they wanted to.

[napi21]

3. First, I don't this has a chance. Second, I'm not sure it's a great

idea. You're judging the electoral college by one election that I think was a fluke. The dems still have the majority in urban areas of this country, and I don't see that changing. But there's a whole big area out there that is mostly rural and surely RED!

I'm not sure if the presidency was elected by only the popular vote it would always be better for the dems.

[thinkingwoman]

4. not just one election

try three. Election 2000 was the third disputed election in our nation's history.

The electoral college was designed to make sure the masses didn't elect the "wrong" guy.

It can be thrown out or merely reformed. Suggested reforms would be forcing electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote results in their state (they don't have to now), and abolishing the winner take all method of allocating electoral votes in many states.

[napi21]

5. That would actually be FUN! Can you just see how the pollsters

would go absolutely nuts!!!

[Nebraska_Liberal]

7. 1 person 1 vote...

thats the way it should be.

[Kenneth ken]

10. something similar

is on the Colorado ballot as a state change; if it passes Colorado would divide electoral votes based on the results of the popular vote.

I haven't decided whether I like this idea or not. I guess I still have a several weeks to make up my mind.

I'm more strongly opposed to it as a Constitutional amendment than I am as a change in Colorado elector selection, though.

Since Colorado has become a Red State, it has more appeal to me than it otherwise might. And that in itself bothers me.