Evan Bayh; eliminate the electoral college

[killerbush]

Evan Bayh, a probable 2008 presidential candidate has come out in favor of completely eliminating the electoral college. He said that the president should be that person who gets the most votes. He also says that while the electoral college has worked well in the past, the last two races have shown severe flaws in the system.

He also goes on to talk about Iraq, and other subjects. Read it here at:

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/434527.html

[Selatius]

1. Good decision by Bayh, but I still have issues with his vote for that...

bankruptcy reform bill. I think he should be made to account for his assault on the middle class.

[Warpy]

2. That's one of the first things he's said that I agree with!

The EC is an anachronism, an antidemocratic institution foisted upon the early union by the south. It should first go to proportional representation and then be abolished (conservatives hate change, this will soften the blow).

I generally find him in the same league with Lieberman and the two Nelsons, but I'm 100% with him on this one. The EC has got to go.

[Southsideirish]

8. Me too. I usually can't stand him. Would rather have his dad, RIP.

[karynnj]

13. His dad is still alive and sounds as if he's as sharp as ever

[IndianaGreen]

90. Wait a second! It was Birch Bayh who is working to abolish the EC

He was in the news recently as part of a bipartisan group that advocates direct elections of the President, doing away with the Electoral College.

[tjwmason]

3. Has anybody mentioned a French-style system?

In that, roughly speaking, the votes are cast and unless one candidate gains a majority the two leading contenders face a run off election a week or two later.

This allows for minority candidates to air views and put forward ideas, yet also ensures that a candidate doesn't win with based on merely the plurality of the votes.

Nader would no longer be a vote-splitter - but rather would be presenting his ideas without threatening the final result. So too for the libertarians and other minor parties.

[ClarkBayh 2008]

9. French system too inefficient - instant run offs are the only answer

Saves time & money.

[serryjw]

21. Agreed

It would take to long to amend the Constitution. I have spoken to too many poor people that were PAID to NOT vote by the other side. EC is our only buffer.

I support federal funded elections, proportionate representation & IVR.

[enlightenment]

30. How about making the EC proportional in all states?

A few states already do this - rather than a winner-take-all system, which most certainly disenfranchises some voters.

For example: in the last general election, Nevada went "red." The actual vote in the state was 49/51. So, 49% of the voters in Nevada voted for Kerry, but their votes did not count because the 51% got all of the electoral votes.

If it were proportional, the Republicans would have had 3, the Democrats 2.

[tjwmason]

45. That still locks in plurality over majority.

Which is what the French system addresses.

[wuushew]

74. I agree with that except the number of significant digits should be higher

the possibility of an electoral tie exists with whole numbers.

[saltpoint]

4. Bayh's father, Birch Bayh, was on Diane Rehm's NPR program around

a month ago along with former Congressman John Anderson (R) and both were advocating getting rid of the electoral college.

Evan Bayh apparently is endorsing the plan, which by the way, sounded very good.

And of course, were such a plan already in place, Al Gore would have been elected president without legal challenge, as his popular vote total bested Bush in 2000.

[LiberalFighter]

98. For the record Evan Bayh's name is actually Birch Evans Bayh III

[saltpoint]

131. Yep it is. Evan's father was defeated by Dan Quayle and his mother,

Marvella, was arguably the most beloved public figure in Indiana history.

I prefer papa Birch's voting record to his son's.

[karynnj]

5. His dad, Birch Bayh was one of the people who has been pushing for that

Evan Bayh is wrong in his comment that the majority vote was the way originally intended though. Birch Bayh and others suggest that the way to effectively pass this would be for indiviadual states to pass bills saying that WHEN AND IF enough states vote in similar measures in place the state's electors will be cast for the popular vote winner. Enough states means that the sum of their electoral votes is greater than the number needed to win.

The beauty of this is that:
- It doesn't need a constitutional amendment
- It should be favored by all the very big solid blue or solid red states - who currently get little say in selecting the President. The over- valued swing states are the loser.

Where I think this won't work is that in reality, I think it favors the Democrats. Think of 2004, Kerry (with or without Bruce Springstein) would have been out in LA, Chicago, NYC etc in huge rallies. This likely would have energized the blue vote in blue states. How many people saw the rallies he had all over the swing states? Even the large cities in the red states are blue - A huge rally in Austin would be cool. Now, the Republicans are more often in rural, suburban areas - which would be harder to reach.

[Yupster]

10. The original wording of the Constitution

was that there wouldn't necessarily be a popular vote at all for president.

A slate of learned citizens would be chosen as electors by the state legislature.

Those electors would each name two citizens that they thought would make a good president.

When the electoral votes were counted, the House of Representatives would choose the new president from among the five highest vote getters, assuming no one got a majority vote.

An interesting system with no popular vote needed. In fact South Carolina, one of the original 13 states didn't hold a popular vote for president for 70 years.

The system couldn't survive the forming of political parties though.

[karynnj]

12. Thanks - I knew there was no vote from the overall

population needed, but couldn't remember the details. I do think Bayh and Anderson's idea is a good one.

[Burning Water]

19. I've got a problem with this.

It means the state's electoral votes could be cast for a candidate that was overwhelmingly rejected by the state's voters.

For instance, in 2004, Bush would have won, say, New York's vote under this system. And his electoral advantage would have been overwhelming giving him needless legitimacy.

Anyway, I don't think this will pass Constitutional muster when it gets to the Supreme Court. There's a proper way to amend the Constitution. Why do we have to do an end run around it.

[rinsd]

26. I would tend to agree

People are not analyzing the situation and wrongfully assume that Democrats would be a near sure thing in a popular vote scenario.

It also means that candidates will likely spend even less time/money in areas that are not population centers.

[Burning Water]

31. Most generals always

prepare to fight the last war.

by analogy, most politicians would, I assume, prepare to fight the last election. Most Democrats are forever trying to prepare of election 2000. 'Cause under this scenario, we would still have lost 2004, and by a bigger margin.

Frankly, my beef is with the Supreme Court, not the Electoral College.

By the way, we aren't going to win in 2008, either, unless Wes Clark heads the ticket. IMO, of course.

[rinsd]

38. I think we'll win in 2008 irregardless.

I think this idea is attractive because

a) it sounds so gloriously Democratic (in both party and literal terms)

b) the obvious hatred over 2000

c) a bizarre belief that voting participation would improve and that the electoral college is hampering said participation (the "my vote doesn't count" argument). Which I think most people don't get far is that more often it is a lazy excuse rather than some staunchly held belief.

[Burning Water]

113. "I think we'll win in 2008 irregardless"

Your faith is touching.

[karynnj]

73. they would not have run as they did

[BattyDem]

6. Works for me

I'm getting fed up with one or two crooked states deciding our elections!

[ClarkBayh 2008]

7. Nobody supports Bayh more than me, except on this!

but the constitution was quite clear about the electoral system. Now's not the time for a change just because we refuse to put reasonable candidates who can compete in red states.


What might work better is the instant run off idea. That way you could vote for Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader and still get a real winner in a state where the election in close between the dems & repubs.

[karynnj]

11. Instant run off does nothing

That prevents the winner not being the one with most of the votes. The electoral votes are not even proportional to population - they over weight the low population states. (Most of which are Republican) Why should a vote in CA be worth less than a vote in Wyoming.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. The constitution also used to say that slaves count as 3/5ths of a person

But we updated that part because times changed. Our elections could not possibly be any more different than they were in 1789. It is time that our electoral system is updated to account for that.

[mainegreen]

14. Um, no, that's a terrible idea.

One of the major benefits of the electoral college is that is provides a small measure of protection for the small states against the big states. To go to a popular vote system would make the rural voter irrelevant, which IMHO is not a very good thing at all. I do not think that the presidential election should be a purely populist election.

[SheilaT]

15. I disagree with you on this.

I live in Kansas, and as long as we have the electoral college there is absolutely no point in my bothering to vote for a Democrat at the top of the ticket. This state will go Republican, so it's totally futile on my part to vote. And since John Kerry could not be bothered to campaign here (and indeed pulled volunteers to cross over to the Missouri side to help out there, while not a single Missourian that I know of bothered to come over here to Kansas to help out anyone running for office here)I have no use for the electoral college system.

I WANT MY VOTE TO COUNT.

And it doesn't under the current system.

[mainegreen]

41. As I replied to The Magistrate below why not

try and get your state to implement a split electoral vote system, like we have in Maine, as opposed to a winner takes all system? More fair, and if then we still can't win there, then well, there's always next year?

[SheilaT]

94. I'm fucking sick of next year.

I'm completely and thoroughly fed up with my vote not counting. A proportional system would be a small improvement, but it still violates the "one person, one vote" ideal. Each and every vote should be counted equally, not weighted in some way as it is with an electoral system. My vote should count every bit as equally as any other vote anywhere else.

I've voted for Democratic presidents since 1976, and even though my candidate has sometimes won, every time I've voted while living in a traditionally Republican state (which has included several others besides Kansas) my vote simply doesn't count. So, until the system changes, I'm damned if I'll vote for the presidential candidate again. Especially when the Democratic party has put up two useless wimps as they have in 04 and 00.

I'm sure this will invite flames, especially from all those who think Gore or Kerry should run two years hence. But flame away. Neither man made any real effort to stop the theft of the elections, and as such they get no loyalty from me.

Pay careful attention. Republicans will probably succeed in stealing this November's election also, and it will be amusing, if pathetic, to watch the spin on it again.

[skipos]

16. What about the millions of rural democrats in perpetual red states?

They don't matter?

[skipos]

17. duh. dupe.

[johnnydrama]

23. EC

People say that because of the Electoral College the small states have as much as the big states, but that's not true.

I'll give you a hypothetical. October 1, 2008, polls show dead heats in New York, California & Texas.

Will either of the 2 candidates step foot out of those 3 states for the next month?

I don't think so.

You're basing your reasoning on what you remember from the last few elections. NY, CA, TX being landslides.

What if they're not? Then this whole, the EC helps the small states goes out the window, and the small states are saying that they're vote doesn't count, etc...

[libodem]

32. Skipos, we still don't get a vote

I'm from Idaho, the the most Republican state in the nation. We have about one million people in all of this huge land mass. If I'm correct we have 4 electoral votes. For some reason even if we have 1/4 of the votes go for a Democratic candidate they still don't count and are thrown toward the republican. My vote never counts. I couldn't force my 19y/o out the door to go vote with me because he said it didn't matter anyway! Once, one side takes the majority of the votes, then they get all 4. There is something very wrong with this. I think it's a real big issue. And a real damn shame.

[rinsd]

36. Your vote does indeed count.

Just because you didn't back the majority, doesn't mean your vote didn't count. By the same logic, my vote in CA shouldn't count because the majority is so far ahead. Or my vote in 1996 for Clinton when he was destroying Dole.

People should vote because it is our responsibility to cast our say in our government.

With all due respect to your son, "my vote doesn't count" is more likely to be a excuse rather than a firmly held belief. And if it is a belief, a national popular vote will be unlikely to change that unless the contest is close.

[skipos]

50. Exactly. Your vote should count no matter what state you live in.

Bayh is right. While we have plenty of other election issues to deal with, getting rid of the electoral college is worth talking about.

[Sparkly]

22. How about if all votes carry equal weight??

The electoral college was an attempt at equalizing things in the first place.

Eliminating it wouldn't make the rural voter irrelevant, it'd just make large cow pastures and corn fields etc. irrelevant. Urban people deserve for their votes to count just as much. Just mho.

[GOTV]

62. One person, one vote...

... still sounds good to me. Why should my urban vote count less than someone else's prarie vote?

[greendog]

24. I live in a rural state...

...and my vote ~IS~ irrelevant. Because my vote is averaged with the votes of my Republican kook neighbors "I" always end up with a Republican elector regardless of how I cast my vote.

[rinsd]

29. I live in CA, my vote is irrelevant.

The state is so overwhelmingly Democratic it is not necessary for me to vote.

It was also unecessary for me to vote in 1996 when Clinton had an enormous lead over Dole.

[The Magistrate]

27. Not Good Enough, Sir

What the electoral college actually does is better expressed as severely oppressing voters in large states, and robbing them of a good deal of their national representation. Under the electoral college system, a vote for President in Wyoming counts as roughly three votes for President in New York or California. It is a vicious gerrymander, which enables a minority of the country to tyrannize over a majority. It ought to be abolished. Its injustice is past question.

[rinsd]

33. NY and CA(as well as other large states) are robbed of nothing.....

The large states DOMINATE the political scene, there is no tyranny by small states.

"Under the electoral college system, a vote for President in Wyoming counts as roughly three votes for President in New York or California"

And yet with all this "strength" WY has been a factor in how many Presidential contests(well aside from being a Cheney launching pad)?

This is a tempest in a teapot.

[The Magistrate]

35. Not So, Sir

The arithmetic is irrefutable: a vote for President in a state with three electoral votes is equivalent to three in a state with forty or fifty. This is a systematic under-representation of a great proportion of the country's people on the national level, and severely distorts the electoral process.

[rinsd]

37. Irrefutable and irrelevant

"a vote for President in a state with three electoral votes is equivalent to three in a state with forty or fifty"

Again, when has a small state exerted influence greater than a large state in a Presidential election?

"This is a systematic under-representation of a great proportion of the country's people on the national level, and severely distorts the electoral process."

What distortion has actually occured? Where have large states not been adequately heard? What would be the purpose of a pop vote beyond cosmetics?

[The Magistrate]

39. Your View Of The Effects Of The Electoral College Seems Superficial, Sir

This is an instance where it is wiser to probe beneath the surface.

The question is not one of a single small state, but of the cumulative value of many of the smaller states in combination. Though the disproportion is not so extreme as in the chosen illustration, it exists on all levels to some degree, between, say, states with four or five or six electoral votes and states with twelve or fifteen. There are certain things which follow from this.

First, it is a fact that the greatest number of our people live in metropolitan areas, in large cities or their near suburbs. The largest of these are located in the most populous states. Yet, how often and with what force are urban issues pressed in national campaigns? For every word uttered about big cities, there is a bucket of swill spewed about the "heart-land" and "main street" and the like. This is no accident; it is because the people who devise strategies for national elections are perfectly well aware of the real arithmetic, and of the greater value of votes in the less populous parts of the country.

Second, this devaluing of votes in the most populous parts of the country tilts in favor of one Party, and one side of the political spectrum, against the other. There is no doubt whatever the strongholds of the left and of the Democratic Party are in the urban centers, and in the more populous areas of the country, while the strongholds of the right and the Republican Party are in the rural expanses with much thinner populations. Make no mistake, Sir, the enemy derives signifigant advantage from the current mechanism.

[rinsd]

44. So it comes down to less noble issues then?

As opposed to the make every vote count mantra.

a) Big cities don't get paid enough attention to

Urban centers by far get more ad and rally time. The elimination of the college would increase this discrepancy dramatically.

b) this is hurting the Democratic party/helping the Republicans.

This was not always the case with the electoral college.

[The Magistrate]

48. One Strikes From All Directions, Sir

That is why we have two hands, two feet, elbows, knees, even a brow ridge....

You leave yurself open to the similar charge, of course, that you simply seek to minimize the influence of urban populations in favor of rural ones, and that does not even have a higher principle available should you wish to adopt one.

[rinsd]

54. No higher principle....

I just need a better justification for such a massive change in our political structure than what has been given.

I also see possible pitfalls both political and from a society standpoint. In some ways I would guess its the devil I know vs. the one I don't.


WOT: I have to say(I have said this before), I certainly enjoy your writing style.

It gives me a chance to be called Sir without the obligatory "you're making a scene"

[The Magistrate]

57. "The Devil I Know v. The Devil I Don't", Sir

Is a position I can respect whole-heartedly....

"Conservative, n: In politics, a statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal, who wishes to replace these with new ones."

[rinsd]

58. On this particular issue, I would agree with your assessment.

[GOTV]

63. You can have the ads AND the rallies for all I care....

... good riddance

[Sparkly]

68. Wow -- I never thought of it that way before...

For every word uttered about big cities, there is a bucket of swill spewed about the "heart-land" and "main street" and the like. This is no accident; it is because the people who devise strategies for national elections are perfectly well aware of the real arithmetic, and of the greater value of votes in the less populous parts of the country.

Thanks for that. :hi:

[Clark2008]

76. But, I wonder if, collectively, there aren't more - or certainly

as many - people living in the "heartland" as those in all the major cities.

I don't know - that's why I'm asking.

[The Magistrate]

89. Not Nearly As Many, Ma'am

Precise figures are not on the top of my mind, but well over half the population resides in metropolitain areas, defined as a city and its ring of suburbs. Even in the sparsely populated states, the bulk of the population resides in a principal urban center.

[Iowa]

104. Although I live in a rural area...

...my interests are aligned primarily with my urban brethren. Anything to reduce the influence of republican Iowa farmers is fine by me. I grew up on a farm and was raised by a college-educated, Democrat, Iowa farmer - somewhat of a rarity around here - and I learned as a youngster that the plight of our cities, our unions, the working class, the poor... all of it is tied directly to our well-being. The better "they" do, the better we do. Most of the farmers I grew up around did not hold those views.

Excellent analysis, as usual, by The Magistrate.

[davidinalameda]

108. West Virginia in 2000

if Gore had won West Virginia and it's five electorial votes, than Florida wouldn't have been an issue at all

and the distortion happens every four years

California with its 35 million people only has 54 electorial votes while Wyoming with it's half million people has 3

using Wyoming as a benchmark, California should have something like 70+ electorial votes

[wuushew]

75. Why have a bicameral legislative branch then?

The degree to which small states are over represented in the Senate is much worse than that of the Presidency.

Before we destroy the small/large state neutrality of the Presidency in relation to the House and Senate I think a second constitutional convention would be in order to determine if we truly wish to throw out the Great Compromise that made the original 1787 ratification possible.

[The Magistrate]

87. Do Not Get Me Started On The Senate, Sir

As you observe, it is much worse. Collectively, the Democratic Senators in the represent millions more persons than do the Republican Senators who hold the majorioty of seats. theoretiucvally, a mere eighteen percent of the nation's populace could achieve a majority in the Senate.

It used to be the fashion in some states to arrange their legislatures similarly, with an upper house containing an equal number of representatives from each county. In the late fifties, the Warren court struck such arrangements as un-Constitutional dilution of votes in most counties; this was just, and ought to be extended further.

[mainegreen]

40. I'm not saying the electoral system in all states is the most fair system

but it is way better than a a simple straight vote. I understand the concern that 1 vote in Wyoming is worth 3 in California, but isn't the current system based on the premise that representation in the federal government is based on the unit of the state, and not purely population? Taken to a hyperbolic extreme, why not just eliminate the states? This country is so large, and the population distribution so extreme that we do need some counterbalances to pure population based voting.

I do believe that the electoral system in most states is inherently unfair with the winner takes all method. Personally, I would rather see all states adopt a split electoral vote system, like we have in Maine, and I think Nebraska (?).

[The Magistrate]

42. The Compromise You Suggest, Sir

Might mitigate the effects somewhat, but still preserves the iniquity at its heart.

The idea that the nation is a collection of seperate sovereignities is certainly accurate historically, but has long ceased to have much practical meaning, and its survival in Presidential elections simply obstructs equality of citizenship in the nation and democratic practice. It does not seem to me at all clear that some "counter-balance to pure population based voting" is required; there do not seem to me to be any obvious problems with simply counting noses nationwide and proceeding by the tally where the selection of the Chief Executive is concerned.

[mainegreen]

52. I'm pretty sure I would disagree with the statement that

the concept of states having some form sovereignty has ceased to have practical meaning. Laws from state to state vary wildly. States will do legal battle against each other, or even gang up against against another group of states or the federal government. States will opt out of Federal 'laws' by simply saying 'no thanks' to the funding attached to these 'laws'. States will non-officially visit foreign countries to try and drum up trade for local industries. States have their own militaries that normally report to the governors. States have their own legal form of identification. All of these things, among others, have practical meaning to me.

The only form of election I would like to see replace the electoral college would be something like a condorcet, ranked or other more sensible method or voting, because as far as I'm concerned, a pure straight up popular vote is not better than our current system. Unfortunately, the better systems require voters to be not so stupid. *sigh*.

[rinsd]

55. Excellent post....

I would add further that states have recently undertaken actions as a direct challenge to federal supremacy, with my state of CA as exhibit a(medical mary j, single payer insurance etc).

"Unfortunately, the better systems require voters to be not so stupid"

Yes, unfortunately many of the changes are window dressing until we have informed voters.

[The Magistrate]

56. Compared To Genuine Sovereignty, Sir

These are mere vestiges, like a horse guard troop in cuirrasse and helm parading before a palace is of the once dominant cavalry arm. The variation in laws amounts to no more than the normal regional variation of customs among provinces. State governments in conflict legally amount to no more than the private squabbles of persons or corporations over boundaries and the like, and so are state trade missions. The opt-out provisions you mention are mere Federal largesse, and Congress does not have to include them. State militias are simply local garrisons, in effect; they cannot be used against other states or against another country.

[mainegreen]

60. Again, I have to disagree.

Can the most central governments enact any law they want, with the provinces having to follow? Yes. Can our Federal Government enact any law they want with the states having to follow? No. Can the provinces of most countries do legal battle with each other, with their central governments having no say? No. Can our states battle each other out to their hearts content? You betcha! Can congress not include the opt outs? Often no, as they are offering 'programs with contracts', not laws. Why? Because they lack the constitutional authority to pass some laws, and side step the issue by not passing a law, but starting a program? Do most states opt in? Yes. Do they have to? No. Should local militias be used against other states or countries? Hell no. But, has it happened? Hell yes! Our states have tremendous power. True that power is trumped overseas by the federal government, but on state territory, the power of the state is very strong indeed!

I often find that people from other countries have a hard time understanding that US states are not like their provinces or states, mere administrative districts, but powerful self governing entities. Admittedly, we are in a time of struggle between central power and local power, but is the battle done, resolved, over? Based on the amount of litigation, rhetoric, and vitriol out there, I'd say not. Certainly, some states have rolled over, but often these are the states that are ideologically aligned with the current power forces in DC. When the power shifts, the states that are exerting their independence will shift also.

[Sparkly]

71. I'm not sure what that has to do with the electoral college.

Help me out here.

Within our states, we get to vote for our state governments and federal representatives.

Why can't the whole country, person by person, vote equally for the president? The federal administration affects urban voters and rural voters alike.

[rinsd]

46. Colorado rejected that on an initiative ballot in 2004

I'm unsure if other states have tried it.

[GOTV]

61. Eliminate the states? Fine.

At least when it comes to voting for president.

"isn't the current system based on the premise that representation in the federal government is based on the unit of the state"

Perhaps, but if that was really important, let's just have one elector per state. If you wouldn't support that then you are for following the will of the individual voters.

The large states dominate the small states anyway so what use is the slight advantage the EC gives to the smaller states?

"why not just eliminate the states?"

Fine with me. Or keep them, I don't care. But the states are not people and so it shouldn't matter what the "state" thinks about who should be president.

50% of the national voting pupulation plus 1 should be all that's important.

[mainegreen]

92. Um, no.

"isn't the current system based on the premise that representation in the federal government is based on the unit of the state"

Perhaps, but if that was really important, let's just have one elector per state. If you wouldn't support that then you are for following the will of the individual voters.

Well, as our federal goverment actually is a blend (senate/2-house/population) so to is the electoral college.

The large states dominate the small states anyway so what use is the slight advantage the EC gives to the smaller states?

Quite a bit actually, especially during a close election. We have an interesting situation in our country now, with the way the major voting blocks are distributed around the country.

"why not just eliminate the states?"

Fine with me. Or keep them, I don't care. But the states are not people and so it shouldn't matter what the "state" thinks about who should be president.

50% of the national voting pupulation plus 1 should be all that's important.

Erm, uh, no.

[GOTV]

114. Then why not one vote per state...

... either the state is important or the will of the people is important. I've no idea why you feel the need to mix the two.

The EC is so weak that the election results mirror the popular vote in all but a few instances. What case can really be made that the EC has improved on the popular vote in those cases?

> Erm, uh, no.

Well that's a compelling argument. I stand corrected. (eyes rolling)

[libodem]

83. Yeah, what mainegreen said

[whopis01]

70. It is worse than you describe

Do not forget that it is not only the electoral college that is chosen through such means, but also the house of representatives. Indeed, the senate was designed to provide equal representation for each state, however the house of representatives was intended to equally represent the populus. Clearly the lower population states have a dramatically increased representative to voter ratio than the larger states.

[Placebo]

49. Why should 5 people have the power to override 1,000,000 people?

That's the big question you should be asking.

It's absolutely unfair.

[mainegreen]

53. Um, where does 5 override 1,000,000?

[spooky3]

67. If you win Ohio by 5 votes, you get all of its electoral votes.

If you trail your opponent in California by 1000000 votes, you lose California, but you lose no more electoral votes than if you had lost CA by one measly vote.

The 1000000 voters in California in a sense have no impact on the outcome, but every vote in OH is deemed precious. Extended through the whole country, it is easy to see why candidates essentially ignore the voters and issues in the "solid red" or "solid blue" states and focus all the attention on the swing states, in particular the large ones.

I agree with Bayh as to how the EC distorts our system and undermines the one person one vote principle.

[mainegreen]

69. Ah, I see what they were saying,

I thought Placebo meant in terms of voter wieght between the states.

[rfrrfrrfr]

81. Thats not an issue with the electoral college.

That is an issue with how your state chooses to select your electoral college electors.


There was a great article in Scientific Amercan about 10 years or so ago. A guy went into all the mathmatics and demostrated how the electoral college increases the power of your vote. If anything the electoral college should be increased in size at least two to three times as many electors as there currently are now, and all states should enact proportional allotment of electors. That would fix most of the issues with the electoral process.

The biggest problem with the electoral college is that our population has grown so much that each elector represents too many people. Now no system is perfect. I do think the electoral system is much superior to any other out there and that those who want it changed to a popular vote don't really understand just what whould happen if it were actually done. I keep seeing well my vote doesn't count for anything in the electoral system, so to fix that you go to a system where you vote counts even less. Doesn't make any sense to me. I would want to change the system to make my vount count more not less.

Occasionally the system will produce results where the loser got more total votes than the winner. But the writer made a very good analogy by compary the election of the president to a baseball world series. The winner goes to who wins the best of 7 games(electoral votes) Not who scored the most runs throughout the series (total popular vote). It has happened on occasion that the team that wins the world series was outscored in total runs for the series, yet no one ever disputes that the winning team actually won the world series.

[mainegreen]

85. Welcome to the lonely club of electoral college defenders!

:hi:

[Sparkly]

86. How about a real live case where a spurious 547 votes overrode 500,000+??

That's what happened in 2000.

(And after that, it only took one from the USSC.)

[rfrrfrrfr]

107. Gore Won in 2000

And I don't just mean the popular vote. The florida electors were awarded to the wrong candidate due to interference in the election by the supreme court. If a full state wide by hand recount been done as should have happened, but didn't Gore would have won no matter who's standard you used for counting votes.

[Sparkly]

109. I realize that.

However, something is wrong with a system that allows 550,000 votes to be tossed aside. I'm talking about his popular vote margin (since the topic is the electoral college). Why shouldn't those votes count equally to any others?

[spooky3]

115. But it is, in the sense that if there were a direct popular election

instead of the EC, the problem would not occur.

There are ways to change the EC system through the election of electors but it's really not fair to say this is not an issue with the electoral college.

[GOTV]

116. That's because it's just a baseball game...

"The biggest problem with the electoral college is that our population has grown so much that each elector represents too many people."

How about this? Let's have one elector per voter!

"demostrated how the electoral college increases the power of your vote."

I think you may have misunderstood that article. If a system makes my vote more powerful, and your vote more powerful, and everyone else's vote more powerful, in what sense is our vote more powerful?

In order for my vote to be more powerful someone else's vote has to be less powerful.

No system of measurement can make each us us the tallest person in the room, for example. If you try to make everyone in America richer by giving each of us a million dollars are we actually richer? No, because that action makes the dollars less valuable.

Maybe we have different ideas of what makes a vote "powerful" but, to me, my vote is not more powerful unless my vote has more of an effect on the winner than it did before. So it is not possible for a system to make all of our votes more powerful.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Media buys are cheaper in smaller states and rural areas

Here are all of the states with either three or four electoral votes (tell me if I missed any).

Delaware (3 EVs)
Rhode Island (4 EVs)
Maine (4 EVs)
Vermont (3 EVs)
New Hampshire (4 EVs)
Hawaii (4 EVs)
Washington DC (3 EVs)
North Dakota (3 EVs)
South Dakota (3 EVs)
Idaho (4 EVs)
Montana (3 EVs)
Wyoming (3 EVs)

Look at the last election. With the exception of Hawaii, where Kerry had to send in some people to campaign for him at the last minute (but didn't go himself), the two candidate actually paid atttention to only one of these states: New Hampshire. This is the era of red and blue states and it doesn't matter how many votes your state has anymore, it matters how competative your state is. Republicans are going to do rural campaigning in Ohio and Democrats are going to do urban campaigning in Ohio but if you live in Montana, neither party gives a shit whether you live on a farm or in a city, because they know exactly how your state is going to vote. Under the electoral college system, you only have real power if you live in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania.

Now here's what could happen. Getting rid of the electoral college could empower rural voters even more. Media buys cost a fortune in big cities, especially New York (which covers not only New York but also surrounding areas in New Jersey). But it's dirt cheap to run ads in places like Wyoming and South Dakota. If Democrats need to pick up another million votes and they think that small heartland states have those votes if they reach out to them, they will be inclined to campaign there, because it's cheaper than trying to get them from the northeast or from California. But as it stands now, neither candidate is going to visit the heartland at all because of the electoral college.

[mainegreen]

84. I agree with your assessment, but with one caveat.

That getting rid of the electoral college in favor of a straight popular election, without implementing a ranked voting system, is the best solution. As I highly doubt we will see a ranked type form of voting systems in our lifetime, I would rather see a modification to the electoral college system. You may or may not remember from the last presidential election, we here in Maine actually got a lot of attention because of our ability to split our electors. I would rather see this system of split electors implemented. My biggest problem is the potential that a straight vote, winner take all, means that rather than having to form a platform that at least has to bind a broad range of people, representing different groups across a broad range of states. With a straight vote a candidate would only have to appeal to the smallest number of groups necessary to win. Indeed, I think this would be a boon to Republicans. Right now they face the dilemma of how to win certain states that may not be dominated by their core three groups. This forces them (and to a degree us) to broaden their platform, if just a little bit, to win an election, as opposed to the simple game of seeking the easiest majority needed to win. Some groups, currently necessary for one party or the other to win, would become numerically irrelevant to the election, and would loose any representative power. It would not matter who they voted for.

A ranked voting system would render this issue relatively moot, but, till that happens locally first, I'm going to side with our electoral college, flawed though it is. I just like the alternative much less.

Oh, and I do believe you got all the states there! :thumbsup:

[Hippo_Tron]

96. No offense, but your split elector system is horrid

It's not that big of a deal in Maine where there are only two congressional districts. But if this were implemented all over the country, presidential elections could easily be determined by who gerrymanders better, just like control of the House of Representatives is. I'd be all for split electoral votes if it is done proportionally, though.

[libodem]

88. good imput

this stuff is important to get a grasp on even if it may never change. I learn a lot a DU, everyday.:)

[LiberalFighter]

99. I believe the House and Senate was actually set up not specifically

for Presidential elections but for enacting legislation. It was to ensure that bigger states did not ramrod their issues over the protests of the smaller states. That was the reason for 2 Senators per state and the House having proportional representation.

[IronLionZion]

130. It increases the importance of small swing states

like Iowa and New Hampshire, and large swing states like Florida and Ohio.

Solid blue or solid red states are often taken for granted.

The EC helps to point out election fraud like in Ohio and Florida. Large swing states are targets for election fraud.

Without the EC, fraud could take place anywhere and would be harder to find.



Without the electoral college, there would be no swing states. No one would go to the small states or even rural areas. Large population centers would increase in importance.

[Zynx]

132. That's totally wrong. Cities and suburbs would vote similar to how they do

now regardless. Rural votes would make up a key extra 20% of the electorate according to exit polls.

[skipos]

18. I am all for it! Every vote would truly count! nt

[TheFarseer]

20. That states map lighting up might be too much fun

Come on guys, it's fun!

[FrenchieCat]

25. Yeah....Like that's ever gonna really happen!

Maybe instead of talking about something that will never be....Evan Bye can start talking about the real problem.....the voting machines.

You see, it's very wonderful to talk about a good idea that will never be, if it allows one never to bring up a problem that has solutions and could be fixed.

[jerry611]

103. EXACTLY!

The Electoral College is NOT the problem. The voting machines are the problem.

Bayh is just trying to secure support from the left.

Remember Hillary did this after the 2000 election. She pushed and pushed for about a week and then the idea was completely forgotten. Why? It is a dead issue. The states will NEVER forfeit their power they have over the federal government.

[Bill McBlueState]

105. can you imagine that *both* might be the problem?

Without the electoral college in 2000, nobody would've given two shits about irregularities in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead of 500,000 votes would have been insurmountable.

[jerry611]

106. Has it been a problem for the 216 years?

216 years...53 presidential elections and the process is considered to have worked.

There are a lot of problems with voting in this country. Mostly because there is a lack of standard. Each state uses different machines. Each state has different laws. Each state counts the votes differently. And each state enforces their laws differently.

This is mostly the reason why states will never sign on to getting rid of the electoral college. What happends if California decides to let another class of felons to vote but Florida disagrees and says they don't want those people to vote. You would have a lawsuit and that would end up in the Supreme Court.
The electoral college eliminates that because California and Florida get to have their own elections.

So getting rid of the EC would actually make things much more difficult.

[Sparkly]

110. It has NOT worked.

At least twice, it's failed.

States can control their voting, or there can be federal standards. Those are issues irregardless of the EC, so they aren't germane here.

The electoral vote counts are not based on "What if CA does this and FL does that." States can have their own elections, AND the votes can still be counted equally among states.

[GOTV]

117. It's considered to work becasue...

... it almost always mirrors the popular vote.

If it usually missed the popular vote, we'd change it.

[UrbScotty]

28. Not Evan Bayh's biggest fan, but I agree here (nt)

[Vidar]

34. Great idea--doubt its implementation.

[Frank Cannon]

43. Yep

I also think it's a great idea, but there's no way on God's green Earth that the states would ratify such an amendment. Small states would say they have too much to lose (whether it's true or not), and the candidates love it too much just the way it is, since they only have to really campaign in a few states.

[Czolgosz]

47. (1) good idea, (2) it'll never happen, (3) Bayh'd make a fine VP

[Neil Lisst]

77. ditto

great topic, but entirely pointless to think it will be changed, except to the extent it helps Bayh garner Dem support in big states

[FrenchieCat]

129. Agreed!

Well, you can't blame the guy for playing politics '08. He wouldn't be a real politician if he didn't. :shrug:

[Placebo]

51. Should have been done away with years ago.

I know a lot of people who don't vote because they know they live in a solid "blue state" or a solid "red state" and it won't make a difference either way.

Eliminating the electoral college would get a lot of people to vote for the first time.

[Blue_Tires]

59. i've been asking for that for years!

[NJ Democrats]

64. Good Job Evan

you just moved up from like 10th to 9th on my list!!! I do support, however, the elimination of the electoral college.

[Aaaargh]

65. Eliminate the DLC and the Electoral College, and Dems can't lose

[wizdum]

66. He's so bland.

The guy just isn't exciting. I don't think he'll get very far, but I give him credit for getting elected in Indiana as a democrat. That's a tall order, and from what I hear, there is widespread disgust for Bush in Indiana right now. I bet Bayh would take Indiana if he won the democratic nomination and ran for president.

[wiley]

72. Eliminate the EC for sure.

Bayh, whatever at this point. An election is being stolen in OHIO right now. Let's focus!

[ulysses]

79. excellent idea.

[IndianaGreen]

82. Wow, this is the first original thought to ever come out of Bayh

since he was absorbed into the Borg Collective after he was elected Senator.

I am all for it!

[Hippo_Tron]

100. Nothing original about it...

But I would say that it's the first thought that distinguishes Bayh from the Borg Collective.

[Clarkie1]

91. Eliminating the undemocratic electoral college is a splendid idea. n/t

[pstans]

93. Without the electoral college we will have TV campaigns

filmed at stops in NY, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and Philly. No more small town dinners, shaking hands.

[TheDonkey]

97. Bush most likely skipped all those and still won the pop

round 2.

I don't buy that rural America will be ignored if there is no electoral college. But I do buy the fact that Chicagoans' votes should be equal to someone in Yeehoo, KS.

[GOTV]

118. And that would be worse how?

[pstans]

120. We would have TV election

The Candidates would stop at big cities to give speeches to big crowds and not really meet the people. I give I might just have a crooked view on how democracy works living in Iowa. But I see politics as going out and talking to the people.

[GOTV]

121. At the federal level...

... it IS a TV election. Even when candidates meet real people, it's only to get film of them doing it for television.

There is no way for a candidate for political office to meet enough people to personally make a difference in the election. There are too many people and not enough time.

Almost ALL voters get the information they base their votes on from the media (tv, radio, print, web) and other, non-candidate, people.

[TheDonkey]

95. AMEN, goodbye electoral college. eom

[Progressive4Life]

101. Finally seeing the light!

But my dream ticket for '08 remains Gore/Feingold.

[jerry611]

102. It will never happen

A constitutional amendment will be required to eliminate the electoral college. And the small states (liberal or conservative) will never sign on to the deal. The electoral college favors the small states.

Plus the electoral college goes back to the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin believed it was an ultimate check and balance of federal power for the state legislatures to control who gets to be president.

And George Washington also did not believe in the popular vote. In fact, they didn't even start recording the popular vote till 1824. That is when Andrew Jackson won BOTH the popular vote and the electoral vote but still lost the presidency. Even back then during that crazy election, the process was not changed.

[Sparkly]

111. It began as a way to assess the popular vote.

As in, "the will of the people."

That was at a time when polling places were few and far between, and many people couldn't access them; moreover, it was a time when only white men with property could vote!!

We are not in the same situation now. We DO have ways to measure the popular vote, polling places are accessible, and the will of the people can be determined without the machinations of the Electoral College.

[Yupster]

128. It didn't begin as a way to assess the popular vote

in the original Constitution there wasn't even a popular vote assumed for president.

Even today, the president can be elected completely legally without ever having a popular vote or president.

[Odin2005]

112. The EC must be abolished, it is undemocratic and distorts our elections.

The EC basically gives all the power to a few swing voters in a few swing states, which, IMO, the main reason Dem presidential canidates basically ignore the concerns of inner-city Dems and rural Dems. The rural Dem vote is an act of futility since the Pukes doninate there. The inner city vote can be taken for granted since the Dems know they will win there. Popular vote will make the votes of rural Democrats and inner-city Republicans count, improving voter turnout. Yes, attention will shift towards the major urban centers, but that is NOT a bad thing because our system gives suburbanite swing voters far too much power, the shift towards the major cities will correct that extreme imbalence of voter political influence.

[slackmaster]

119. Now he's guaranteed to LOSE in the states that benefit from the EC

Good idea in principle (one person, one vote and all that), but politically impossible to sell.

[flaminbats]

123. it has been sold..

only a few college professors and uppity lawyers still object to abolishing the Electoral College! Even most Republicans I know now oppose it. Most Republicans loath it because they know it elected Clinton without a majority, most Democrats loath it because it elected Bush although Gore won the popular vote!

If the Electoral College really benefits certain states, then why does this constantly need explaining to voters in those states? Strange that Republican incumbents are always afraid to openly oppose eliminating the Electoral College..could it be because voters everywhere want their votes to count equally?

[slackmaster]

124. State legislatures are the ones it has to be sold to

They're the ones that decide whether or not to support a Constitutional amendment. It takes only 13 states to stop an amendment.

[flaminbats]

126. excellent point..

and who better to sell this change than a conservative and former Governor like Evan Bayh? :woohoo:

some states hold referendums on Constitutional amendments, but even if we can't pass this amendment..I believe this is an issue Democrats should use to win Republican votes!

[Festivito]

122. Not for me. I like the EC.

1. I liked at least the small amount of squirm Rs felt as the EC assembled.
2. Changing to a popular vote will simply change the game. Not necessarily make it a better game.

Sure, it seems unfair to a democratic people inundated with counting close elections. But, I suggest that democracy could function as well should individuals be chosen by lottery, we each being so well informed that anyone chosen should be a true and good rule by the people. I wish our hybrid system were even more unpredictable, that an executive simply resolve disputes rather than be even more certain of being given into kingly unitary executivism. Money corruption is our real problem.

Under a popular nation-wide count, corruption will find an even deeper foothold. HAVA's partisan Republican machines would be EASIER to implement under the more unified national system. Now, states, individually might help dispel this disaster one by one. That is the power of separate diverse states.

Diversity allows us to watch each other from becoming too corrupt, whether in politics, business, or individual lives. I'd be saddened to see the fifty become just one in deciding on our best head.

[LynneSin]

125. I would love a Louisiana process for voting

Everyone can run for office and after the first election if there isn't anyone with 50% of the vote then we have a runoff for top 2 vote getters.

If anything, it would help encourage more 3rd party candidates. You can vote your conscious the first election and then vote for the best of the final 2 with the second one!

[nickinSTL]

127. yeah, but Hillary Clinton said she'd work to abolish it

after the 2000 debacle. What's she done about it?

Forgive me if I don't necessarily believe he'll do $#!^.