So somebody who can "barely explain" the Electoral College has a solution?

Funny that these things only come up when referring to Republicans winning.

That should make one think. If you recall - something I note politicians and their fans are reluctant to do - JFK won by a small number. Richard Nixon conceded, rather than fight vote fraud in Illinois. Contrast that with Al Franken's grasping. More than one NFL quarterback has conceded that if the game was close, it wasn't someone else's job to win the game. Pols grasp for power so desperately they'll do anything. If it's close, bub, you didn't impress people, or your opponent didn't, or both, and you should figure out why and fix that.

Better now to wonder why Delaware and Rhode Island have the same number of Senators as California, NY or Florida.

Better, also, to wonder how the Constitution must be obeyed. It frequently isn't, such as when it stipulates that a felon cannot be President without regard to when the conviction occurs.

People come out all the time with high-minded schemes which are simple power plays, simple selfishness.

Eliminating the Electoral College would simply admit the truth of the current situation: the presidential elections are nothing more than a popularity contest. The average American voter has no idea what the candidates stand for.

This is simply stupid, and Americans get the kind of government they deserve. To improve the quality of the results, put restrictions in place: you can only vote if (fill in the blank). Some possibilities:

- You can only vote if, last year, you paid more in taxes than you received in refunds and welfare.

- You can only vote if you have a positive net worth.

- You can only vote if you correctly answer 4 of 5 questions on the candidates' positions (randomly selected out of 20 or so questions).

- You can only vote if you have passed a basic test on the politics and history of the USA.

- You can only vote if you show a photo id. (This is blindingly obvious - anyone who objects to it supports voter fraud).

Even better: all of the above! Voting is a responsibility and a privilege, not a right. It should be treated as such.

This disparity violates the Supreme Court-endorsed principle of one person, one vote.

You have this backwards. The Supreme-Court endorsed principle of one person, one vote violates the Constitution, at least where electing the President is concerned.

Easy fix to abolishing the Electoral College. Just amend the Constitution. The "powdered-wig" framers gave us a very straightforward procedure for doing this. Or -- maybe O can just sign an executive order doing the job. That'd be no different than what the fed government has done thousands of times -- ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit them.

Funny that these things only come up when referring to Republicans winning.

The truth is, it can happen to anyone.

I am not happy about our electorate. I'd ask people who they were voting for, and they'd often (or mostly) not have really good reasons. People I respect most were a bit tortured in the last election. I certainly was, even though my vote didn't count. I'm neither a Dem nor a Republican but a fiscal conservative who's socially libertarian. I'm for small government and religion out of politics.

And I believe voting is a privilege and a right and that it's awful that so many idiots vote. The people whose voting I feel safest about are immigrants, like my friend Camillo who came from Cuba, and the Iranian lady a friend told me burst into tears in the voting line (she'd just become a citizen and was weeping at voting in a democratic election), and the Russian lady I talked to at the Schwarzenegger gala Pajamas Media sent me to who was fiercely proud and grateful to be a citizen of this country for 30 years. These people know how seriously voting should be taken, and act accordingly. They know politics and economics and the issues as well as a lay person can. I admire the hell out of them.

"Voting is a responsibility and a privilege, not a right."

Wow. Is that Charo-naked wrong or what?

The Constitution, US Supreme Court, most state constitutions, and many, many Americans would disagree with you on that one, bubby.

With good reason. The thing about rights is, subject to reasonable limits on my behavior, I get to have my rights and exercise them (or not), even if you don't really like the way I do that. As soon as I must prove to you or someone else that I deserve my rights, the right is already gone, isn't it? In that world, I am really trying to earn my rights (another word for freedom, really) at your whim, rather than enjoy rights equal to you by virtue of our common humanity.

Ironic, isn't it? Someone who would presume to test his fellow citizen for worthiness to vote--a most basic freedom--based on questions about current events, is obviously ignorant about philosophical undepinings of American freedoms.

If the electoral college was abolished then a few liberal states with high populations would run everything. Those of us in flyover country would be screwed.

Count me among the skeptics. Radwaste makes the point above: if it's unconstitutional to allow small states to punch above their weight in elections, then surely it's unconstitutional to allow them to punch above their weight in the Senate.

Truth is, the system (include the Senate and the College) is designed to protect those of us who choose not to live among the madding crowds on the east coast. Though the system may have been designed "partly to mollify Southerners seeking to protect slavery*," it was mostly designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority. It's an integral part of living in a representative republic, and it's one of the few political advantages left to those of us who live outside the big cities.

When somebody proposes big changes in the way we govern ourselves, 'tis wise to be skeptical. Especially when the proposal comes from a family* with a -- let's call it 'flexible' -- view of the rules governing our elections.

* Guilt by association -- great rhetoric, innit?

Well, at least one of our "Founding Fathers" saw it coming:

One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, turns out to be a prophet, of sorts:

In 1796 he said:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

In 1797 he said:
The democracy will cease to exist when Government intervenes to take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not.

In 1798 he said:
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on could prevent one-half all wars.

In 1799 he said:
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

In 1799 he said:
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government is the result of too much government.

In 1800 he said:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

In 1801 he said:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny.

In 1802 he said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

In 1803 he said:
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

The most interesting foretelling, in light of the present financial crisis, is the following quote made to Congress in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

His words speak for themselves. o.O

Actually, what needs to happen is the popular vote for the President needs to be abolished.

As does popular vote for state senators.

Repeal the 17th amendment. The rest will take care of itself.

The system was deliberately stacked to prevent the hordes of stupids from exercising control. Had we not messed with that formula, we wouldn't have disgraces like Dodd in power.

And we probably wouldn't have had Clinton or either Bush.

What the experiments in direct democracy have proven (especially in California) is that the people are too stupid to be trusted with the selection of their leaders.

The 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 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, 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

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, 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). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In other words, 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state .

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. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

What the current 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."

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.

The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas (62% Republican),
● New York (59% Democratic),
● Georgia (58% Republican),
● North Carolina (56% Republican),
● Illinois (55% Democratic),
● California (55% Democratic), and
● New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
● New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
● Georgia — 544,634 Republican
● North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
● Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
● California — 1,023,560 Democratic
● New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.

Under a national popular vote, a Democratic presidential candidate could no longer write off Kansas (with four congressional districts) because it would matter if he lost Kansas with 37% of the vote, versus 35% or 40%. Similarly, a Republican presidential candidate could no longer take Kansas for granted, because it would matter if he won Kansas by 63% or 65% or 60%. A vote gained or lost in Kansas is just as important as a vote gained or lost anywhere else in the United States.

Although no one can predict exactly how a presidential campaign would be run if every vote were equal throughout the United States, it is clear that candidates could not ignore voters in any state. The result of a national popular vote would be a 50-state campaign for President. Any candidate ignoring any particular state would suffer a political penalty in that state.

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

This is not true, Susan. And I suspect you know it.

You're simply engaging in a bit of ass-covering to get something passed that will virtually guarantee a permanent Democratic party hold of the Executive branch.

Without the Electoral College, the entirety of "flyover country" is meaningless. Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire - may as well not even bother to vote. In fact, every single state that is close to a 50-50 R/D split ought not bother, because their votes will be swamped by the few concentrations of Democratic votes, namely Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles.

The motive behind this "proportional representation" effort is simply to remove the impact of low-population states with 3-5 EV from the equation entirely.

Without the Electoral College, the entirety of "flyover country" is meaningless. Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire - may as well not even bother to vote.

And now these states are disproportionately advantaged. And people in Texas, California, Massachusetts, and other places needn;t bother to vote. The minority in flyover states get more clout than the majority on the seabords. How is that better or more fair?

Susan,

Firstly, I find it impressive that you're able to type a 2,000-word rebuttal in just 5 minutes. Truly, you possess formidable off-the-cuff rhetorical skills.

That being said, your argument amounts to a very long assertion that your way would be better. Honestly, explain to me how having my state's electoral votes go all-or-nothing to my state's preferred candidate is inferior to having my state's electoral votes go all-or-nothing to other states' preferred candidate. Explain to me why having electoral spending concentrated in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Florida is worse than having it concentrated in New York and Chicago and L.A.

The big cities have proven unable to govern themselves effectively or sustainably. Fortunately, we can leave those cities and relocate to friendlier and better-governed locales. The scheme you're advocating would give even greater political weight to these politically dysfunctional entities, and you haven't convinced me that this is a good idea.

I posit that the scheme you advocate would result in campaigns targeted directly at the largest media markets, in an effort to increase their margins in those cities. As a result, the issues of these big cities, issues which by rights should be local, would become national issues. National elections would hinge on promises made to these population centers. Those of us who left the big cities because of their stupid policies would then have no choice but to see those policies implemented at the federal level.

What alternative would we have then? Where could we go to escape the endemic corruption and stupidity of our big city political machines?

What alternative would we have then? Where could we go to escape the endemic corruption and stupidity of our big city political machines?

I hear Costa Rica's nice.

And if you can handle the dreary weather, Ireland is considerably freer than the United States, at least for now.

Nicole - the point you're missing is that California's conservative minority are completely swamped by the massively liberal population centers around Los Angeles and San Francisco.

So if you're a conservative in California, your vote doesn't matter now, and won't in a proportional-representation scenario.

The only places where there will be changes in EV allocation will be in the middle states that no politician cares about. And since those states are pretty evenly split now, and will remain so, the net change to the EV allocation there is (probably, I haven't done the math) nil.

Which puts us right back where we are now. The liberal urban centers are in control. The only way a Republican wins is either by convincing voters he's a liberal, by having the Democrats so confident that they don't turn out, or so downbeat about their candidate that they vote against him.

Do you really think that Reagan could have won if not for the fact that he was running against Carter and then Mondale?

No sale, Susan. Even to this fiscal conservative trapped in NY.

We have a Constitution. Much of what is wrong with this government is because it is being systematically ignored by both parties. I don't support a conspiracy to ignore it because it is too inconvenient to change it as required by law. It was meant to be difficult to change.

Not a fan of the national popular vote. One thing the electoral college does very well is isolate any geographic voting trouble spots. Unless you'd like to see a nationwide hanging chad count the next time the election is close, keep the electoral college.

Given your absolute lack of belief, Amy, that US voters should decide anything, it seems you'd want to keep the one thin line of defense we have against them, intact. After all, if we go to direct voting, those pesky religious nutters who may in fact outnumber the liberals over the US as a whole could vote in all sorts of nonsense for you. Particularly when you consider that minorities, while typically liberal voters, tend to vote for "religious" measures like Prop 8.

I'd like to see the college use the autonomy they have, and actually think. That would be impressive. I also think showing ID should be the minimum required to vote, once registered. I'd love to exclude those who live off the dole from voting as well.

Belize is better than costa rica, anyway. And I've heard rave reviews of nicuragua.

My $0.02 -- keep the electoral college, but break it up so that the each districts votes go to the candidate that district voted for.

The two additional go to the overall for the state.

That kills the California is all one direction but still give a fair representation of the Flyover States. And leaves things competitive nation wide. The candidates can't just ignore certain states.

Though I don't mind the long post, "susan", you should probably credit your source.

I write: "Voting is a responsibility and a privilege, not a right."

Spartee writes: "Wow. Is that Charo-naked wrong or what?"

Nope, not wrong at all. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every person has a right to vote. Originally, voting in the USA was restricted to property holders. The reasoning was simple: property holders were the ones with the biggest stake in the success of the nation.

You are perhaps familiar with the quote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

Brian,

Voters whose opinion are the minority are bound to lose. This whole, "Well, let's make rules so that minority position votes count more" is absurd.

Nicole, it isn't about minority opinion.

It's about equal representation. That's why each state HAS two senators in the first place - because the states themselves are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the federal government.

Getting rid of the Electoral College will effectively disenfranchise everyone outside of a major metropolitan area.

You guys only want to do away with the Electoral College because Algore lost in 2000. Had Algore won in 2000, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Someone who would presume to test his fellow citizen for worthiness to vote--a most basic freedom--

Calling Jim Crow ...

I've always thought the electoral college was a bad idea ...

The electoral college exists for the same reason the Senate does: to balance the power of small or sparsely populated states with the large and populous.

Which is why a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college would never succeed.

The electoral college is a bad idea only with respect to the possible alternatives.