George Soros' son, Jonathan opines on the merits, or lack thereof, of our electoral college in this article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12293012...
Although this made the OpEd page the WSJ, I wonder how much time will be spent discussing this topic before October of 2012.
We often forget that the power to appoint electors is given to state legislatures, and it is only because they choose to hold a vote that Election Day is at all relevant for us. Nowhere is a popular election constitutionally required. And, as the 2000 election reminded us, the winner of the popular vote is not guaranteed to become president.
The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president. Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
Fortunately, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Rather than dismantling the Electoral College with an amendment, we can use the mechanisms of the Electoral College itself to guarantee popular election of the president.
He outlines the plan for us..
To understand how the proposal works, one needs to understand two basic principles. First, that state legislatures are basically unfettered in how they choose to appoint electors. And second, that groups of states can enter into binding agreements with one another in the form of so-called interstate compacts. There are many examples of such compacts, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the interstate agreement that guarantees a driver points on a Virginia driver license when he or she speeds in Maryland.
Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote. For example, if a Republican were to win the overall national popular vote, even if New Yorkers favored the Democrat, New York's Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. The compact will go into force when states representing 271 Electoral College votes have entered into it to guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will become president.
and it looks like it's already in motion.
The National Popular Vote compact has already been enacted by four trailblazing states -- Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii -- and has been introduced in 41 others. It's time that the rest of them got on board.
- elixir's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Hell yes.
I'm sick to death of people calling Obama "president elect." If they understood the way the system worked they would understand that he won't be president elect until after he is elected. Up until now he has simply been the presidential nominee. Most Americans still think they elect the president. So yeah, I think having a hedge against the sheeple is a warranted.
the pop vote thing is what we need--
it renders the electoral college totally useless, and just a rubberstamp for our votes -- and it's a million times easier than an amendment.
Notice the article contradicts Obama's 50 state strategy...n/t
n/t
I love this job!
it's a million times easier than an amendment? WTF?
See what i mean? An amendment is supposed to be hard. Arrrrgh! That's the point of the process. I used to think the popular vote idea was worth considering. But these last two elections 2004 and 2008. Hell I wouldn't trust the voting public to vote on dog catcher. We had a referendum on president without a single real issue being discussed. It was a huge kumbya cat fight. It was American Idol and Justin Guarini won. The founding fathers were right. The mass populace is too irrational. That is exactly why we don't have a democracy.
i know it's supposed to be hard--i'm glad about that--
but it being hard means that antiquated things that overvalue empty states and undervalue full ones like the electoral college can't be gotten rid of.
and you're wrong about pop vote-- if ppl and the media are dumb, and the candidates suck, it's simply all the more reason to vote--against them.
Do away with it, or have a proportional vote
No winner take all in states. Have the electors reflect the popular vote in every state, so then the electoral vote is the same as the popular vote. That way, in a state such as mine, my vote would actually count for something.
The way it is now is what stopped me from voting for decades, and I bet I was and am not alone. It's a major stumbling block towards getting people to vote, because you really get the feeling it doesn't matter whether you vote or not, because your vote will be erased.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein
w/o an amendment we can't do away with it--
if the Constitution details how states allocate electoral votes, then we're stuck there too.
if it doesn't, then states can do like they are with the popular vote thing--specify how electors have to vote according to whatever criteria they set.
A way out without a constitutional amendment
Its been discussed seriously for many years now and can be done with an interstate compact. See here. Several constitutional scholars have looked into this sort of compact and give it a seal of approval. The question is, how will it fly with the curren SCOTUS make-up?
that reads weirdly tho--do they mean
that each state will do that or that all electors in all those states will go by national and not state vote totals? And what about the fact that states count their own votes, and that there isn't any actual official national vote counting, nor is there any system in place to do so. Localities count, and report it to states, who then certify those counts and that's it.
This makes it seem that some states (who had passed this bill) would have to go by the national votes of all 50 states--it's weird:
"nationwide pop vote" instead of statewide pop vote
is what i mean.
states run elections and each one counts and certifies their votes, and electors are specifically a state thing too and would still be, no?
The nationwide pop vote scheme
You need over 270 votes to win the presidency, right? You don't need every state to enter in the compact, just enough to reach the magic number. The states in the compact will award their electors on the basis of the national popular vote only if there are enough states entering the compact to reach the magic number. Until enough states enter in the compact, we use the current system. And if enough states enter the compact, everything is the same election wise except for the awarding of the electors. States keep their autonomy, the constitution isn't changed and is followed, and the national pop. vote winner gets to be president.
"the basis of the national popular vote"
-- that's the part that is missing for me-- we don't have an official nationwide popular vote, nor an official nationwide vote total -- and wouldn't states object to counting votes from other states not participating? doesn't it have to be all or nothing?
And the national popular vote count is still dependent on political people in states and not reliable in itself nowadays -- I could easily see states not part of this purposely cheating (even more than now) on their state popular vote totals -- as well as states who are part of it -- esp the most populous ones like here in NY and CA and TX, etc.
shouldn't it be that electors in all 50 states should be bound by their state pop votes alone? Electors are state and not national, and they're also political, no?
"certified" national pop vote
Very simple: every state certifies their votes at the end of the day (or month, whatever). Tally those votes and you have a certifiable national popular vote.
I honestly don't see how any of your concerns are different in the current system or any possible system. You always run the risk of certain states cheating. But if that is the biggest concern than we shouldn't accept any election as valid, right? Some state *could* have cheated. And electors being political? Most are bound by law to vote as the state determines. If an elector votes differently than they are supposed to, you can have a challenge in the House/Senate a la 2004.
One thing I'd like to see in the nationwide effort, is a uniformity of election rules in compact states. I think we need same day registration or at least a very short registration deadline. (If you're young and mobile, or going to school you'll know how elections in many states disenfranchise you with burdensome reg. deadlines--if you start school at the end of Sept and have to register by the first week in Oct., you're more than likely screwed.)
it's that i want a solution that either
does make everything truly national--from ballots/how we vote to procedures to primary rules, etc--including national overseeing of elections -- to act as legal and strong check and balance on all the state shit that happens now--or something that stays state by state but gets more fair and doesn't penalize big populous states. Either a truly national system (which we desperately need, and which other civilized countries have) -- or keep it state by state but improve it.
and if we're stuck with electors (as we are), either have each state force them to act according to that state's pop vote alone, which seems more relevant to me--or make all 50 states have the same rules -- not just some states doing it one way and others another-- that's what we have now, and that's part of what that link is asking for--instead of national for all states.
it seems like with that plan, some states would act according to all 50 states' counts -- that doesn't seem like an advance to me, nor a way of eliminating the actual probs with electoral college overall -- having all states pass a "state electors must absolutely vote like our popular vote (whether winner take all or proportional)" makes much more sense and nullfies the electoral college much more easier and more equitably too.
if states are still running elections, and localities too, then it really doesn't make sense to me that state electors should be bound by other state vote counts.