The organization that is sponsoring the National Popular Vote bills has released the results of a poll on whether voters would prefer to keep the electoral college as it is, or switch to a direct popular election. The poll was conducted April 19-20, and includes 797 Connecticut voters. By a 73%-27% margin, voters say they prefer a direct election. A majority of all ethnic groups, both sexes, and all age groups, support direct election. Men prefer a direct election by 64%-36%, whereas women prefer a direct election 81%-19%. By party, Democrats favor a direct election 80%-20%, independents do so 76%-24%, and Republicans also favor a direct election by 59%-41%.
Obviously, the NEA and their cohorts have been highly successful in indoctrinating the masses that a Democracy is more desirable than a Republic. What these people fail to understand is that a pure Democracy is rule of the 49% by the 51%. This is far from equal representation as provided by our Founding Fathers in their establishment of the Republic of America. Unfortunately, our children don’t even know what a Republic is – nor, apparently, do their parents.
The direct election of the President is dangerous and foolish.
ON a practical level, it would guarantee close elections require a national recount. With the electoral college, recounts might only be needed in a few states. Imagine the chaos in 2000: instead of drama in Florida only, the Bush/Gore batle would have been nationwide.
Also, the electoral college is still democratic by state. It reinforces the federal nature of our nation and the equaliy of the states.
Savethe electoral college!!!
Direct (or pure) democracy is (1) two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner, or (2) the right of the 51% to pee in the popcorn of the 49%.
It’s misleading to say that the national popular vote would be the same in the absence of the Electoral College. If we had direct election, the very nature of the campaign would change, and the campaigns would be conducted mainly in the big population centers and on the airwaves. In 2000, e.g., Gore would have spent a lot of time in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, etc., while Bush would have spent much time in Dallas, Houston, Birmingham, Phoenix, etc.
Since the 2000 race was close, West Virginia, e.g., got a lot of attention. If we had direct election, such a small state would never see a presidential candidate.
There have been 700-plus attempts to change or abolish the Electoral College. It’s not going anywhere.
Did the pollsters tell those polled that Connecticut would loose out big time if the electoral college was abolished?
While I don’t concur with the artificial division of a republic and democracy, some democracies are more representative than others.
An advantage of the EC is its very particular attempt at “proportional representation”. It central aim is to have the winner representative of different regions and states. With a straight “popular vote” as has been said the tendency would go towards large population centers. It would be very easy to see how large regions, states, groups of citizens would feel disenfranchised.
I fail to see what problem straight popular vote solves. By every measure it seems to make it worse. The problems it attempts to fix – Florida, Ohio, is actually multiplied on a national level. In all likelihood the winner will be perceived as less legitimate because large regions and states will feel they are left unrepresented.
It seems to me where we need to go is a majority instead of plurality based system. It makes little sense to elect a candidate who the majority of citizens are against. In addition state based reforms should focus on proportionality rather than winner take all in the EC. This would make large states more competitive, and be more representative of those parties who are not in the duopoly.
There would have been no problem with recounts in 2000 if we used a direct popular vote. Gore’s margin over Bush was 560,000 votes.
Democracy versus a Republic is an issue that has nothing to do with the electoral college. There is nothing inherent in the word “democracy” that precludes constitutional guarantees restricting what a majority can do to an unpopular minority. One can have a constitutionally limited democracy. The word “Republic” does not necessarily include any limits on what the majority in the legislative body can do, either. Whether it’s a democracy or a republic, that is an independent variable from the issue of whether a nation has a constitution that limits what the majority can do.
We have a direct popular vote for every gubernatorial elections in every state in the nation (except Vermont still says the legislature chooses the Governor if no one gets 50% of the popular vote). We have a direct popular vote for every U.S. Senate seat, and every U.S. House seat. If it works OK for gubernatorial elections, and congressional elections, what in the world is wrong with a direct election for president?
The core principle that every voter’s count should be of equal power with every other voter’s vote, can only be respected with a direct popular vote. This is a principal that even a 10-year old can understand. Fair voting means each voter’s vote has the same power. There is no principle to justify a system in which some voters have more power than other voters.
Democracy – majority rule, direct or indirect
Oligarchy – minority rule by 2 or more
Monarchy – minority rule by 1 — reality – a monarch has lots of stooges — Hitler, Stalin, etc. — so any monarchy is really an oligarchy — i.e. a Hitler / Stalin type EVIL statist wolf minority killing / enslaving millions of majority sheep.
Thus — world political history for 6,000 plus years = Democracy versus oligarchy.
See *Republican Form of Government* in U.S.A. Const Art. IV, Sec. 4.
ONE guess what a RFG means ???
Clue – it AIN’T NO EVIL monarchy / oligarchy — the EVIL regimes back in 1787 in most of the world.
The EVIL math of the U.S.A. gerrymander regime —
generally half the votes in half the gerrymander areas = about 25 percent MINORITY RULE —-
2006 U.S.A. House of Reps — 24.7 percent of the voters elected 218 of 435 Reps. = MINORITY RULE
2002-2004-2006 U.S.A. Senators —- 10.3 percent of the voters elected 51 of 100 Sens. [due to the many very small States] = MINORITY RULE
Was much, much worse MINORITY RULE by gerrymander State legislatures picking Senators before the 17th Amdt.
2004 Prez — Bush II elected by 28.6 percent of the voters in 31 States — 286 of 538 Electoral College votes —-
de facto — Bush II elected by 27.0 percent of the voters in 29 States — 271 of 538 Electoral College votes = MINORITY RULE
Only about 10 of 51 States/DC in 2004 had any *real* Prez competition — i.e. zillions of Bush II and Kerry TV attack ads.
Odds for a 269-269 EC TIE in Nov. 2008 — about 50-50 — with one more 27.0 percent MINORITY RULE Prez ???
How do the States and lots of local regimes manage to survive by having a chief executive officer elected at large — aka Governors, Mayors, etc. ???
The EVIL MORON Supremes and the brain dead media have made a Prez into an elected god-emperor since 1933 — compounded by the EVIL Prez veto power and the EVIL Prez pardon power —
i.e. having an EVIL combination of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the same person — the very definition of a TYRANT
— mainly due to the EVIL monarchist Alexander Hamiltion at the top secret 1787 Federal Convention.
Hamilton’s EVIL lingers on.
—
Remedies –
Uniform defintion of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. for legislative body elections – majority rule and minority representation – See Israel, Germany, New Zealand examples — all NOT exact P.R.
NONPARTISAN Approval Voting for executive / judicial offices — also elect U.S.A. Attorneys and U.S.A. Marshals to watch each other and the Prez/VP.
What State of the 50 States elects only ONE executive officer in the entire State ???
NO veto
Pardon power only in the courts.
Difficult only for political MORONS — having brains stuck in the Stone Age.
See the election related amendments –
12, 14 Sec. 2, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 26, 27
Never say never about government changes.
Sorry — political *science* moves on — regardless of MASSIVE / near TOTAL ignorance about gerrymander math — due to rotted public education and the brain dead know-it-all media TV talking head MORONS.
Thank you Richard for your well-reasoned response to a sea of nonsense comments. The electoral college in no way prevents 51% from imposing their will on 49%. In fact, it sometimes helps enable the 49% to impose their will on 51%.
Democracy as defined by SCOTUS: 5-4
Wake up call….the US Constitution is not perfect. See 27 Amendments.
The Electoral College is more than imperfect and antiquated for these times. A proportional method for electoral vote or a national popular vote method is better than our present system.
There will always be winners and losers with either an EC or direct vote in terms of how much exposure voters will get to a candidate.
I have to disagree with you Richard. There was a reason that the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College. They didn’t want every voter having an equal say because that would have given more power to the large states at the expense of the small states. The Electoral System helps prevent that. That problem still holds true for today. With no EC, a candidate coming out of one of the larger states has a much better chance at getting elected than one coming out of the smaller state. That’s because the people within that state tend to go for their own homegrown candidate. The population from a state such as New York or California would overpower the vote of a state such as Vermont or New Hampshire, giving the candidate from the large state a much bigger advantage. And while the country has grown in the number of states that we have diluting this problem somewhat, in a close election, that huge advantage could be the difference. Especially when you consider that the surrounding states of the candidate also may gravitate toward the neighboring state’s candidate. As an example, a candidate coming out of New York City could easily draw in New Jersey and Pennsylvania sine they border New York. That advantage would vastly exceed the totals of a candidate coming from the sparsely populated western states. You said it yourself that a country can have a constitutionally limited democracy in order to ensure fairness to the minority. An extension of that, then, is that we don’t have to give everyone an equal vote if it helps ensure overall fairness.
Further, you mention that the popular vote works for the governor and senate elections. But that is all intrastate politics. It doesn’t cross state lines. The divergence in population size is much less a problem intrastate than it is across regions of the country.
I don’t like the EC as it stands now either. But I think the easiest way to fix it is to award proportional Electorates based on the results of the vote within each state, rather than a winner take all format.
I won’t reiterate Richard’s defense of the overwhelming popular opinion in Connecticut (my home state, yay) against the electoral college, which in my opinion falls into the category of, as Ralph Nader would say, _res ipsa loquitor_. A rough colloquial translation: pretty freakin’ obvious.
However, two additional things I’d like to point out to the folks who are determined to preserve this uniquely antiquated aspect of our presidential elections:
(1) “one person, one vote” is absolutely non-existent in United States presidential elections, since everyone with a functioning brain knows full well that voters in the so-called swing states hold tremendous power with their votes, and voters in states where the allocation of the electoral votes is a foregone conclusion might as well stay home.
2) Since that is the case, what is the point of complaining (as I hear so often) that, in case of a direct election, no one will campaign in [insert your favorite state here]? As it is *NOW*, no one campaigns much in about 40 of the states where the electoral votes are pre-decided ANYWAY. Who cares whether or not anybody campaigns in Utah, Wyoming, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, etc.? Also, thanks to television and especially the internet, virtually any candidate can now reach virtually any voter anyway. What is lost by candidates no longer focusing (discriminatorily) on personal appearances in a handful of swing states that isn’t far surpassed by an eminently fairer system of voting?
Or look at it from Hawaii’s, Alaska’s, Montana’s, Vermont’s, Wyoming’s, Rhode Island’s, or the District of Columbia’s point of view. Imagine voting for governor in your state but there’s no campaign activity in your county worth mentioning because one party or another is so dominant in that county that its “electoral votes” are essentially pre-determined…..or that the number of “electoral votes” in your county is so small that the people who vote there don’t mean anything. Who on earth would advocate electing our states’ governors (or mayor, in the case of D.C.) that way?
Voters in presidential elections in those places are essentially worthless under the present system. Under a direct election system, no voter has more value than any other voter. That is precisely what “one person, one vote” means. We are the only industrialized democracy on Planet Earth that cannot meet that simple criterion for holding free and fair elections.
I’m confident this Connecticut poll would be duplicated nationwide. We’re all prisoners of this 220-year-old electoral college system, and it’s long past time to break out of jail. Abolish the electoral college once and for all and replace it with an instant runoff system of one sort of another whereby the winner of the presidency MUST get a majority. The loss of influence that minority groups currently have under the electoral college system (e.g. Jews in New York, African-Americans in South Carolina, Arab-Americans in Michigan, etc.) can easily be made up by such groups doing what they do in every other democracy: forming their own parties.
This is good news, hopefully Connecticut will pass the NPV.
Did the poll ask whether the current nominating system should be retained?
How well would direct popular election have worked in the elections of 1880 and 1960? Do you think that Nixon’s popular vote victory in 1960 would have been recognized?
Would Gore have outpolled Bush by 500,000 if a system of direct popular voting had been used?
Imagine that in 2000, Georgia had been a member of the NPV compact, and North Carolina had not. Would a federal court have overturned Georgia’s ballot access laws that prevented Ralph Nader from appearing on the ballot in that State? What about in North Carolina – a non-member of the compact?
What about other candidates? Can California and Maryland base their electoral votes on the national popular vote totals if they prevent voters in their State from voting for candidates who are on the ballot in other States? That is, can California say that, “we will cast our electoral voters for Joe Schmoe, if Schmoe receives the most votes nationally, but California voters may not vote for Schmoe because his party did qualify for ballot access.
One more #7 remedy – PAPER MAIL BALLOTS counted ONLY by human eyeballs.
NO long lines on election days.
Add some life in jail punishments for election law felonies — illegal registered electors, illegal voting, illegal messing with mail ballots, etc. etc.
i.e. – Felonies for ALL illegal acts/omissions in the election process — to discourage party hack felon stuff —
stuffing the ballot box,
stealing from the ballot box,
changing legal votes,
etc.
i.e. make election law felonies as serious as treason, sedition and murder.
Way too difficult for the EVIL gerrymander party hack incumbents in the U.S.A. and State regimes — who love to have rigged/stolen elections — that put them and keep them in power.
Nixon in 1960 did not have a popular vote majority. A few people have claimed that he did. But they arrive at that conclusion by arbitrarily subtracting 6/11ths of Kennedy’s Alabama popular vote. They do this because the Democratic slate in Alabama was composed of 5 electors pledged to Kennedy, and 6 electors who said they would vote for a segregationist (they were elected, and they voted for Senator Byrd of Virginia).
This method is calculating the popular vote contradicts the conventional method for calculating the popular vote that had been used in all previous elections. For example, in 1948 the Democratic slate of presidential elector candidates in Tennessee contained 2 candidates pledged to Strom Thurmond, and 10 pledged to Harry Truman. That 1948 Democratic slate polled 270,412 votes. No reference work, and no newspaper, ever subtracted 2/12ths of that popular vote from Truman’s national popular total. There are similar examples in almost every presidential election between 1880 and 1960.
For example, minor parties in Wisconsin and Minnesota commonly only ran one candidate for presidential elector in those states, since until about 1960, those states required a separate petition for each candidate for elector. The minor parties knew they weren’t going to win for president anyway, so to save work, they would only run one candidate for elector from Minnesota and Wisconsin. No one would seriously propose that their popular vote should be reduced proportionately to the number one divided by the number of presidential electors in that state. In other words, in the 1932 election, Norman Thomas got 25,476 votes in Minnesota. Minnesota had 11 electors, but Thomas only had one candidate for elector. No one would propose to cut Norman Thomas’s popular vote in Minnesota to one-eleventh of 25,476, and then use that one-eleventh vote in the Norman Thomas national vote.
Again relating to post #14, which has some very good points, it should be pointed out that Georgia and North Carolina do permit write-ins for president. Nader write-ins were tallied in Georgia. They weren’t tallied in North Carolina in 2000 because Nader didn’t file a declaration of write-in candidacy in time, although in 2004 his North Carolina write-ins were tallied.
In my post #16, I meant to say “plurality” for Nixon, not “majority.” Again, I maintain that Kennedy got more popular votes in 1960 than Nixon did.
I’m personally for keeping the EC, but there should be proportional allocation of electors in each state.
I’m regularly amazed by the “distinction” between republic and democracy which seems to be so commonly used in the US.
Just to clarify: The two terms operate on completely different axes in the political system. In modern diction, the (most common) antonym to republic is monarchy, the antonym to democracy is dictatorship. You can have democratic republics (Austria, the US, Germany), democratic monarchies (Denmark, Spain, the UK), dictatorial republics (Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, Chad) and dictatorial monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tonga).
Richard,
What about in 1964, when LBJ’s name did not appear on the Alabama ballot. There was only Barry Goldwater & “Unpledged Democratic Electors”? Would LBJ get credit for these Democratic Electors?
Since all of the Democratic Alabama electors in 1964 had said (in advance of the election) they would not vote for Johnson, all sources that compile the national election give Johnson zero votes.
Richard wrote: “The core principle that every voter’s count should be of equal power with every other voter’s vote, can only be respected with a direct popular vote. This is a principal that even a 10-year old can understand.”
Amen.
That being said, don’t end the EC, but rather, mend it.
Read Sabato’s book on 23 proposals for the constitution. His EC and primaries proposal is probably the best in the book.
The folks in the top secret 1787 Federal Convention were not able to agree on a uniform definition of elector (for the well known reasons – wealth, slavery, etc.) — thus the stuff in Art. I, Sec. 2 for voting for U.S.A. Reps. — and the later 17th Amdt.
A *positive* uniform definition of Elector NOW — to get rid of the *negative* stuff — 14th Amdt, Sec. 2, 15th Amdt, 19th Amdt, 24th Amdt, 26th Amdt.
OBVIOUSLY —
Sec. 1. (a) Each citizen of the United States, who is 18 or more years old on any election day, shall be an elector with the right to vote in all U.S.A, State and local elections in the precinct having his/her residence.
(b) Each elector may register for an election at least 28 days before the election.
(c) Each registration shall be permanent, except for changes in residence and disqualifications.
(d) Electors having a temporary residence outside of the United States shall be registered at the places provided by law.
(e) An elector shall not be a person who on such 28th day is mentally ill, as determined in a legal proceeding in a court of law, or who is in jail after a legal criminal conviction.
Sec. 2 — Repealed language and effective date.
Very sorry to any bleeding hearts who want everybody to vote (non-citizens, age 0 to 17, mentally ill, criminals in jail) and to register on election days.
The U.S.A. can become *democratic* or totally ROT into monarchy / oligarchy.
Nothing new in history.
A question for you anti-Electoral College folks: is it safe to assume that you would require 50%-plus for the president to be elected, thus necessitating a runoff provision?
Richard in #6 notes Vermont’s provision for the legislature electing the governor. In Mississippi, in order to be elected to ANY statewide constitutional office, a candidate must (1) get 50%-plus of the popular vote AND (2) carry a majority of the state House districts. Otherwise, the House chooses from the top two vote-getters.
In 1964, was Lyndon Johnson’s name not on the Alabama ballot at all– not even as an independent?
And Nader’s own folks blew P2008 California Ballot Access big time. His write in votes were counted only because of Citizens For A Better Veterans Home.
I appreciate the guy’s past contribution[s], but mentally and organisationally, he was and is ‘way past’ shelf date!
Lyndon Johnson wasn’t on the November 1964 ballot in Alabama. Also Harry Truman wasn’t on the November 1948 ballot in Alabama. It was too late for either one of them to get on as an independent, when the state Democratic Party made the decision not to accept them as the party nominee.
The other major party nominee who wasn’t on the ballot in all states was William Howard Taft in 1912. He wasn’t on in California and South Dakota. Charles Evans Hughes would not have been on in Louisiana in 1916 except that he won a lawsuit to get on.
# 24
A #23 Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A. — even D.C. and the other U.S.A. colonies.
Approval Voting for executive / judicial offices – vote for 1 or more, highest win.
Quite possible to have about 40-50 percent winners — will make them less arrogant / powermad.
Will totally change the current TV attack ad system in about 10 of 51 E.C. areas.
Party hack NUTCASE extremist candidates will have major problems — so sad for them — since they will need *large* approval to get elected Prez.
What is the FATAL ATTRACTION that some MORON folks have for *strong* leaders — ending up with KILLER MONSTERS like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, etc. etc. ???
—-
i.e. A Major amdt –
Elector / registration
P.R.
Approval Voting
Abolish vetoes.
Increased Democracy and separation of powers.
Reduced monarchy / oligarchy — with a LOT of past rotted history to be put into the political history landfill — for only polisci profs to worry about.
Mother Earth will continue to rotate.
Steve, To answer your question: “A question for you anti-Electoral College folks: is it safe to assume that you would require 50%-plus for the president to be elected, thus necessitating a runoff provision?”
This anti-EC person says no it is not necessary to have 50%+1 vote, if we are using a national popular vote only. See recent elections of 1992, 1996, 2000. Noone won 50% of the popular vote. Didn’t hear a lot of bellyaching then.
If we have have the EC National Popular Vote Compact and the scenario is no popular vote at 50%+1, but yes an EC majority due to the compact then fine.
If we have an EC porportional representation plan and no candidate gets an EC majority lets let the House of Representatives have the fun of deciding.
So it would be possible, Brad, for someone to be elected with 15%-20% of the vote (if we had direct election).
Last time I looked, the National Popular Vote plan had been enacted by three states totalling 46 electoral votes. On the off chance that enough states approve that for it to take effect, there will definitely be litigation against it.
Each state is now free to cast its electoral votes in proportion to its popular vote. 48 states have “winner take all” in order to maximize their impact on the process.
It is convenient to disregard the fact that more voters cast ballots with Richard Nixon’s name than John Kennedy’s, especially since this produces a result consistent with the electoral vote outcome. But if the goal under NPV is to coerce the electoral vote to match the popular vote can we rely on conventions that were made to simplify reporting?
Many States permitted voters to vote for/against individual elector candidates. The convention is that the leading elector candidate should be counted for the popular vote for the presidential candidate. But surely the most popular elector received a few extra votes based on his own popularity. This seems more likely than that voters were indifferent to the top elector, but held some personal grudge against the trailing elector candidates.
Do you think that John Breckinridge really got 37.5% of the vote in Pennsylvania in 1860, as is conventionally reported?
The NPV proposal defines “presidential slate” as follows.
[i]”presidential slate” shall mean a slate of two
persons, the first of whom has been nominated as a
candidate for President of the United States and the second of whom has been nominated as a
candidate for Vice President of the United States, or any legal successors to such persons,
regardless of whether both names appear on the ballot presented to the voter in a particular state;[/i]
If a party runs a presidential candidate with one VP in State A; and another VP in State B, is that two presidential slates or one?
How will recounts be handled under the NPV proposal?
Does a State deny equal protection to its citizens if it appoints its electors based on the “national popular vote” if citizens in other States are unable to vote for some candidates. Example, can Illinois tell would-be Nader supporters that Illinois will appoint Nader electors if the Illinois Naderites join with Nader supporters in other States, including North Carolina and Georgia, even though those other States made it difficult/impossible for Nader supporters to vote for him.
By joining the NPV Compact isn’t a State indirectly incorporating the election laws with regard to presidential elections of all States, both compact members and non-members?
May a State permit non-US citizens, 17 YO, and felons to vote in a statewide election for President (regardless whether it is a member of the compact).
If a State can appoint its electors on the basis of popular votes cast in other States, why can’t it permit voters in other States to directly cast a vote in its presidential elections?
Steve said: “So it would be possible, Brad, for someone to be elected with 15%-20% of the vote (if we had direct election).”
—- It’s possible NOW to be elected with 15-20% of the popular vote. Plurality in the stated gets you all the EC votes. Where is the difference from NPV? Or is it where a campaign director can claim an EC mandate like that BS artist Karen Hughes did for Bush back in 2000 even though he came up 500,000 votes less than Gore?
Steve said: “Last time I looked, the National Popular Vote plan had been enacted by three states totalling 46 electoral votes. On the off chance that enough states approve that for it to take effect, there will definitely be litigation against it.”
—- litigation by who?
Steve said: “Each state is now free to cast its electoral votes in proportion to its popular vote. 48 states have “winner take all†in order to maximize their impact on the process.”
—- well, each state can choose its electoral vote allocation now and if they choose the NPV compact then they are truly maximizing their impact. Where is Texas, California and NY “maximizing” their impact now? They get no attention AT ALL during the campaigns except as fundraising grounds.
It’s really bogus to argue that the popular vote would be the same in the absence of the Electoral College, as direct election would change the very nature of the campaign. With direct election, Gore in 2000 would have ratcheted up the vote in liberal big cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, etc., while Bush would have ratcheted it up in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc. The campaign would have been conducted almost totally in large cities and on the airwaves.
Maybe you like the idea of a president elected by big-city votes. I don’t, since such a president would be less concerned with small-town and rural issues.
“Where is the difference from NPV?”
With NPV, a state whose voters do NOT support the national popular vote winner thumbs its nose at its own voters and casts its electoral votes for the national winner.
“Where is Texas, California and NY ‘maximizing’their impact now?”
I guess you think the leaders in those states are too dumb to know what’s best for them. A few years ago, the voters of Colorado rejected an attempt to change their electoral vote allocation from “winner take all.”
This is an academic discussion, as the Electoral College is not going anywhere.
EC may not be going anywhere, but indeed it will be different.
Noone is going to fight to keep the EC the same.