On June 6, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 39, to abolish the electoral college and provide a direct popular vote for president. The Library of Congress web site, http://thomas.loc.gov, will have the text posted very soon, but it is not there yet. See this commentary about the proposal from Atlantic Monthly.
Senator Nelson also introduced legislation on September 6, 2007, for federal regulation of presidential primaries. The bill, S.2024, would divide the U.S. into six regions. All presidential primaries would be between March and June. A lottery would determine the order of regions.
Finally, Senator Nelson introduced S.3100 on June 6. It requires the states to permit no-excuse absentee voting in federal elections, and sets up a pilot project for mail balloting.
Why is the concept of a direct vote where the winner needs a majority of votes to win so hard for politicians to support?
The direct vote proposals from the 1970s had a line of 40% (which is a bit ridiculous too)
I’m in the middle on this, which means
a) if you win the majority, you win the election
b) if you don’t, then some sort of process should be in place (I’m not big on IRV for general elections due to it being irrelevant most of the time)
c) no one will like my idea
IRV in party primaries is a pretty smart idea though. But I don’t know how many voters would rank the candidates though.
I am not sure why you see IRV as irrelevant in the general election.
Most state elections are won without a majority vote, and nationally I think you got to go back to LBJ to find a Dem who won a majority of the popular vote.
If a voter chooses not to rank, it should be a non issue. Currently government decides to throw away – not count – all votes other than the top two. At least with IRV its the voters decision.
Most state elections are won without a majority vote? Nah, not quite. 5 of 6 statewide officials in Missouri won a majority.
As for a majority of the popular vote nationally. Since 1964, it was done by Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan twice, GHW Bush, and GW Bush. 7 times in 11 elections.
Second-choice votes were allowed in Southern primaries in the 1920s, and presumably a higher percentage of people will rank other candidates this time.
When it comes to the impacts of a national vote, it can help both sides when it comes to turnout.
Republicans in Texas and Democrats would be more motivated to turnout (along with Texas Democrats and New York Republicans) in this system.
The “only big states will get attention” pro-EC argument is a bunch of nonsense. That’s how the system is today. Candidates will be more likely to visit Ohio than New Mexico.
But a popular vote does change enough of the dynamic to provide more reason to get out the vote in safe areas for both parties.
Since Nelson introduced his bills 3/4ths of the way into the Congress, expect them all to go down quietly. (That’s a bit obvious though)
In 1976, Jimmie Carter (another Southerner) polled
50.1% of the vote that year. He won Ohio (yes Taft
territory) by 11,116 votes. That year McCarthy polled
over 58 thousand votes and almost lost that state for
him. Also Carter won Wisconsin by 35,245 combined
these 2 states would given the election to Gerald
Ford. There also, were states where Ford won by very
narrow margins. Ford only received 48.0% of the vote
so in that case the national difference would have been
more extreme.
Remember, the main purpose of the Electoral College
is to acknowledge that these United States are a feder-
ation and not a unitary state like nearly 80% of the
nations of the world. Had the Republican Party not
become so dominant after the Civil War other third
parties that existed then could have established them-
selves as auxiliary members in Congress. Great Britain
has a functioning 3rd Party in the Liberal Democratic
Party. They have no realistic chance of ever winning
the Prime Ministership again, but they still provide
additional opportunity for different views on what
should be done in Parliament.
Another problem for a direct Presidential vote is
that the Federal Government would have to take over
control of the election! A new bureaucratic depart-
ment setup with all the attendent opportunities for
mischief by the Incumbent party. Also, we would see a
greater likelihood for factionalism in the Presidential
election along with increased hostility towards third
parties. People advocating abolishing the Electoral
College are totally ignoring its positive benefits.
The greatest one being a national mandate for the new
President.
This issue would have no traction if during our
history more elections had been thrown into the House
& Senate. People would be used to it and there would
be no reason to change this working system. Remember
in 1968, George Wallace almost suceeded in throwing
the election into the House with the 5 states he won.
He also came in second in 3 other Southern states. His
objective was to see who would give him the best deal.
That, would have made things quite interesting in 1969.
Go figure, the same nation [ah, fascist imperial global empire] that has the anti common sense Electorial College also has Congress instead of Parliament and Imperial measurements instead of metric!
henry dubb Says:
June 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I am not sure why you see IRV as irrelevant in the general election.
Most state elections are won without a majority vote, and nationally I think you got to go back to LBJ to find a Dem who won a majority of the popular vote.
Phil Sawyer adds:
Henry Dubb is very close to being correct. The Democratic Party really does have difficulty winning national elections. The main reason that Jimmy Carter was not a minority-elected president in 1976 was because of the almost total black-out of national news coverage (and exclusion from the debates) of the independent campaign of Eugene J. McCarthy. In addition, had the Libertarian Party nominated a person well known to the public, things may also have turned out in a different manner.
Phil Sawyer asks:
Donald: How would abolishing the electoral college be helpful to independent and “third party” candidates?
EVERY Prez since 1832 has been defacto elected by about 25-30 percent of the popular votes in the gerrymander States/DC producing a bare majority of the timebomb Electoral College votes.
See the 1860 E.C. timebomb election and the about 620,000 dead Americans in 1861-1865.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. for ALL legislative body elections.
A.V. for ALL elected executive offices and ALL judicial offices.
ALL parts of the U.S.A. will then see the same TV attack ads for Prez candidates.
Way too difficult for STONE AGE folks to understand.
I was thinking of a proposal the other day. I’m not a fan of abolishing the Electoral College but there are things we can favor. First, expand the size of the U.S. House. This will lead to a closer link between the representative and the constituents. Second, my proposal for allocating Electoral Votes would be the following:
The Congressional District EVs would be allocated to the elector or candidate with an absolute majority of the votes. The At-large EVs would be allocated by giving 1 (or 2) EVs to the electors or candidates with the most votes in the plurality round while the remaining EV would be allocated to the elector or candidate with an absolute majority of the votes in the majority round (including transfers from the elected electors). I don’t know if this proposal would be better with allocating EVs to the candidates or electors.
Expanding the size of the House would bankrupt the government. In addition to paying for all the extra office space and staff, we would end up paying for all of the extra pork barrel legislation. Expanding government in the very area which helps control the purse strings is not the answer.
Increase the number of electoral votes by apportioning them to the States, the capital district, and US territories on the basis of US citizen population over the age of 18, with at least one electoral vote per 10,000, and eliminate the presidential electors (persons).
Require that electoral votes be allocated on the basis of popular elections for President and Vice President (two elections). Give the State legislatures authority to regulate time, place, and manner, with a concurrent Congressional authority to override. Give Congress the authority to provide for the case in which no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes.
Simultaneously, rewrite Article V to provide for using electoral votes to determine passage of Amendments (perhaps 60% of electoral votes, and 50% of electoral votes in 60% of States). They could also be used for initiatives, referendums, and presidential veto overrides (50% of electoral votes, and 50% of electoral votes in 50% of States).
And finally provide that the right of US Citizens to vote for representatives and senators shall not be abridged on the basis of not being a resident of a State, with voting and apportionment being done as if such persons were residents of a State, as provided by Congress. Congress could provide that non-State resident persons could pick a State for this purpose.
Here is the complete text of SJ Res 39
==================================================
`Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be jointly elected by the direct vote of the qualified electors of the several States and territories and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States. The electors in each State, territory, and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the legislative body where they reside.
`Section 2. Congress may determine the time, place, and manner of holding the election, the entitlement to inclusion on the ballot, and the manner in which the results of the election shall be ascertained and declared.’.
==================================================
Important points:
1. Includes voters in territories.
2. Institutes joint election of President and Vice
President.
3. Replaces indirectly chosen (presidential) electors, with the voters. Note: Constitution does not use terms “presidential electors” or “electoral votes” or “electoral college” which are terms used to distingush the presidential procedure from the elections of representative and senators. This retains the conduct of presidential elections by the States (and avoids the federal government conducting presidential elections including registration, precincts, etc.).
4. Congress has time, place, manner authority over presidential elections, which they would presumably exercise more uniformly and completely than they currently provide for congressional elections, though this may trigger Congress to provide additional uniformity for congressional elections as well. Implicit in this authority is the ability to authorize runoff elections, etc.
5. Congress has explicit authority over ballot access and ascertainment of the results. This may be implicit in time, place, manner; but it emphasizes that the elections will be conducted by state electoral authorities. It also provides the authority for Congress to oversee the canvass of results and determine the winners in case of a contested election. Currently, Congress exercises such authority in a rather indirect fashion based on its counting of the electoral votes, which can then determine whether a presidential elector was properly appointed by a State or had exercised his vote properly.
Overall very excellent in leaving all details to legislation, and simply ignoring all the conflicting provisions in the Constitution, which will simply be regarded as having been superseded.