This British newspaper article features a British Professor of Systems Analysis and Applied Mathematics, Dr. Alex Belenky. Belenky has been studying the U.S. electoral college, and concludes that in the post World War II era, a presidential candidate could have been elected in all U.S. elections with the support of only 21.1% of voters. The article is also interesting because it shows that interest in the electoral college extends around the world.
Maybe it’s not too late for Michael Bloomberg to seek the Green Party nomination, and be elected president.
rumor is Cynthia McKinney is dropping out …after not reaching …matching funds…
abolish it now
abolish it soon!
You forget that the USA is the United STATES of America.
This is a close-knit federation of independent states.
The federal government is supposed to be tiny. Most power is to remain with the states.
Seen in this light, the electoral college makes sense.
Abolishing the electoral college is another step on the path towards a strong central government, which is not something we generally want in the US of A.
Thank you, George, for some sanity amidst the populist madness that usually surrounds this topic.
Here is a summary of this guy’s “slightly modified election rules” that he thinks “would make all the states ‘battleground'” and are therefore “likely to be supported by enough states to amend the Constitution”? (Quotes are from the article linked by Richard.)
The new election rules I have proposed would name as President the recipient of a majority of the nationwide popular vote and of the popular vote majorities in at least twenty-six states (or in twenty-five states and D.C.) as long as a majority of all eligible voters cast ballots in the election. This would be true even if another candidate won the Electoral College. Only if no candidate achieved [both of] the required majorities would the winner of at least 270 electoral votes—automatically awarded by the states and D.C. in the manners chosen by their legislatures—become the next President. If no candidate won at least 270 electoral votes either, then the proposed election rules would require the House of Representatives to choose a President, as the Twelfth Amendment directs.
I found this in an article in the Michigan Law Review.
With multiple parties the de facto popular vote percentage for a Prez can go way below 20 percent.
See the multi-party regimes in the U.K. and Canada for example.
Both the Donkey and Elephant party hack gang leaders are trying to get TOTAL control of the U.S.A. regime via a god – monarch – emperor Prez (chosen by a SMALL percentage of ALL Electors) — just in case some folks have been in a cave on the Moon since 1929.
Think a Donkey Stalin or an Elephant Hitler.
—
Democracy NOW — END the EVIL rule of the EVIL small State monarchs / oligarchs.
Abolish the time-bomb Electoral College and the U.S.A. Senate.
See the 620,000 dead after the 1860 Prez election due to the E.C. and the free State / slave State Senate machinations in 1789-1861.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and A.V.
— before the gerrymander MONSTER Devils in the gerrymander Congress start Civil WAR II and/or World WAR III.
How many New Age math MORONS are there who love ANTI-Democracy regimes ??? — regimes that have things like the GENOCIDE of the American Indian tribes to about 1890, SLAVERY until 1865, inflations, depressions, undeclared WARS, giant govt debts, etc.
Is everybody armed and ready for a 269-269 TIE in the timebomb Electoral College in Nov-Dec 2008 — and one or more of the MORON Prez/VP candidates shoots off his/her mouth and makes INTOLERABLE comments ???
Stuff does happen — regardless of business as usual wonks.
Ron Paul is not a proponent of a strong central government. Nevertheless, on five occasions, he has introduced a bill to outlaw restrictive state ballot access laws in federal elections.
It doesn’t follow logically that just because we want a weak central government, therefore we like the electoral college and we want ballot access hurdles for federal office to be different in every state.
Interest in the electoral college certainly does extend beyond your borders!
There is a REALLY simple solution to the problems in the electoral college and the need to make all states battleground states rather than have whole areas of the USA basically ignored in Presidential elections.
1. Allocate electoral college membership proportionally according to votes cast for the candidates in the state concerned.
er … that’s it…
How about this idea? If a candidate gets 50%+1 of the votes in a state, that candidate gets all of the state’s Electoral Votes. If not, the state’s Electoral Votes would be allocated proportionally.
Ron Paul’s proposed HR 3600 would double the number of signatures needed to get on the congressional ballot in Texas, though it would make it much easier in States with intolerant legislatures such as California where I’ve read it requires 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot.
Newsflash: the USA already does have a highly centralized government. In fact, most of the real power has been in the hands of the presidency since Truman. Abolishing the “Electoral College” in favor of the popular vote will make everyone’s votes count, regardless if people live in “deeply red” or “deeply blue” states.
From #6: first off, does the writer mean a majority
of the eligble votes being cast nationally or within
each State? Second: how in the world is this number
suppossed to be computed? Many people who refuse to
register do so because either they think its a waste
of time or don’t really understand how or why it’s
expected that they vote. Also in California & some
other states there are vast numbers of non-citizen
adults many here illegally, yet they would be counted
because they are here. Four: One area where this
does benefit things is that it mimics Switzerland’s
policy of referendum only passing when both 50+%
of the total vote cast & a majority (12 of 23) of the
cantons approve a measure. Interestingly enough the
only other TRUE FEDERATION structure for electing the
country’s Chief Executive!
Many object to the use of gerry-mandered House seats
to divide the Electoral College. It is unavoidable
if one wants to follow the Founders intent on this
issue. There are some areas particularly in the large
states where one of the 2 main parties dominates and
so it is impossible to eliminate ‘rotten boroughs’.
The best we can do is to fight for rough parity in
the re-drawing of the borders every 10 years. Totally
ignore demographics and try to keep entire incorporated
cities intact as far as possible. Electing a President
will still be messy, but then again isn’t that the
purpose of elections? There is no reason for National
elections to be so cut-and-dried.
George Donnelly Says:
June 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am
“You forget that the USA is the United STATES of America.
This is a close-knit federation of independent states.”
Well, then what is the proper place for non states, like Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa, etc…
Ron Paul’s bill wouldn’t increase the difficulty of ballot access in any state. It sets a ceiling, but states would be free to be lower than that ceiling.
U.S.A. regime — 3 ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems –
House of Reps.
Senate
Electoral College
ALL 50 States — ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems for each house of each State legislature.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander areas is about 25 percent MINORITY RULE in each gerrymander system. Worse for the U.S.A. Senate.
Democracy NOW — regardless of the more and more wonk MORONS.
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
P.R. and A.V.
whether we are a “close knit federation of states” or not, the only things the electoral college achieves are twofold :
-it gives smaller states a voice disproportionate to their population. Necessary at the formation of our union, but undemocratic.
-it is a “safety valve” against those crazy masses and who they might vote for. Not usually used, but undemocratic as well.
it’s an antiquated institution with no place in the modern world, in or democracy.
@#12 Maybe if people stopped going frenetic about the race for president they would spend more time on local elections, where their vote counts more and where they can have a greater impact.
It only takes one state going entirely free to serve as an example that ignites freedom in dozens of others.
@#14 Perhaps the USA should not be in the business of protectorates, which is another word for taxation with representation.
Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and friends should either be states or separate nations.
@#17 Define disproportionate. In these US of A, each state has a level of equality in that they each must have at least 2 senators and 1 representative and on this is based the electoral college.
This goes back to the concept that the US is a federation of states and NOT a nation with a strong central government (or, should not be). Remember states’ rights?
Remember Ross Perot? The “crazy masses” got behind him but at 19% abolishing the electoral college would not have helped him.
Mr Winger: Can we get the subscribe to comments wordpress plugin here? It will enable people to know when the conversation has been updated.
A promising approach to electoral reform, that does not require a constitutional amendment, is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 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 would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal.
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. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are 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 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.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers in large and small states (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in the large and small states of Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
#19 NO approval so far by the gerrymander Congress of the NPV scheme – U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 10, para. 3 — thus the NPV scheme is blatantly unconstitutional.
Sorry – choosing a Prez is not some sort of trivial matter for some scheme among some States.
The NPV scheme also BLATANTLY violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
Also – current Electoral College stuff is an INTERNAL State activity — Art. II, Sec. 1 and the 12th Amdt — NOT to be determined by stuff OUTSIDE of each State.
What if all 50 State legislatures said the Prez results in such 50 States would be determined by the Prez votes in only D.C. ??? New Age INSANE and unconstitutional.
Proper Remedy – ABOLISH the E.C. — just like slavery was abolished by the 13th Amdt.
Uniform definition of Elector.
A.V. for ALL elected executive officers and all judges.
Too difficult for the armies of MORONS who have some brain dead Stone Age fixation with the ANTI-Democracy math of the Electoral College.
#19. Let’s say that there are only two candidates A and B.
Cases 1+2) A wins the popular vote, A wins the electoral vote (under current system). Under the current system or a NPV compact, A wins.
Case 1) B carries State Q. It does not matter whether or not there is a NPV compact, or whether State Q is a member. B loses. State Q is disappointed.
Case 2) A carries State Q. It does not matter whether or not there is a NPV compact, or whether State Q is a member. A wins. State Q is happy.
Cases 3+4) A wins the popular vote, B wins the electoral vote (under current system). Under the current system, B wins. Under a NPV compact, A wins.
Case 3) B carries State Q. Under the current system, State Q is happy. But under the NPV compact, someone who was not favored by State Q would be elected. If State Q were actually a member of the NPV compact they would have to appoint electors contrary to the wishes of the voters of Q, even if candidate A only had 20% of Q voters and had campaigned on an Anti-Q platform.
Case 4) A carries State Q. Under the current system, State Q is disappointed. But under the NPV compact, A would win. But this would be the result regardless of whether Q was a member of the compact or not, because Q’s electors would vote for A in either case. The only reason for Q to join the compact is would be to induce other States to also join, but most particularly States that are likely to vote the opposite of Q, but whose votes Q could outweigh.
So 90+% of the time it doesn’t matter. And in every case it would make a difference, at least one State would have to appoint electors whose vote was contrary to that of the majority of its voters.
#19 If the NPV compact were enacted, would the 2/3 of the visits to just 6 States be dispersed among all States or would the candidates increase their total number of visits? That is would the candidates switch their visits from Dayton, Toledo, and Akron to San Antonio, Buffalo, and Fresno? That is from smaller cities in a battleground State, to medium-sized cities in larger non-battle ground States? Or would they try to add Lubbock, Syracuse, and Modesto as well?
And would the spending be dispersed or simply increased?
Wouldn’t it be more productive under a NPV compact to expend more effort in States where you have a large majority, and perhaps could increase turnout for your guy by 400,000 even if it encouraged 200,000 opponents to come out; than spending it in a battleground State where you might get 310,000 of your supporters but 290,000 opponents. Wouldn’t this increase polarization?