The Wall Street Journal of July 12 has this op-ed, attacking the National Popular Vote Plan and defending the Electoral College as it is today. The op-ed is by Political Science Professor David Lewis Schaefer, who teaches at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.
The op-ed makes several assertions that are not supported by the evidence. It says a system in which the voters elect the president directly “would encourage more minor-party candidates” and says this would be a bad thing because someone could win with a small share of the vote. Actually, if the goal is to have a system in which no one is elected without having a majority of the vote, one should favor the system used by France. In France, the voters elect the president directly, but there is a run-off if no one gets 50% in the first round. The run-off is held only three weeks after the first round.
It is the current system in which someone may get elected with a relatively small share of the vote. The current system produced Abraham Lincoln in 1860, even though he only had 39.8% of the popular vote. It also produced John Quincy Adams in 1824 with 31.9%, Woodrow Wilson in 1912 with 41.8%, Richard Nixon in 1968 with 43.4%, and Bill Clinton in 1992 with 43.0%.
The op-ed also says, “In a two-party race, you can’t win an election without demonstrating your acceptability to a large swath of the public”, but there has been no presidential election with just two candidates, or just two parties, since 1864.
The op-ed also reveals an ignorance about minor parties when it refers to “Ross Perot’s 1992 Reform Party.” The Reform Party was not founded until 1995; Perot was an independent candidate in 1992.
Uniform definition of Elector
P.R. – legislative
A.V. – executive/judicial
— pending MAJOR education about head to head math.
Way too difficult for genius-MORON profs and gerrymander monsters in the Congress and State legislatures to understand ???
What event will really set things off — perhaps a quite possible 269-269 tie in the timebomb Electoral College in 2008 ???
“acceptable to a large swatch of the public”?!…what a load of bunk when we only have maybe 50% of the “public” voting in any presidential election. and heaven forbid “encourage third parties”…like the present third party Republicans. too bad they snuck through somehow.
and a reminder to this gentleman prof Schaefer…independents are a plurality of voters in this country. a pox on both parties!
[I]f the goal is to have a system in which no one is elected without having a majority of the vote, one should favor the system used by France. In France, the voters elect the president directly, but there is a run-off if no one gets 50% in the first round.
Instant runoff voting (IRV) is quicker, cheaper and more fair than two-round runoff. The French system can exclude a candidate with the support of a majority coalition from the second round, as shown by the famous 2002 example involving Chirac, Le Pen and Jospin.
Yeah, the bit about “demonstrating your acceptability to a large swath of the public†is total BS. In a two person race, acceptability is not the concern at all. The concern is just being a little better than the other guy to a slight majority of people.
Rupart Murdock and the Wall Street Journal are for the anti populist and antiquated Electorial College. Two good reasons to relegate such nonsense [which I have hated since grade school, some four million years ago] to the ‘dust bin of history’!
For any children, moron lawyers and super-moron profs on this list —
Politics 001
Democracy = Majority Rule, direct or indirect
Monarchy/Oligarchy = Minority Rule, direct or indirect
Take your pick. — See the millions killed, injured and enslaved by minority rule regimes in the 1900s — 2 World Wars and many, many civil wars due to EVIL killer monarchs, oligarchs and their stooges.
I agree with the electoral college, since it requires a candidate to get the support from many different states, instead of piling up the vote in his home state (like W in TX, or Hillary in NY in 2012). Also, there is the temptation for voter fraud in a few big states.
“I agree with the electoral college, since it requires a candidate to get the support from many different states, instead of piling up the vote in his home state (like W in TX, or Hillary in NY in 2012). Also, there is the temptation for voter fraud in a few big states.”
What planet have you been on all your life? The current system encourages fraud in particluar states, because just getting the electoral college votes of what state can put a candidate over the top. Illinois in 1960 comes to mind (there was definitely rampant mob and democratic party machine fraud in that contest).
Seriously. in a popular vote setup, voter fraud would have to be huge in scale to make a difference.
compare that to 2000 florida, where voter fraud to the tune of about 600 votes would have decided the national election. much easier to cover up.
Direct election of the President or National Popular Vote would: INCREASE the likelyhood and effectiveness of voter fraud, DECREASE the ability of third parties to compete in elections at all levels, and INCREASE the power of the Federal Government versus the states and take the US further down the road toward fascism and tyranny.
We should all work toward the adoption of the Maine/Nebraska system of choosing Presidential Electors. It has the benefit of making the electoral vote more closely match the will of the electorate, it makes elections more competitive, it increases opportunities for third parties, it makes elections more fair for the voters within a single state regardless of the actions of other states and it can be inacted one state at a time without the need to get every state to join in.
Keep the Electoral College.
Make it work as intended by the founders and as explained by Roger MacBride in his book on the Electoral College.
Adopt the Maine/Nebraska system.
Attention any and all math MORONS on this list —
Half the votes in half the rigged gerrymander areas = about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule.
Worse minority rule with unequal gerrymander areas and multiple candidates.
Only about 6 States will be marginal for Prez in 2008.
Abolish the timebomb Electoral College — a STONE AGE piece of political junk – like divine right of kings, slavery, titles of nobility, etc. etc.
Go out and count the about 620,000 dead in the horrific Civil War in 1861-1865 after the timebomb gerrymander election in 1860.
See #1 remedies.
A Maine/Nebraska system would be even worse than the current system. Also, it’s pretty ridiculous to object it to the National Popular Vote Plan based on the assumption that people may break the law and thus throw the election. Are there really that many people who have held back from committing voter fraud because they feel their vote may not have an effect? Plus, does anyone really believe that the deeply entrenched American two-party system is going to be undone just because this plan will have been put in place? And if this plan did end up bringing chaos to the nation, the states can always withdraw and go back to the original system.
This is an academic discussion. The Electoral College is not going anywhere, since its elimination would reduce the clout of the small states.
#10: The reason more states don’t enact the Maine/Nebraska system is that “winner take all” maximizes a state’s impact on the process. It’s worth noting, too, that in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the statewide vote has always carried each US House district too (since the current system has been in place).
If the president were elected directly and we had a close election: instead of waiting for the outcome of the vote in one state (like Florida), we would be waiting for the outcome in, say, Chicago and Honolulu.
Imagine the uncertainty of a nationwide vote recount.
Of course the Electoral College is not going away, because, as Mr. Rankin says, many states, not just small states, but states that value the Constitution and the Federal nature of our government insured by “States’ Rights” will not vote to abolish it. It would take 3/4ths of the states to approve a change.
But, people who want a better system can push state by state for the Maine/Nebraska system. It can be adopted state by state. It can be passed by citizens of a state, who believe that fairness is more important that “clout.” If enough states passed this system, the rest would follow.
States likely to pass a Maine/Nebraska system would include: states where the vote is often close and voters feel disenfranchised when the “winner take all” system allocates all their votes to the other side. In fairness to all their citizens, both parties could be persuaded to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system of choosing E.C. members one from each Congressional District and two statewide.
Likewise, states that usually go for only one party, but have one or more competitive Congessional Districts could adopt the plan based on the fact that having one or more competitive E.C. votes would bring more attention from the Candidates.
This plan would reduce the impact of fraud by limiting it’s swing value to a single Electoral Vote, plus a lesser impact on the two state votes.
In Chicago, where thousands of dead voters have cast ballots in an effort to swing an entire state block of Electoral Votes, the impact, value and therefore the likelihood of fraud would be reduced by adopting the Maine/Nebraska system. It would be in the interest of the IL State GOP, Independents and 3rd Parties to adopt it in Illinois and therefore it would be likely to pass.
This is a system that can pass.
This is a system that can make the process fair.
This is the system that we should work for.
The disaster that would result from the direct election of the President is so horrible that such a system must be rejected by all thinking Americans.
First, it is just better to have a system that requires candidates to pay attention to constituencies in various states. The only thing better would be to do it by Congressional District as under the Maine/Nebraska system.
Second, as pointed out by another poster above, having to recount an entire nation in a close election for President would be a nightmare. AND knowing that every vote in Chicago, Montana, West Virginia, DC, or any single party controlled district could trump the voters in an entire close state like California would encourage massive voter fraud in single party areas in an attempt to swing not just a district or city or state, but an entire nation in EVERY Presidential election. The number of dead, vegetative, senile, duplicate and non-existent voters would bring “voter turnout” in some areas up to 100% OR HIGHER.
This alone is reason enough to eschew the stupidity of direct election.
Finally, the only thing that kept the US from becoming an absolute dictatorship in the 20th Century was States’ Rights. The fact that States have power, control Electoral Votes, and have some control over their National Guard units is what prevented the coup attempts that would have brought an end to elections altogether.
The Electoral College is as essential to maintaining liberty in the US as are the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution.
We MUST keep the Electoral College system.
We should perfect it with the Maine/Nebraska plan of selecting E.C. members.
Earlier this year, there was briefly an effort to get an initiative for the Maine/Nebraska system on the California ballot.
If that system had been in effect there in 2004, Bush would have gotten 20+ of California’s electoral votes.