See this story in TalkingPointsMemo. It says the the Obama campaign is working to carry the Nebraska 2nd Congressional District. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states in which each U.S. House district chooses its own presidential elector. The Nebraska 2nd District is centered on Omaha, and even though Republicans have a registration advantage in all three of Nebraska’s districts, the margin is narrowest in the 2nd District. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
This is a good demonstration of what we need to do to perfect the Electoral College system. We need to get the states to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system. It opens up the process and it can be done one state at a time. It is in the best interest of the voters and each individual state would benefit as well. It is a reasonable reform effort that could be pursued to open up Presidential elections while maintaining the EC.
The Electoral College is essential in maintaining a balance of power between the already overbloated Federal government and the States. Without the Electoral College, the remaining power of the states and rights of the people would be quickly usurped by the Feds.
LP,
Very, very bad idea.
If everyone uses the district method all we’ve done is moved from swing states to swing districts. This would give politicians even more incentive to gerrymander congressional districts. I wouldn’t be surprised to see many states redrawing districts before every Presidential election to maximize their party’s chances of winning.
Doing it one state at a time is even worse. Imagine if California did this alone. Just about any Republican is a shoo-in to win the presidency because the Democrats simply can’t win without California.
The Maine/Nebraska system is a horrible idea. We already elect a legislature from bizarrely gerrymandered districts; why would we want to elect a president the same way?
And no one has ever been able to give me a concrete example of how the Electoral College gives “power” to the states.
“I wouldn’t be surprised to see many states redrawing districts before every Presidential election to maximize their party’s chances of winning”
– Redistricting is done only once every 10 years following the cencus. Doing it more often would be illegal.
no one has ever been able to give me a concrete example of how the Electoral College gives “power†to the states.
– The Electoral College does not give power to the states. It keeps power out of the hands of the Federal Government. This is completely different.
This occurs because the elected President and future aspirants must always keep in mind that they have to be elected State by State and cannot rely on a mass of votes garnered in only a few large cities, for example.
The Electoral College also greatly reduces the effectiveness of electoral fraud and thereby reduces its incidence.
We need to fix the gerrymandering problem anyway. It’s a minor problem relatively and occurs after each census. But, the Maine/Nebraska system would mean the electoral votes would more closely match the direct votes.
One thing that you never hear anyone talk about is just how horrible the problems of a nationwide direct election of the President would be.
Imagine in 2000 if we had to recount the entire country. It was a close vote. Imagine the voter fraud that would be committed in advance in those states and especially local precincts that are overwhelmingly controlled by one party.
We would have hundreds of thousands of dead people voting in every election. In the one party areas we would see inflated voter rolls and turnouts at or in excess of 100%. The problem of voter fraud and the massive turmoil of recounts in the inevitable close elections … this would be a horrible development for the US.
We also need to be practical. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College would NEVER pass.
It takes 3/4 of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment. That means that it requires 38 states to pass identical amendment resolutions. It only takes 13 states to block.
So, which states would NEVER sacrifice their rights of statehood? Which states would NEVER agree to give up their limited remaining power versus the Federal monster?
Here is my list of states that will NEVER vote to end the Federal system and the Electoral College:
Maine
New Hampshire
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Texas
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Kentucky
Nebraska
North Dakota
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Nevada
Arizona
Alaska
So, even if abolition were a good idea, which it is decidedly NOT, the Electoral College is here to stay.
But, we can improve it, state by state by spreading the Maine/Nebraska plan.
This will make elections MORE fair.
It will make the electoral system more stable.
It will mean candidates will have to campaign in MORE places and appeal to MORE voters.
It will REDUCE the benefits from and incidence of voter fraud.
It will REDUCE the importance of recounts, which, when necessary, would occur district by district, and seldom, statewide. And statewide recounts would have a much reduced impact on the outcome.
Most importantly: It is a reasonable, achievable reform that can be undertaken NOW, implemented state by state, with improvments and benefits as each state adopts the plan.
1. It is not illegal to redistrict more often than every ten years.
2. A Constitutional amendment is not necessary in order to achieve a national popular vote.
3. The unsupported and vague claim that electing a president state by state, rather than by a national popular vote, holds presidents more accountable to states is not “concrete.” Explain the mechanism. In detail.
Mr. Prindle,
2. Probably not, but at worst Congress would have to agree to the national popular vote compact. One would think that this would be easy going if enough states ratified the compact.
I oppose the ‘Nebraska/Maine plan’ and I actually live in Nebraska. It does not help me in any way here, as my party has no chance of winning a district in a presidential election. Secondly, the real solution is nationwide popular vote, with instant-runoff-voting for president. Thirdly, the corrupt, gerrymandered single member districts for US House of Representatives simply need to be scrapped in favor of proportional representation and party lists. Keeping the bar for entrance very low (like 1%), will ensure that regional parties can get in. That is the only way to make everyone’s vote count.
If we ended the electoral college, and had a Florida type dispute, we would face the prospect of a nation-wide recount. Having the electoral college limits a recount to a single state, or possibly a couple of states.
If Florida had chosen electors by district, the recounts could have been limited to selected districts.
Anyway, I support a national change to choosing electors by Congressional districts.
Some folks once thought that slavery was here to stay forever (13th Amdt), that the gerrymander U.S.A. Senate would be chosen forever by the gerrymander State legislatures (17th Amdt), that women would never get the vote (19th Amdt), etc. etc. etc.
Gerrymanders = MINORITY RULE — half the votes in half the gerrymander areas = 25 percent (or less – as in the case of the gerrymander U.S.A. Senate).
Bush II got 27.0 (repeat 27.0) percent of the popular votes in 29 gerrymander States to get him 271 of 538 gerrymander Electoral College votes in 2004.
See the FEC.gov website – Library
Federal Elections, 2004
ALL Presidents have been de facto chosen by such type of minority rule math since 1832.
Democracy NOW
Abolish the gerrymander timebomb Electoral College — that helped cause the killing of about 620,000 Americans in 1861-1865.
Uniform definition of Elector.
Nonpartisan nominations (via nominating petitions) and elections (via Approval Voting) for all elected executive officers and all judges.
P.R. for all legislative body elections.
OTHERWISE – Count to 666 and watch the EVIL happen by the EVIL minority rule monarchs / oligarchs.
See both the nutcase extremists Obama and McCain doing their EVIL pandering machinations in the marginal gerrymander areas (about 10 States at most) via a zillion TV attack ads — i.e. ignoring about 80 percent of the U.S.A.
Also – paper ballots NOW — counted ONCE by human eyeballs.
How brain dead EVIL are incumbent party hacks ???
More EVIL than Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, etc. ???
In the late 19th century, people said it would be impossible to change the method for electing US Senators, since the Senate had to approve the constitutional amendment, and the current Senators had all been chosen by state legislators, and therefore it would never pass the Senate because all the Senators liked the old method, since the old method is what put them in office. But those people were wrong. The 17th amendment did pass the Senate.
Richard, your example is a very different situation.
Direct election of Senators gave more power to the individual citizens in each state. It was the people in each state against their respective state governments.
However, with the direct election of the President, it is the People who will lose. This is especially in the smaller states and the small cities and towns and rural areas of every state. These people will be disenfranchised.
Further, people know or will understand that direct election of the President will lead to a massive increase in Federal power. That is why the states I listed will never pass such a change. It is not in the interest of the CITIZENS of those states to make such a change.
Finally, direct election of the President would lead to MASSIVE vote fraud. Bigger than anything ever seen before. In one party dominated areas, the incentive to “run up the score” by any means available would be overwhelming. These areas would see phony voter turnouts approaching or exceeding 100%.
It is NOT in our interest to change the EC. We can elect a President as a 3rd Party easier if we keep it.
It is NOT in our interest to change the EC because we will lose more of our diminishing Freedoms.
In is NOT in our interest to TRY to change the EC because it is a waste of our limited time and financial resources.
We CAN change to the Maine/Nebraska system. It is in nearly everyone’s interest to do so, it perfects the EC system, and it has NONE of the drawbacks that derive from abandoning the Electoral College.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.
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 National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
There would less opportunity for a close election under nationwide popular election of the President than the prevailing statewide winner-take-all system.
A close outcome is considerably less likely in an election with a single pool of votes of 122,000,000 popular votes than in an election in which there are 51 separate pools and hence 51 separate opportunities for a close outcome. Moreover, a close outcome is considerably less likely in larger pool than a smaller one. Thus, a close outcome is less likely in a pool of 122,000,000 popular votes than in pools that are only 1/51th as large (about 2,400,000).
The 2004 election was also not close in terms of the nationwide popular vote. President George W. Bush had a nationwide lead of about 3,500,000 popular votes. However, people had to wait until the morning of Wednesday November 3, 2004, to find out the outcome of the popular vote in Ohio. A switch of 59,388 popular votes in Ohio would have given Kerry all of Ohio’s 20 electoral votes and the Presidency. Again, the illusion of closeness in 2004 resulted from the statewide winner-take-all system used in Ohio—not because the election was genuinely close on a nationwide basis.
The 2000 presidential election is remembered as being close because George W. Bush’s total of 2,912,790 popular votes in Florida was a mere 537 more than Gore’s statewide total of 2,912,353. Under the statewide winner-take-all rule used in Florida, the 537-vote lead entitled Bush to all 25 of Florida’s electoral votes. There was, however, nothing particularly close about the 2000 presidential election on a nationwide basis. Al Gore had a nationwide lead of 537,179 popular votes. Gore’s nationwide lead was larger than, for example, Nixon’s lead of 510,314 in 1968 and Kennedy’s lead of 118,574 in 1960. The closeness of the 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis manufactured by Florida’s use of the statewide winner-take-all system. No one would even have considered a recount in 2000 if the nationwide popular vote had controlled the outcome. No one would have cared whether Bush did, or did not, carry Florida by 537 popular votes.
In fact, no presidential election since the 19th century has been won by less than 118,000 votes on a nationwide basis. The closest presidential election since 1900 was the 1960 election in which John F. Kennedy led Richard M. Nixon by 118,574 popular votes nationwide. A margin of 118,574 popular votes is not particularly close and unlikely to be overturned by a recount. The 1960 election is remembered as being close because a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and a switch 4,782 votes in South Carolina would have given Nixon a majority of the electoral votes. If Nixon had carried both of those states, Kennedy would still have been ahead nationwide by almost 110,000 popular votes, but Nixon would have won the Presidency. In any case, the perceived closeness of the 1960 election was an illusion manufactured by the statewide winner-take-all system used in Illinois and South Carolina—not because the nationwide margin of 118,574 was ever likely to be overturned by any recount.
Even the highly controversial 1876 presidential election was not close in terms of the nationwide popular vote. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received 4,288,191 popular votes—254,694 more than the 4,033,497 popular votes received by Rutherford B. Hayes (a percentage lead greater than George W. Bush’s 2004 lead of 2.8%). The 1876 election is remembered as being close because Hayes had extremely narrow popular-vote leads in several states, namely
* 889 votes in South Carolina,
* 922 votes in Florida,
* 1,050 votes in Oregon,
* 1,075 votes in Nevada, and
* 2,798 votes in California.
The closeness of the 1876 presidential election was an artificial crisis created by the statewide winner-take-all system.
Of course, if there was a close division of 122,000,000 on a nationwide basis, it would be very likely that the vote count would simultaneously be close in a number of states.
Even with a single pool of 122,000,000 votes, it is conceivable that the nationwide popular vote could someday be extremely close (say, a few hundred or a few thousand votes out of 122,000,000). In that event, the inevitable recount and controversy would be handled in the same way as its is currently handled—that is, under the generally serviceable laws that govern all elections. The guiding principle in such circumstances should be that all votes should be counted as fairly and expeditiously as possible.
In terms of logistics, the personnel and procedures for a nationwide recount are already in place because every state is always prepared to conduct a statewide recount after any election. Indeed, there are statewide recounts for certain statewide offices and ballot propositions in virtually every election cycle. As Senator David Durenberger (R–Minnesota) said in the Senate in 1979, “There is no reason to doubt the ability of the States and localities to manage a recount, and nothing to suggest that a candidate would frivolously incur the expense of requesting one. And even if this were not the case, the potential danger in selecting a President rejected by a majority of the voters far outweighs the potential inconvenience in administering a recount.”
LP:
I have to disagree with most of your points.
Direct election would NOT disenfranchise voters in small states. They would have a vote equal to everyone else. If you mean to say they would lose power relative to large states, then you must admit that voters in large states are currently disenfranchised.
The fraud argument is interesting. Somehow, the election will be more fraudulent when scaled up to a larger level. Does this happen within states? Do we see rampant election fraud in states that have many counties reporting results to a central count?
What on earth does direct election have to do with federal power?
I doubt a 3rd party would be more likely elect a president. More probably, such a contested election would go to congress, which by definition wouldn’t be controlled by 3rd parties.
Election Fraud:
Look at Illinois, Chicago. The Democrats have been using election fraud, thousands of double and triple votes by multiple registrants and dead people voting. They use this to swing statewide elections outside Chicago. But, the effectiveness of their fraud only allows them to swing the State of Illinois.
They can, of course, swing ALL of the Electoral Votes, hence the large incentive for fraud in a close election.
The Maine/Nebraska plan would elimate this problem. The Chicago fraud machine could only swing their local Congressional Districts, which they would win anyway. Thus, fraud is dramatically reduced.
Now, what happens if we go to nationwide voting.
Under nationwide voting, every one party town, city or precinct can become another Chicago. They will all be tempted, and thousands of districts will become electoral fraud machines.
I lived in such a town.
In this small town, the Republicans controlled everything. Votes were counted and watched by poll watchers and poll workers representing “both” parties. Of course, there weren’t enough real local Democrats to have a party, let alone a Party.
So, the local Republicans organized a team to take over the local Democrat party. They registered as Democrats and became the D party poll watchers and vote counters.
This district became a really reliable source of votes for statewide Republican candidates. They always had much higher than average voter turnout in every election, with the votes going to R candidates.
The movement for a Nationwide vote will lead to massive voter fraud and violence nationwide.
All of the historical examples comparing the nationwide vote totals for President in the past have no value in election closeness or saying that one candidate actually won because his vote count was higher.
This is just foolish.
In these historical elections, no one tried to maximize their votes totals. They tried to maximize their Electoral Votes.
For example, the Democrats never try for a maximum turnout in DC. It’s pointless, they always win. We have no idea what the vote totals would have been under another system, although you can be sure that in a one party area like DC, they could boost “turnout” to 90% or more, without actually having more people come to the polls.
The same would happen in the one party Republican areas.
Result. Massive, competing voter fraud machines, leading to violence and a complete fascist-socialist takeover.
Nationwide voting would make the US a banana republic.
As to elections being close:
If an election is within 1/2 of 1 % there will always be a recount.
Think about Florida.
Imagine recounting the whole country.
Every time there is a Presidential election where the difference in vote totals is less than 1 million there will be a nationwide recount.
That’ll be a great reform.
Chaos. Lawyers. Fist fights. Riots. Tanks. Martial law. The final end of Liberty in America.
In the state of Maine, EVERY recount for many years was won by the Democrats. This was when 25 year incumbent, Speaker of the House, John Martin controlled the State legislature. Finally his two assistants, his only two assistants, were caught stuffing the recount ballot boxes late at night in Augusta.
They served very short terms in local jails, like 30 days.
They claimed that John Martin didn’t know.
The judges were Democrats too.
More centralization will increase this fraud.
LP: Sounds like we should stop fraud, not prevent every vote from counting equally. I’m sorry, but your view seems quite extremist. I pretty sure that we can have nationwide elections without martial law and the final end of liberty in America.
And as a counter example, I provide florida 2000. Yes, it made things drawn out, and there were lawyers and concerns about partisan politics, etc. But I don’t remember tanks in the streets. That’s not because we had an electoral college, it’s because we’re not a tank in the street people.
We didn’t have a big problem in Florida because there wasn’t any significant fraud. No one knew in advance the election would be so close. No one knew if would come down to a tight recount in Florida.
So, the incentive to commit massive fraud in Florida, or anywhere else, wasn’t present.
At the same time, the recount was localized. It was depersonalized for everyone outside of Florida.
*****
This is not the way it would be in a nationwide election. People would know, as we do this year, that NATIONWIDE, the election will be close.
So, people would already be planning to run up the vote in the one party areas. Massive fraud would already be underway.
Then, if we ended up within 500,000 votes, a massive, nationwide recount would ensue. And yes, this year, we could have lawyers, legal battles, fistfights, riots and tanks in the streets.
Thank God that won’t happen.
Thank God we have the Electoral College System to give us stability and keep us free.
#23 — Sorry the INSTABILITY of the EVIL Electoral College system from Hell killed about 620,000 Americans in 1861-1865 in the super-horrific Civil War — and maimed multi-thousands for life — no eyes, hands, arms, feet, legs — besides the mental injuries of ALL of the survivors — seeing fellow soldiers / sailors inches or feet away being blown apart.
REAL Democracy NOW.
Uniform definition of Elector.
Paper ballots counted ONCE by human eyeballs — with perhaps public DEATH penalties for illegal voting, illegal counting, illegal reporting — i.e. make vote fraud as evil dangerous as treason or murder.
How many nations manage to survive by having an elected chief executive officer ???
It seems that all 50 States manage to survive with elected Governors, elected mayors, etc.
Because of the way the electoral and popular votes interact with each other there have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different.
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html