Comments on: Sen. Nelson: Abolish Electoral College

By: Jim Hoffman

Jim Hoffman — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:50:29 +0000

This is an idea who’s time has come for 3 important reasons:

1) If you in the minority in a very strong “red” or “blue” state - you might as well not even vote and you don’t exist to presidential candidates - you have essentially been written off and your wishes are not heeded. This is terrible for turn out among young people and minorities.

2) Your vote is only important in a “swing” state such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania. 50% of media resources and candidate time is devoted to winning in just those 3 states.

3) Because of the 2 party stanglehold - you cant even effectively make
a protest vote since independent parties are swamped by the 2 major parties.

Studies emphasize that not only does the traditional Electoral College lead to elections narrowly focusing on a few states, but that the problem is in fact getting worse. In 1960, 25 states with 327 electoral votes were battlegrounds; by 2004, only 13 states with 159 electoral votes were considered competitive.

The Electoral College is what has given us the ridiculous convention of “Red” versus “Blue” states, as if the voters for the minority party in any state doesn’t exist– but then again, under the Electoral College, they might as well not exist if they aren’t in the majority in a closely contested state.

The result is that voters in most states never see a candidate or even see a political commercial. In 2004, for example, more than half of all campaign resources were dedicated to just three states– Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. More money was spent on television advertising in Florida during the heart of the 2004 campaign than in 45 states and the District of Columbia combined. 18 states saw neither a candidate visit nor received a cent of spending on TV advertisements.

For campaigns, there is no gain in encouraging increased turnout of their supporters in states where they can’t get a majority or where they already have a safe win. Inevitably, a byproduct of the Electoral College is decreased turnout in less competitive states, since voters aren’t e even being encouraged to vote by their own candidates. In 2004, voter turnout was 63% in the 12 most competitive states, while it was only 53% in the 12 least competitive states. Among young voters, the effect is especially profound with voter turnout among 18-29 year-olds was 64.4% in the 10 most competitive states and 47.6% in the remaining states – a gap of 17%.

Abolishing the Electoral College through establishing National Popular Vote is therefore one of the most important tools available to increase voter turnout– and especially key for encouraging young voters to participate in our democracy and to feel that their vote actually matters

2 state have already approved of the NPV - 2 more states in the next 6 months are likely to approve and 14 states have already passed the NPV in one chamber. Common Cause and FairVote believe this will pass the 270 electoral votes by 2012 to be the law of the land

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:28:18 +0000

Bring the Bayh-Celler Amendment back from the grave - after the Bush presidency an amendment removing the Electoral College stands a very good chance of passing. The top 11 Electoral states result in the winner - and although it is unlikely any one candidate would win those 11 - the possibility remains that if someone wins the other 39 states they still lose - even though they won 78% of the states. If an amendment passed both chambers and the president signed it - it stands a good chance of passing 38 states.

By: kritter

kritter — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:55:21 +0000

Lead zeppelin anyone? This is probably dead in the water. The electoral college system increases the voting power of many states by a factor of 1.2 or better. And it only diminishes the voting power of a handful of states by more than 5 or 10%.

What does that mean? It means that there aren’t enough states whose best interests would be served by changing the system. Sorry, folks! Remember, the constiution requires 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect. So it takes only 13 states to stop such a change.

Take a visit to thiswiki entry on states listed by population that includes electoral votes and see for yourself. It’s not too hard to count to 13. Residents of any state with less than 1% of the total US population would have to be out of their minds to vote to ratify an amendment that would virtually guarantee that they’d be ignored during presidential elections. And that is surely what would happen. Politicians would stick even more closely to densely populated areas because that’s where the votes would be.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:20:42 +0000

Of course the electoral college was created before the days of mass media and its effects on elections. If we can’t go to a true popular vote we still need to come up with something better. I agree with Terence’s point about the weakness of systems based on congressional districts with our current ratio of representatives to populace in the house. I don’t know if we want to go as far as having 2000 representatives but doubling the number of them would be a good thing if combined with nationwide redistricting reform. While we’re at it, should 2 senators per state be sacred? What’s wrong with 3? Let’s make that politician buying more expensive for those lobbyists, folks!

By: TerenceC

TerenceC — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:30:03 +0000

There aren’t enough congressman to make a plan like that work. Current congressional representation is roughly 1 per 690,000 people - that’s too large to be representative. If they increased representation ratios and proportioned “delegates” per congressional district then it could work. Possibly 1 representative per 150,000 people - that grows the congress to 2000 members (a horrible scenario) but then the selection process becomes much more parlementarian in nature and nearly fair.

By: Alan Stewart Carl

Alan Stewart Carl — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:27:09 +0000

David … my main concern would be urban voters trampling over rural ones. Right now, the rural states have a combined electoral force large enough to impact presidential politics. Without the electoral system, there would be little incentive for candidates to leave the big cities.

Making the electoral votes proportional by state can be achieved without amending the constitution, which makes it a more plausible option. California’s plan had more to do with redistricting didn’t it? Whatever the case, any state can choose to alot their electoral votes either by a percentage of the popular vote in that state or by congressional district. The constitution doesn’t restrict the states. However, a more proportional system could result in elections where neither candidate achieves a majority of electoral votes, thust sending the election into the House of Representatives. That would be no fun for the nation.

I agree … lots of ideas, very little hope for action.

By: david

david — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:16:27 +0000

I’m not really sure what you mean by “ensure the majority doesn’t trample the minority.” It’s not as if people in Wyoming or other small states constitute a minority in any meaningful way. And going to a popular vote would hardly change the amount of influence they have on presidential politics.

I don’t really see a convincing reason that we shouldn’t move to a completely popular vote. However, a compromise I’m comfortable with (and I think you’d be to) is if we were to allot all electoral votes proportionally in the states. It would have to all at once, because piecemeal efforts (like the recent attempt in California) would simple replace a bad system with a worse one.

They’re both interesting ideas, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it stays the same forever.