Secrets of the City

I believe the Electoral College should be abolished, and we should have direct election of US Presidents, just as we elect members of Congress.

As I suggested here.

The nice thing about the electoral college is that it forces candidates to spend time in places other than the major metropolitan areas. States like Minnesota do end up mattering, where without an electoral college, it wouldn’t matter.

The idea of having a candidate win the popular vote and lose the election is not a pleasant one, however.

EC4EVAR.

In a close election, every vote would matter, regardless of where it was cast. I would also contend that the Twin Cities (hence Minnesota) is a major metropolitan area in the upper Midwest (note the ad buys on Jason’s Station and others).

Having an Electorial College hasn’t made small population states like North Dakota or Alaska players.

I think it’s time to take off the training wheels.

It’s time for you to stop undoing the Constitution!

I don’t think I trust that without the EC it wouldn’t turn even more south with politicians catering to the Lowest Common Denominator. That and do you really want people to have a direct vote when they can’t determine that a 0% refi taking out all the equity of their house to buy an SUV is going to screw them over once that intro rate ends. It’s not said often enough but people in America are too stupid to self govern.

The nice thing about the electoral college is that it forces candidates to spend time in places other than the major metropolitan areas. States like Minnesota do end up mattering, where without an electoral college, it wouldn’t matter.

I don’t think this argument applies anymore. With multiple 24 hour news channels, plus teh internets, anyone can gather information on the candidates. Does it really matter to the local media if Obama is speaking in St. Paul or Los Angeles? KARE can still get the feed from KNBC.

Outright abolition would require a constitutional amendment. A 3/4 vote of the states seems very unlikely, even if it could make it past the Senate.

But a movement is afoot to get states to sign up for an “interstate compact” to throw all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. This would effectively accomplish a national popular vote without abolishing the Electoral College.

Over the years, many have supported amending the Constitution (which is not easy, nor should it be) for direct elections of the President, including one-time candidate Michael Dukakis and one-time President Richard Nixon.

I have heard the “mob rule” and “Americans are too stupid” arguments before, and I reject them. Yes, we Americans sometimes do stupid things, both as individuals and as a nation. Having an Electoral College has not protected this nation from electing (and re-electing) bad Presidents in the past, I see no real risk that direct elections would result in worse choices in the future.

In the big picture, I think the EC stands between the voter and the nation’s chief executive, and its well past time for it to go.

Least I forget, kudos to Mr. Lee for helping us mere mortals better understand the EC and how it functions. Nice blog!

Hat tip also to Max, who is helping us all brush up on our civics before we shake hands (hand sanitizer, please!) with the politicos at the Fair and host the GOP faithfull in our fair community in the days that follow.

Anybody think that Obama will show up at the State Fair to try to undercut McCain at the RNC? Seems like a pretty straightforward play — while McCain is trapped at the Xcel with the party insiders, Barry is out pressing the flesh with real voters.

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. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were 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 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 votesthat 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 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

susan

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.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is whether the people in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the people of the vast majority of states are ignored.

The current system also does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

I think the big stadium speech in Denver will give the Senator from Illinois all the press/buzz he wants.

However, it might be cool if he gave a foriegn polict speech (on Georgia/Russa?) from the very spot on the Fairgrounds where Teddy Roosevelt gave his famious “Big Stick” speech.

How about nixing the current system just because it’s a boring lot of extra process? Even if the results of every election are exactly the same, I’d get rid of it as a project manager. If it’s not necessary to do something, it’s necessary to not do it.

Foreign policy on a stick? How many calories, and grams of trnas fat are in that?

WE need to keep the electoral college system so people keep e-mailing me Good Questions about it. I need the material.

Zero. But the wrapper is dazzling.

Zero. But the wrapper is dazzling.

Do you actually believe that, Kevin, or is that just a reflexive action that happens when you read too many talking points?

Better that than the regurgitated, maggot infested corpse of last year’s product.

Not to get off topic, or anything, but it sure is comforting to know that the “experienced” McCain would have dragged us into a shooting war with Russia, that this week he admits would have been a bad idea.

President’s don’t get mulligans Johnny.

Gut vs Reasoning is a tough sell among the cognoscenti, but it is appealing to the masses. There was an entertaining WaPo editorial about how it would be nice to live in the world Old Navy formulates policies for, but the big O probably has a better grasp of the reality.

That may have sounded snarky, Kevin, but it actually was a serious question. You think that McCain would make a better president because he’s more in line with your world-view, and that’s a great reason for you to vote for him.

But do you honestly believe that Obama is just an empty suit?

It seems that the GOP has realized that they can’t win on the issues this year, and unfortunately, the campaign that’s now unfolding is very unbecoming for a statesman of McCain’s stature. Which is sad, because while I won’t vote for him, up until now I’ve had very little bad to say about him.

Which is sad, because while I won’t vote for him, up until now I’ve had very little bad to say about him.

but that’s largely because you have the luxury of not having been in Arizona during one of his Senatorial campaigns.

Maybe he has the same problem that Gore had with Tennessee. They’re basically seen as guys from Washington.

To McCain, Arizona is the place that gave him skin cancer.