You are hereBlogs / David Sayers's blog / Off To College
Off To College
Well, all of our work is almost complete. The big day has arrived. Over the years, as we have faced close elections, we have all grumbled at the unfairness of the electoral college, and how it should just be a majority vote. While this would probably be better for our guy, I personally like the electoral college, based on the history of our republic. No system is perfect, but I thought this would be a good time to look at why we do what we do when it comes to our Presidential election.
The United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not simply one large country. The founders recognized that the states were individual entities, and that its citizens wanted to keep their identities due to the fear of a large national government such as they just rebelled from. They also saw the danger in allowing a small number of people to choose the holder of the highest office.
At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan was used as the basis for determining the mode of election, and it was determined that the electors would be apportioned based on the population of each state. In The Federalist Papers number 39, James Madison (Publius) argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. That is why the number of electors is based on a combination of the number of House representatives (population-based) and the number of Senators (state-based). In addition, currently Washington DC is given a number of electors equal to the number of the smallest
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
While no system of election is perfect, let us think of the alternative: a straight winner take all popular vote contest. In this scenario, citizens in states like Kansas, Iowa, and even Colorado would never see a candidate or an ad, and their concerns would be ignored. Why? Because the vast majority of the population lives on the coasts, we would really become "fly over" states. With the Electoral College, although we may have a tendency to vote in a certain direction, we cannot be fully ignored.
Also with straight popular vote, some of our most popular Presidents would never have been elected, such as Bill Clinton. While I was not a Clinton fan, it does make you wonder how things would have been different.
- David Sayers's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Interesting points on the electoral college. My brief 2 cents on this:
I'm in favor of having both the popular vote and something like the electoral collegeas it stands now count towards the final total needed for election. Witha weighting of something like 2/3 for the electoral college vote and 1/3 for the popular vote, this would allow less populated swing states to be of importance for the election, as well as population centers in non-swing states to be of importance as well.
I am a fan of the Electoral College myself, and while there are some reasonable arguments against it, and I myself would prefer to see EVs apportioned by Congressional district and not by state -- that is, no "winner take all", I am in no way in favor of changing it.
Unfortunately far too many people place far too much importance on the office of the President instead of the other elected representatives which are supposed to be the People's direct line to their Federal Government.
And the almost constant increase in the power of the Executive hasn't helped much there, either.
I have thought for a long time that one real reform is to increase the size of the House of Representatives -- I've felt that that is where we are being seriously disenfranchised with regards to our Federal represenation.
And while I was Googling for some facts on that, I found a website which makes basically the same argument.
I can't vouch for them yet, even though I have read a few of their pages.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, & wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
I can say that I have certainly felt disenfranchised during this election. Neither candidate has paid a bit of attention to my state, nor has either made a visit. It really has come down to a handful of states - Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida - and now Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado. Makes me wonder why anyone else even bothers to go to the polls. I mean, why not just make some states permanently blue and permanently red? We can sit back and watch those states that count, which is what we do anyway. I know I sound bitter, but the Electoral College has minimized the 'every vote counts' refrain. No, it doesn't. If you live in a blue state and are a Republican, then you are only voting for your local representatives. Same for the opposite side of the coin.
How can you say that Montana would be minimalized if the election were determined by popular vote? Then, every vote would count! Ignore a state at your own risk. I am just tired of only a handful of states determining who becomes the next POTUS. I am 55, and this has been going on for like, forever!!!!!!!!
I refer you to the 2000 election, where Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the EVs. That is NOT the will of the people. We are ONE country, ONE voice, not voices only to be heard because we live in a toss-up state. It is time to change our voting system. Every single person deserves to be heard, even if they are a red in a blue state or vice-versa. It is quite disheartening to realize that because of geographical location, you can stay home and not vote, because it doesn't matter. As a Dem, I would probably not vote if I lived in Oklahoma or Texas. What's the point? I am drowned out by the reds, no matter what I do. How is that fair? How is that making every vote count? How is that making everyone feel that they are part of the electoral process? It doesn't.
Yikes! You should not have gotten me started on this. I feel passionately about this subject. You wonder why voting numbers are down most of the time? It's because people think their votes don't matter. It's because they already know which way their EVs will go. Why stand in line when, truly, it doesn't count?
We will never be a true democracy until we get rid of the Electoral College. We are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - and EVERY vote counting!!!
The question needs to be asked, was America supposed to be a true democracy? I don't think so, I do believe it was intended to be a Republic. While changing times has required certain powers and responsibilities to transfer from states to the federal government, it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to keep as much power at the state level.
Moving to a popular vote is a fundamental shift in the foundation of our country. The power of the people was intended to reside at the state level, not federal. Maybe that needs to change, but I am not ready to support such a shift.
Just heard Chuck Todd point out that the only way McCain could possibly win this would be to win the electoral college and lost the popular vote.
Either way, I'm still in favor of keeping it, for some of the reasons pointed out here. Just because once every 100 years or so it results in our electing a president who doesn't get a majority vote seems like a not-that-bad price to pay.
I totally agree. I don't like the winner take all. I would like to see a variation on what you propose. I would like to see all states do what Maine and Nebraska do, where the two Senate votes go to the overall winner, and the winner in each congressional district gets that district's vote. Because of this, and this historic election, my state may actually give an EV to Obama, rather than simply all 5 going to McCain.
______________________
RFO Outreach Coordinator
The enemy of "the best" is not "the worst." The enemy of "the best" is "good enough."