NYT editorial calls for end to Electoral College, direct election of Pres.

Editorial
Drop Out of the College


The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.

There is an innovative new proposal for states to take the lead in undoing the Electoral College. Legislatures across the country should get behind it.

Both parties should have reason to fear the college's perverse effects. In 2000, the Democrats lost out. But in 2004, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry, even though he lost the national popular vote decisively.

Just as serious is the way the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. Candidates have no incentive to campaign in, or address the concerns of, states that reliably vote for a particular party. In recent years, the battleground in presidential elections has shrunk drastically. In 1960, 24 states, with 327 electoral votes, were battleground states, according to estimates by National Popular Vote, the bipartisan coalition making the new proposal. In 2004, only 13 states, with 159 electoral votes, were. As a result, campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states. Ethanol fuel, a pet issue of Iowa farmers, is discussed a lot. But issues of equal concern to states like Alabama, California, New York and Indiana are not.

The Electoral College discourages turnout because voters in two-thirds of the nation know well before Election Day who will win their states. It also discriminates among voters by weighing presidential votes unequally. A Wyoming voter has about four times as much impact on selecting that state's electors as a California voter does on selecting that state's.

The answer to all of these problems is direct election of the president....


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

Don't have to worry about each pesky little state, and can just skew the total, which is Much Much Simpler.

on electronic machines...

First we need a constitutional guaranteed right-to-vote, and voter-verified paper ballots, nationwide.

THEN, and only THEN, could we consider abolishing the electoral college.

And how many votes have ever proven to have been "stolen" by electronic voting?

Those problems need to be dealt with whether there is an electoral college or popular voting, anyway. We don't have to wait for anything.

the results within states in order to maximize the influence that the state has on national elections. I was obviously exaggerating. Instead of worrying about the shenanigans being done in a limited number of "swing states", every single state government in the country would have the potential to use fraud to swing the election.

:sarcasm:

3 Million Nationwide is very easy to hide. The distribution can be spread out amongst many states, and quite easily in the "Redder" states. They already did it the last election.

I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding "how many votes were proven to been fraudulent." Believe what you will.

There is No Way that a president with a 34% approval rating in early '06, ever won an election in late '04. His so-called 51% Barely winning margin, was Phony!

Ok, where does it start? Who talks to whom?

in the current system, you have to do your vote rigging in places like ohio and florida, which are close to 50-50.

in a straight, nationwide popular vote, republicans would be able to rig texas so that it shows 80-20 instead of 60-40.


do you want the vote rigging to be done in a place where the local politicians are highly partisan for one party, or do you want to steer it to where you have a better chance of having both parties overseeing any shenanigans?

notwithstanding the fact that they DID rig the vote in ohio and florida, a straight, nationwide popular vote would be a disaster without safeguards against fraud and vote-rigging.

Let's face it, you live in Indiana and vote for Kerry, your vote did not count. Only the 50%+1 who voted for the winner have their votes matter in current elections.

Citing the possibility of fraud as a reason not to do something is just silly. You can make that argument about any new law.

You couldn't swing a live cat without hitting a Repuke who thought that Clinton didn't have a mandate because he "didn't win the majority of the people"!

They were strangely quiet after the 2000 selection . . .

While you are correct that many said that Clinton didn't win a majority of the vote and thus had a weak mandate, I cannot recall any who said that his election was not legitimately arrived at.

:kick: :thumbsup: :applause:

that are over-represented in the total.

but, having looked into it, I can see it could be a disaster if all states adopted it, due to the dubious nature of Amendment 12 (of the US Constitution, that is). The problem is that if someone doesn't get an absolute majority of electoral college votes, the decision goes to state delegations in the House of Representatives, with each state getting just one vote - even worse than the "somewhat weighted by population system" already used in the College. So any change has to avoid that situation - but splitting a state's EC votes in proportion to voters' votes will probably end up with some votes going to third or even fourth parties candidates in the big states like California. I even see that somone on Wikipedia reckons it would have produced, in 2000, 269 votes for Gore, 263 for Bush, and 6 for Nader; which would have meant the House of Reps got to elect the president (which Bush would have won), and the Senate the VP - which would have been a 50-50 tie, with Gore giving his casting vote to Lieberman. A great plot for a novel or film, but maybe not what you want in reality (certainly not with that cast).

So, until the US Consititution can be amended to be more democratic, this National Popular Vote plan sounds better. If it ever takes effect, perhaps the smaller states would be persuaded to join it. But I can't see them giving up their power without a plan like this; and even with it, 13 states may be bloody-minded enough to resist it.

I've hated the Electoral College ever since I first learned about it as a kid in school. It's an abomination and an absurdity. No democracy should tolerate such an institution.

Banish the EC to the dustbin of history.

Make Election Day a national holiday, or hold elections on a weekend --- some solution other than a work day. Make it easy instead of difficult to vote. But the powers-that-be prefer a low turnout and a difficult voting process so I don't hold much hope.

making people who don't drive have to pay for ID when teh system worked fine before

let anyone who walks through the door, vote. :sarcasm:

if someone cares enough to vote, they can make the effort to get some sort of indentification.

i always, without being asked, provide my voter registration AND a photo id.

i think that is the absolute minimum we should require.

everyone knows exactly when an election is going to take place and can take care of it in advance. if you are too inconvenienced and can't provide identification, you don't deserve the right to vote.

voting is a privilege. make an effort or sit your ass at home and whine and complain.

:grr:

edit to add, people will sure make time to get the id to cash that check, won't they?

I think you should have some type of ID and it is important to identify voters at the polls HOWEVER obtaining an ID that is not needed for any other use by senior citizens and poor voters can be a problem..

Don't get me wrong, I always bring the voter's card, which any of these IDless people could bring, but this is standard Democratic opinion....

Then truly will the states be united as one voice :patriot:

Also, lower the voting age to 16 !

That way, third or fourth party candidates don't harm the candidate of your choice.

Watch a demo here:

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

Maybe.

First, I think we desperately need to get our voting machines and voter intimidation and suppression and outright fraud under control before we do ANYthing else to the voting system.

One thing -- and the most important thing -- at a time, please.

And of course, electronic voting machines without paper trails must go as well.

knowing that my vote essentially has no impact in presidential elections, simply because of my current geographic location within the country.

I've hated the electoral college ever since we were first taught about it in school; it's always struck me as irrational, unjust, and anachronistic.

That no other level of government ever uses it. If representation by smaller entites was an issue, why don't states vote by counties, cities by neighborhoods? The reason is that it would be too tempting to manipulate certain smaller entities: the mayor's base neighborhood could be encouraged to cheat a little by close friends and neighbors, the governor's home county. The Presidency is the same way, as we've seen in 2000 and 1876 and 1824. And how many more "close calls" that we don't know about that have been staved off by quiet behind the scenes action beforehand or during?

People talk about nationwide manipulation of votes. It's a lot harder. True, you can pad votes in "favorable counties" and in "favorable states" , but instead of relying on Katherine Harris or a Ken Blackwell, how many more people would you need to pressure to get the results you want, and how many more votes out there that you can't control? Also, it would end the talk of "mandate" if the winner was simply the winner. Not to mention that such a change could really increase turnout across the board. People who turn out for the Presidency could be encouraged to vote straight-party for other things as well.

No more electronic voting, period. Paper ballots mailed and hand-counting of those ballots under the watch of partisan and bi-partisan observers. So what if it takes a week or two? People wait longer for a movie to come out, or a video game. And if there's a problem, one solution I heard would simply things: separate ballots for President and Federal Offices, and another for State Offices. They can be counted separately by hand.

My big-picture solution for voting funk would be:

1) Weekend elections. The United States is the only country that votes on a weekday. Europeans and others with a little more class-conscious voting population either never bothered to or now vote on Sunday, when working people are guaranteed to be home and can stand in line all day if necessary. Our Tuesday voting day is a left-over from the days when the Sabbath was sacred, agriculture was king (Sunday/Saturday) were days off for famers, and a Tuesday in November was past harvest. Not to mention that until recent years, politicians would ply supporters with alcohol and such would offend prohibitionists. Turnout would increase if students, parents who have a hard time getting childcare or time off, and others could vote mor readily. It would also help the problem of poll workers and watchers. I've done poll work and could afford it because I was unemployed and on a layoff with return possible. The workers at the polls are uniformly elderly because they are the only ones who could afford to spend a whole day on a November Tuesday working. The fact that they are often not feeling all that well and probably can't stay up late is also fueling the push for electronic voting. Healthy younger people and involved middle-aged people in the elections process working on a Saturday could easily be able to handle mail-based paper ballots.

Indeed, why not vote by mail? Voting by mail would seem to be a lot easier than having people stand for hours in terrible weather or crowded buildings not large enough for large crowds.

2)Hybrid system of campaign finance that should satisfy everyone. Every candidate who has personal assets below a certain level would get initial seed money to run and free media time. That person could then build on that to gain more money and support from their party and contributors. One worry that I have had about public financing of campaigns is that it could become an "incumbents insurance" system making it difficult for challengers to break in. If only a partial funding, a candidate would have to appeal to other people to get in the process.

The EC is a "antidemocratic relic" from whom? The people who brought us democracy. Hello?
And, the -- easily rigged -- "popular vote" also has "flaws".

Where no EC gives us a "handful of battleground states", dropping the rest of the states,
a yes to EC gives us a handful of battleground issues, dropping the rest of the issues.

Where under EC states do not turn out to vote because it's in the bag,
under NO EC issue voters won't turn out instead.

Whereas Gore won the popular vote in 2000, had the EC been dumped, the campaigning would have been different, the result would not have necessarily been, and WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, the same numbers. The outcome could be just as "perverse".

NO, there should not be "an innovative new proposal" to undo EC.

Having NO EC is not "The answer" to these problems.