MyDD :: NY Times: Drop Out of the (Electoral) College

NY Times: Drop Out of the (Electoral) College

by BringtheFight, Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 11:17:10 AM EST

Yesterday, the NY Times endorsed a unique new plan that has been introduced by the group National Popular Vote. Their website is here: National Popular Vote

Frankly I'm sick and tired of 30-40 states being totally ignored by the candidates year after year. They are being elected to be President of all 50 states, they should be forced to address the issues of all 50 states, not just Florida, Ohio and Pennslyvania. Apparently the NY Times agrees with this problem.

Excerpts are below, check out the full editorial here:NY Times 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.

The end result of the National Popular Vote plan is moving to a system where the candidate with the most votes nationwide wins, period. However, this plan requires no Constitutional Amendment to accomplish this. Instead the plan calls for legislation passed by State Legislatures creating an inter-state compact in which all members agreee to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Past attempts to abolish the Electoral College by amending the Constitution have run into difficulty. But National Popular Vote, which includes several former members of Congress, is offering an ingenious solution that would not require a constitutional amendment. It proposes that states commit to casting their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. These promises would become binding only when states representing a majority of the Electoral College signed on. Then any candidate who won the popular vote would be sure to win the White House.

The coalition is starting out by trying to have laws passed in Illinois and a few other states. Americans are rightly cautious about tinkering with mechanisms established by the Constitution. But throughout the nation's history, there have been a series of reforms affecting how elections are conducted, like the ones that gave blacks and women the vote and provided for the direct election of United States senators. Sidestepping the Electoral College would be in this worthy tradition of making American democracy more democratic.

Since this plan requires no Constitutional amendment, merely a majority vote by local State Legislatures, it's passage really could be a reality. This is a plan that will fundamentally change the way our elections occur. I encourage people to go to the website HERE and read up on the plan and see what you can do to support it. If you live in Illinois, contact your Rep. and encourage them to support this. If you live in other states, encourage your Rep. to introduce legislation. It's time for us to join the rest of the world in ensuring that the person who gets the most votes, not the fewest, wins. Who knows, by 2012, or maybe even 2008, if you live in a safe state, your vote might actually start counting!

Poll

Votes: 17
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Electoral College, National Popular Vote, NY Times, Election Reform, 2000, 2004, 2008, Illinois (all tags)

Permalink :: 4 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Totally absurd (none / 0)

So let's say you eliminate the electoral college. Do you really think that New York and California get LESS influence or that Wyoming gets MORE?

Apply even the slightest logical and you know it's ridiculous. Here's two examples:

The New York Metro Area has about 20 million people. That's more than the combined populations of Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, DC, and Wyoming. Those states currently represent 60 electoral votes or 11% of the electoral college. Their population is roughly 6.6% of the national population. How would eliminating the electoral college, and making these states combined equal in clout to NYC empower these states?

California has 55 electoral votes or 10% of the total electoral votes. It has about 35.5 million people and growing (2003 estimate) which is 12% of the population or more. Popular vote would give California more power. Conversely, Wyoming has 3 electoral votes, or 0.5% of the total. It has a population of about 500,000, or .16% of total US population. Wyoming would then have less power.

So what exactly are people trying to accomplish?

by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 12:47:34 PM EST

Re: Totally absurd (none / 0)

Mathmatically small states have more power in the Electoral College. In actual application however, they have ZERO power in the Electoral College. With the exception of swing-state New Hampshire, in 2004 12 of the 13 smallest states received ZERO campaign visits from the candidates and ZERO dollars spent on television advertising. So in essence these small states had absolutely NO power, and played no role whatsoever in the campaign. A vote in these small safe states didn't have any impact whatsoever on the final result.

Would more attention be paid to populous areas under this plan? Sure. But with small states having absolutely no say and no influence in the current system, this system would actually make it worth it for candidates to advertise and campaign in small states.

by BringtheFight on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 01:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not so (none / 0)

What is absurd is the notion that small states need to be more empowered than they are. If there are more people in a state, then it is logical for them to have more of a say in voting for the President. It is a lot fairer than swing states regardless of size getting the lion's share of attention because of the electoral college system of state winner take all.

by Pravin on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 02:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not so (none / 0)

I agree. We shouldn't think about it as the importance of this state vs. that one, or small states vs. big. Each person's vote should be totally equal, no matter which state they live in. My point is that big state, small state, rural area or big city, if you don't live in a swing state, you are totally ignored by the candidates. If candidates time is divided amongst the country based on where people live, that is far more fair then just a handful of states getting ALL the attention.

by BringtheFight on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 03:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.