The Electoral College - Time For Change
What do Republicans in Massachusetts have in common with Democrats in Utah?
Their votes in Presidential elections do not count.
Being a Republican in Massachusetts in Presidential elections is like having a ticket to ride on the merry-go-round, but not getting a chance to grasp the brass ring, even if you have a good horse for the ride. Due to the “winner-take-all” provision of the Electoral College, the election for us is somewhere between a formality and a rumor. So much for the settled Constitutional principle of “one man, one vote.”
It’s time to make an adjustment to the Electoral College. This does not mean abolishing it in favor of the popular vote. There are problems with the current system that can be improved/remedied by simply connecting the popular vote to the electoral vote count.
Here are some of the problems this adjustment would fix:
- Let’s begin with the obvious – every vote would count! This is just common sense, but then again, if common sense was so common …?
- By connecting the popular and electoral votes, candidates would need to campaign in all jurisdictions, not simply write off States like Massachusetts and Utah, as either won or lost before the campaign even begins.
- Understanding that their votes count, voter interest in the relevant issues will increase, as will their turnout due to “get-out-the vote” campaigns that are lacking in “safe States.” For instance, were Romney to receive just 40% of the vote in the Bay State, he would still receive 4.4 electors. However, the same 40% vote count would net 22 electoral votes in California. Obviously the same would work on the other side. Were Obama to get 40% of the Utah vote, he would earn 2.4 electoral votes, and in Texas he would net 15.2 electors.
- Speaking of California, their 55 electoral votes is the equivalent of 20% of the total needed for election. Do we really want one State to hold so much leverage over the rest of the Nation in a winner-take-all format?
- But, it’s not just California. Here is a specific example from the last Presidential election. In 2008, more than 4.3M North Carolinians voted. Neither major candidate received 50% of the vote. However, because Obama edged McCain by 14,000 votes he received all 15 electoral votes, even though the combined vote of McCain and “Other” was higher. In a proportional system both candidates would have split the electoral vote, and the votes of more than 2.1M people would have “counted.”
- However, the most (in)famous example of the problem with the current system was Florida in 2000. Everyone remembers the close race, the hanging chads, the disputed vote count and the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes (of nearly 6M cast), yet scored all 25 electoral votes.
- In a broader sense, a candidate with the math skills of a first grader understands that they can win the election by simply taking the eleven largest States, while ignoring the other 39. How is that a good thing for the smaller States?
- And, while this seems unlikely, what we have in actual practice is only slightly better. Most States – like Massachusetts – are ignored, while the “real” election takes place in a handful of “swing States” – an acronym for States that actually have political balance, and provide a real opportunity for every voter to meaningfully participate. How exciting it must be for them to have the huge rallies and all the enthusiasm and excitement involved with selecting a President.
- A likely consequence of proportion-based electors would be the formation of a legitimate Third Party, with responsible candidates ready to run on mainstream issues that are too often pushed aside by the noise and money of the extremes of the existing Parties.
- The best example is Ross Perot, a Populist candidate in 1992 who received 19% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. Unknown is how many voters were convinced to not “waste their vote” on Perot, and cast their ballots for the traditional Party candidates instead (Clinton, 43%, and Bush, 37%). How differently would the voters have behaved, and history have been changed if the popular vote had been connected to the electoral vote count?
- Considering the irresponsible polarity of the parties today, don’t we need a fresh approach? Isn’t there the real possibility that a third party would expose and isolate the extremes of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and provide voters with a better choice for the future of the Country?
- There are other reasons too. While many people deny that voter fraud exists, the fact is that the winner-take-all format encourages fraudulent registrations and/or voting practices – especially in so-called “toss-up” States. Proportional voting greatly diminishes the potential impact of voter fraud – real or imagined – and greatly lessens the incentive to unfairly influence elections. Perhaps this might even stop the Voter ID discussion, even if it is a responsible and necessary idea.
- Let’s diminish the influence of Media bias in the form of bogus polls meant to create an aura of inevitability for who’s going to win, no matter how deliberately skewed the sampling. All of this is done to discourage voters on the losing side from voting, while encouraging more people to back the winner. While this distorts the diminishing pretense of Media objectivity, what is seldom acknowledged, however, is the additional perverse effect their bias has on important down-ticket elections. Enough of this. We deserve better.
- And finally, elections are held so “We the people” can elect the candidates we believe best represent our interests, and those of the Country. The new message to the candidates will be to communicate more effectively with all the people, and to get out their vote, because every vote counts – literally!
There has been significant discussion in recent years to drop the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. But, this runs afoul of the protections placed in the Constitution by the Founders to protect the interests of the smaller States from the larger ones. Connecting the popular vote to the electoral vote is the answer, and adds the protection of “one man-one vote” to all Americans.
After the 2000 election, some States – not surprisingly including Massachusetts –passed laws that may one-day award 100% of our electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, even if the State vote differs from the National total. Can you imagine? What an impractical over-reaction.
However, two States – Maine and Nebraska – have adopted proportional distribution of electors. The Country should follow their lead, and amend the Constitution prior to the next election
What do you think?
UglyHat
12:14 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
I think you’re right again, Jim. But I also think that because giving each congressional district an independent electoral vote poses an enormous threat to the two major parties, it will likely never happen. Discouraging, isn’t it? It’s almost as discouraging as having only one vote in my lifetime (so far) count for anything.
Fight on.
Jim Hatherley
4:49 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Thanks UH, and to be bi-partisan for a moment, "I feel your pain."
Andy Koenigsberg
12:30 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
I am not happy with the system now; however,I am not sure that proportional distribution of electors is going to solve the problem of focusing on too few states. I think that states with a higher proportion of electors will still attract more focus in an election. The best your proposal will do is to require that a few more states get some attention - but smaller population states such as VT, NH, RI, WY, ND, MT will still be bypassed. What do you think of the idea of every state having the same number of electors?
Jim Hatherley
1:31 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Andy, thanks for the response. I believe that your suggestion would fail the "one man, one vote" standard, which is a settled principle of Constitutional law. By the standard you suggest, a vote in the least populous State would be "worth" many, many times more than a vote in California. Now, from a Republican perspective I would personally like this. However, from a legal perspective - an American perspective - that bird won't fly, nor should it.
Arthur Hawkins
1:25 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Jim,
A reasoned and thoughtful blog of considerable importance in the support of fairness......and without the typical right wing, Republican bombast. Nicely done my friend! I don't know enough about the electoral system to offer any cogent suggestion, but I will be following this blog to learn more.
Jim Hatherley
1:43 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Thanks, Arthur, but I'll get back at Obama, Warren and the Democrats next week. This topic has been bothering me for years. The media does not really help by dishing our National polls like baby aspirins, as if they are representative forecasts of the forthcoming election. Our Presidential election is in reality a roll-up of 51 individual State elections (+DC), with the winner of each State getting all the electors, even if their winning total is less than 50% of the vote. Somehow it just does not seem appropriate - or legal under the "one man, one vote" principle - that so many millions of votes in all the States add up to zero value.
Ed Bertorelli
1:43 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Thoughtful and reasoned blog In my view -bombast is bipartisan thing Arthur.
I have been twice nominated as Republican Presidential Elector from MA and can speak to some of Jim's points. First , 24 states have no legal requirement that Electors even vote for the popular vote winner in the state- that's why 'solid' active party members are nominated by their respective parties and in history about 99 % of Electors have voted in accordance with the results. To me - a more measurable approach would be to award the one electoral vote for each congressional district to the winner in that district with the state popular vote winner in each state getting the two 'Senatorial ' electoral votes per state. This is done in Maine and Nebraska and it isn't exactly proportional but as close as you can get within current laws.
And yes Jim the 'system' is designed to discourage third parties
Jim Hatherley
1:57 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Ed, thanks for this information. And think how the elections would change based on proportional voting - or by Congressional DIstrict as they do in ME and NE. Between the two I favor the approach of matching the popular vote to the electoral vote because every vote counts in that format (which is the subject of the piece). However, the latter approach still yields zero value to votes going to the losing candidate(s), even if it does decentralize the electors to a more local level (good thing).
Yes - the Perot case makes it very clear that the system is rigged for the big guys. (Where is Elizabeth Warren when she might be even remotely helpful?). Had more people decided not to "waste their vote" on him, he would have been President of he had doubled his 19%. As it was, he got zero electorals and was directly responsible for Clinton's victory. Talk about lose-lose propositions, but that's how history is made. I appreciate your comments.
Arthur Hawkins
4:28 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Jim.....no need to go back to your bashing of the Democrats. Time might be better spent providing some of your erudite counsel to the Romney campaign or to the faltering candidate himself.....and Ed you are right ......too much inane blathering, misrepresentation, and empty shelled bombast from both sides. What a sorry state of affairs.
Jim Hatherley
4:41 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Arthur ... probably great advice, but by this time next week the first debate will be in our heads and there will be lots to discuss. However, at least until then I am hoping to hear more about the electoral college. Obviously, this is a point that cuts both ways because the Democrats never gave Bush a chance because of the Bush v. Gore decision in Florida and a feeling that the election was stolen from Gore.
Had there been proportional electors, Gore would have received half of Florida, and nearly half of his Home State and Clinton's State - likely would have won him the election.
History pivots on strange events. If Gore, there would have been no Bush, hence no Obama. In hindsight, smug as he was, Gore does not look so bad. (Will I be booted off the island for even whispering that?).
toto
8:05 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in the country wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than CA provided Kerry (1,235,659).
The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
toto
8:07 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
A survey of Massachusetts voters showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked
"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others.
By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:
"Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?"
The results of this three-way question were that
68% favored a national popular vote,
16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and
16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
NationalPopularVote
Jim Hatherley
8:26 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Thank you for your comprehensive notes, Toto. As you might suspect from my blog I disagree with the popular vote for the reasons stated.
I am particularly dismayed by the stupidity of the States that would ratify an amendment that would willingly nullify the vote of their own ciotizens if different from the popular vote. Plain and simple, this was just an inartful and unserious reaction to the 2000 election.
What I suggested is so much better because every vote actually does count in terms of the electoral college. It cannot be manipulated by bogus polls or a biased media as we are seeing today pulling so hard for Obama that my television actually has developed a hernia from the strain.
Thanks again for expounding on that legislation. Perhaps others will provide more comfort to this opinion, but here's the thing. DUmb liberal states like Massachusetts jumped on this after the 2000 election. Twelve years later the initiative has stalled and I think that among the ratifying states there are under 75 electoral votes. This should tell us that common sense actually exists in states that still possess common sense.
toto
9:15 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
National Popular Vote is not an amendment.
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
toto
9:18 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
The National Popular Vote bill is very elegant and serious.
No one would be disenfranchised.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Massachusetts didn't "jump on." It enacted the National Popular Vote bill on August 4, 2010, making it the sixth state to enact the bill. The bill was only first introduced in 2006.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
Ed Bertorelli
9:08 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Toto- forgive me I really don't understand what you are saying- there is no reality that compels electors to do anything- are you saying that if a Republican won the popular vote then MA. Electors (no doubt Dems ) would vote for the Republican ?? perhaps when pigs learn to fly !
toto
3:27 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
Jim Hatherley
9:17 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Ed, let's use 2000 as an example. If Massachusetts voters had voted for Bush, but Gore had more popular votes across the Country, the MA electoral votes would have gone to Gore. As i understand this law - which MA passed - it would only go into effect when States with a combined 270 electoral votes passed the same law.
Jim Hatherley
9:23 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Toto, thanks again ... very interesting and I appreciate the additional details.
Dennis Wilson
9:37 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
In today's Globe, there is an column by Scot Lehigh concerning the National Popular Vote.
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/09/27/national-popular-vote-better-way-elect-president/6yycxMnwbnI6oZ15lssk2I/story.html#
“I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense,” says former Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis, second-place finisher in the 2011 contest for Republican National chairman. “But there is a knee-jerk reaction by Republicans and conservatives to be opposed because it is a change, and they don’t want change.”
Anuzis goes on to say, “there’s a potential that Mitt Romney could win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College.”
Is this just another thing that breaks down along party lines?
Jim Hatherley
7:07 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Dennis, thank you for providing this link, and Toto, thank you for your contuing font of information. Good job.
On a personal note, this Globe piece is a little amazing - in terms of its timing. This issue has been bothering me for years, and more this time due to the concentration of activity in such few States. I wrote this piece and submitted it on Spetember 27th. It was put up on the Patch Site before 6am on the 28th, the same date the Globe piece was run. Pure coincidence ... yet comforting that i am not the only person aggravated by being stuck in the political wasteland of Massachusetts with only a halogenic dog in the race.
As I said - time for a change. Seems so, although I obviously do not want to even be remotely seen as agreeing with much of anything that appears in the Boston Globe. What a downer!
toto
2:05 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in (recently) closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
NationalPopularVote
Bacon Hill
9:13 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Every system of voting is flawed. The amazing thing about the current system is that it is the least flawed.
I agree that your post is well reasoned and very thoughtful. Thanks Jim!
toto
2:08 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
A shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the country.
The bill ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Jim Hatherley
1:23 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Thanks for your comment Bacon Hill. Great political pseudonym by the way, especially in Massachusetts.
Jim Hatherley
9:45 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Toto, here's where I make the distinction between the "popular" vote and "proportional electoral" vote option that I presented:
1. The latter maintains the State-specific nature of the voting, with all the attendant down-ballot influences the Presidential race posseses.
2. The effects of voter fraud will heightened by a popular vote, and diminished by the concept of proportional electors. Think about it ... how will the popular vote be influenced by the potential of millions of voters not properly registered or legally eligible to vote. We must be much more vigilant about the ballot box.
Thanks again for all your excellent postings.
Amy Buttiglieri
6:21 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Any history teachers out there?
Love the dialogue, Jim & Toto - I can feel my mind expanding!
If memory serves, didn't we create the electoral college because most people couldn't physically get to the places to vote? There was no internet in 1796. People on farms didn't get the paper every day. No TV or radio. So citizens would talk with the local rep, and he voted for them. At that time, wouldn't there be huge "local debate" to appoint that rep, and therefore the rep, well, "represented" the local views? (note: my American Govt classes were 30 years ago...)
Jim Hatherley
7:20 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Thanks, Amy, and I agree that Toto has significantly added to this discussion. You ask a different question - in fact 2 questions, the first about the electoral college and the second about representative democracy.
The Electoral College was the compromise struck to protect the interests of the smaller states vs. the larger states. Electors are awarded on an equal basis in terms of population count (which is why the number of electors = the number of House Reps + 2 Senators). As the population shifts (via 10 year census counts), the number of electors increases/decreases. This is why Massachusetts' numbers of Reps in Congress and electoral votes have been steadily declining over the past 50 years.
As to representative democracy, much of the tinking of the framers was based on the philosophy of Edmund Locke, who believed that "pure democracy" was the not dissimilar from anarchy (mob rule). As a result, the popular vote is broken into representative districts, where the Representative participates in more deliberative decision making, and is held accountable via elections for supporting/not supporting the interests of his constituency etc.
Perhaps others will add to this. Enjoy the day.