Time to get rid of the Electoral CollegeOUR OPINION: Current system violates principle of one man, one vote
Feeling relief now that Election Day is finally over? Think again. The
real election won't take place until Dec. 15. That's when the Electoral
College meets to pick the winner -- and it hasn't always been the
candidate with the highest number of popular votes.
The popular vote is for a slate of representatives to the Electoral College, where the electors choose the next president. More than once, the candidate with the highest number of popular votes has come up short, thanks to the way votes are distributed by states on a winner-take-all basis. The last time was in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush despite receiving 543,816 more popular votes.
Isn't it time to get rid of this horse-and-buggy-era political contraption?
The theory behind the Electoral College was that it would create a rough balance between states with large and small populations. Without such protection, small states feared that they would be overlooked as presidential candidates campaigned in states with the most voters. Because it was the states that created the central government, this made sense to the framers of the Constitution.
In the modern era, however, it's the states with some of the highest populations -- California, New York and Texas among them -- that usually are ignored because the outcomes in those states are considered a done deal. Indeed, Florida is the most populous state to enjoy -- if that is the right word -- a real presidential campaign, because it's a swing state.
These days, candidates focus almost entirely on a few states where the race is close, regardless of size, thanks to the Electoral College. In 2004, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry spent almost 90 percent of their campaign time and money in fewer than a dozen states. This tends to depress turnout in states that are overlooked. It discourages potential voters who believe their vote has no real significance.
Giving swing states more clout is inherently undemocratic. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., says it also violates the basic principle of one man, one vote. He's right. Sen. Nelson wants to get rid of the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment. That, however, would require a two-thirds majority in Congress and approval of 37 state legislatures, an almost impossible political obstacle.
Better representation
There is another way. Four states -- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland -- already have passed bills to cast their state's electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. This would take effect when states with an electoral majority -- 270 of the 538 electoral votes -- also have passed such laws.
Florida should join in. The sooner we are rid of the Electoral College, the more representative our democracy will be.
The popular vote is for a slate of representatives to the Electoral College, where the electors choose the next president. More than once, the candidate with the highest number of popular votes has come up short, thanks to the way votes are distributed by states on a winner-take-all basis. The last time was in 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush despite receiving 543,816 more popular votes.
Isn't it time to get rid of this horse-and-buggy-era political contraption?
The theory behind the Electoral College was that it would create a rough balance between states with large and small populations. Without such protection, small states feared that they would be overlooked as presidential candidates campaigned in states with the most voters. Because it was the states that created the central government, this made sense to the framers of the Constitution.
In the modern era, however, it's the states with some of the highest populations -- California, New York and Texas among them -- that usually are ignored because the outcomes in those states are considered a done deal. Indeed, Florida is the most populous state to enjoy -- if that is the right word -- a real presidential campaign, because it's a swing state.
These days, candidates focus almost entirely on a few states where the race is close, regardless of size, thanks to the Electoral College. In 2004, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry spent almost 90 percent of their campaign time and money in fewer than a dozen states. This tends to depress turnout in states that are overlooked. It discourages potential voters who believe their vote has no real significance.
Giving swing states more clout is inherently undemocratic. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., says it also violates the basic principle of one man, one vote. He's right. Sen. Nelson wants to get rid of the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment. That, however, would require a two-thirds majority in Congress and approval of 37 state legislatures, an almost impossible political obstacle.
Better representation
There is another way. Four states -- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland -- already have passed bills to cast their state's electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. This would take effect when states with an electoral majority -- 270 of the 538 electoral votes -- also have passed such laws.
Florida should join in. The sooner we are rid of the Electoral College, the more representative our democracy will be.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.