By Ryan Alessi
Published December 8th 2000 in Scripps Howard
With the battle for the presidency being slugged out in court rooms,
rumblings about the future of the election process have begun in the
legislatures around the nation.
The Electoral College has been at the center of the debate, especially with Al Gore leading in the popular vote, yet George W. Bush seems poised to capture the Electoral College votes.
But it would take a constitutional amendment to kill the Electoral College. That requires two-thirds approval from both houses of Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states - which most experts say is unlikely.
"All you need is 13 states to veto any constitutional amendment," said Terry Bouricius, a Progressive Party legislator from Vermont. "And there are more than 13 states that can argue that they have extra clout in presidential elections because of the Electoral College."
That won't stop Wisconsin state Rep. Spencer Black, a Democrat, who plans to propose a bill encouraging Congress to dump the Electoral College.
"It's something I have considered for a while," said Spencer Black. "And it's become clear that this should be a major item before the U.S. Congress."
Black said tweaking the founding fathers' election system is not sacrilege. U.S. senators, for example, were selected by state legislatures until the 17th Amendment switched that power to the people in 1913.
But most election experts aren't predicting the end of the Electoral College yet. Dozens of bills called for its abolishment or reform in the last 30 years - all failed. And even with this election's confusion, the chorus of support for the college is loud.
"I don't think what is happening in Florida is an argument to get rid of the Electoral College," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, "Under a direct popular vote system, every precinct in the country would be recounting votes right now, not just Florida."
Simpson also said he would consider a system that could split a state's electoral votes among candidates. For example, in Nebraska and Maine, two votes automatically are awarded to the winner of the statewide vote. The other electors are decided by the popular vote in each Congressional district.
Since the election, Republican state legislators in New Jersey, Illinois and California announced plans to change the distribution of their state's electoral votes in a similar manner.
California State Assemblyman Tony Strickland said it would force candidates to pay attention to the whole country, not just swing states.
"And it'll make legislators and congressional representatives more empowered to deliver their districts to the candidate of their choice," he said. "But more importantly, it would make individuals and voters more powerful."
Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, said proportional allocation tends to favor Republicans, who have a wider support among the many rural counties.
Alaska and Vermont are considering proposals that would require a candidate to get a majority of the popular vote - not just a plurality - before electoral votes are awarded.
More than 35,000 Alaskans signed a petition this year favoring an instant runoff voting system that allows voters to choose multiple candidates for president, in order of preference.
If one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the election is over, under the Alaska proposal.
If not, an instant runoff takes place, with the least popular candidate eliminated. People who voted for the eliminated candidate therefore get a second chance. Their first choice is crossed off and their second choice counts.
"The theory is, if you voted for Gore or Bush the first time, you would vote for them in a second election," said Chip Wagoner, former Republican National committee representative from Alaska. "Only those who voted for third-party candidates like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan would make a difference. It's like having a second election, but it's instantaneous."
With the required number of signatures, the petition goes to the state legislature, which can pass it as law when it meets in 2001. If they don't, the initiative goes on the 2002 ballot.
Vermont, meanwhile, is looking to replace a state law that allows the legislature to choose a winner if no candidate gets a majority.
"This issue has multi-party support in Vermont," said Bouricius. "And, nationally, with the rise of third party candidates and the fact that there hasn't been a majority president in this decade, it's making many of us re-evaluate the system."
In this region, very little re-evaluation is under way.
Ohio Rep. James Trakas, the new Republican majority whip, said only one legislator - Democratic Sen. Daniel Brady from Cleveland - had mentioned possible reform, but that was before the election.
House leaders in Indiana and Kentucky said no plans have surfaced yet.
"But a year from now," said Rep. Joe Barrows, democratic majority whip in Kentucky, "it'll be interesting to see if any notion of changing the Electoral College has either gained or waned."
On the Net:
www.fairvote.org
www.avagara.com
www.secondconvention.org
The Electoral College has been at the center of the debate, especially with Al Gore leading in the popular vote, yet George W. Bush seems poised to capture the Electoral College votes.
But it would take a constitutional amendment to kill the Electoral College. That requires two-thirds approval from both houses of Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states - which most experts say is unlikely.
"All you need is 13 states to veto any constitutional amendment," said Terry Bouricius, a Progressive Party legislator from Vermont. "And there are more than 13 states that can argue that they have extra clout in presidential elections because of the Electoral College."
That won't stop Wisconsin state Rep. Spencer Black, a Democrat, who plans to propose a bill encouraging Congress to dump the Electoral College.
"It's something I have considered for a while," said Spencer Black. "And it's become clear that this should be a major item before the U.S. Congress."
Black said tweaking the founding fathers' election system is not sacrilege. U.S. senators, for example, were selected by state legislatures until the 17th Amendment switched that power to the people in 1913.
But most election experts aren't predicting the end of the Electoral College yet. Dozens of bills called for its abolishment or reform in the last 30 years - all failed. And even with this election's confusion, the chorus of support for the college is loud.
"I don't think what is happening in Florida is an argument to get rid of the Electoral College," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, "Under a direct popular vote system, every precinct in the country would be recounting votes right now, not just Florida."
Simpson also said he would consider a system that could split a state's electoral votes among candidates. For example, in Nebraska and Maine, two votes automatically are awarded to the winner of the statewide vote. The other electors are decided by the popular vote in each Congressional district.
Since the election, Republican state legislators in New Jersey, Illinois and California announced plans to change the distribution of their state's electoral votes in a similar manner.
California State Assemblyman Tony Strickland said it would force candidates to pay attention to the whole country, not just swing states.
"And it'll make legislators and congressional representatives more empowered to deliver their districts to the candidate of their choice," he said. "But more importantly, it would make individuals and voters more powerful."
Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, said proportional allocation tends to favor Republicans, who have a wider support among the many rural counties.
Alaska and Vermont are considering proposals that would require a candidate to get a majority of the popular vote - not just a plurality - before electoral votes are awarded.
More than 35,000 Alaskans signed a petition this year favoring an instant runoff voting system that allows voters to choose multiple candidates for president, in order of preference.
If one candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the election is over, under the Alaska proposal.
If not, an instant runoff takes place, with the least popular candidate eliminated. People who voted for the eliminated candidate therefore get a second chance. Their first choice is crossed off and their second choice counts.
"The theory is, if you voted for Gore or Bush the first time, you would vote for them in a second election," said Chip Wagoner, former Republican National committee representative from Alaska. "Only those who voted for third-party candidates like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan would make a difference. It's like having a second election, but it's instantaneous."
With the required number of signatures, the petition goes to the state legislature, which can pass it as law when it meets in 2001. If they don't, the initiative goes on the 2002 ballot.
Vermont, meanwhile, is looking to replace a state law that allows the legislature to choose a winner if no candidate gets a majority.
"This issue has multi-party support in Vermont," said Bouricius. "And, nationally, with the rise of third party candidates and the fact that there hasn't been a majority president in this decade, it's making many of us re-evaluate the system."
In this region, very little re-evaluation is under way.
Ohio Rep. James Trakas, the new Republican majority whip, said only one legislator - Democratic Sen. Daniel Brady from Cleveland - had mentioned possible reform, but that was before the election.
House leaders in Indiana and Kentucky said no plans have surfaced yet.
"But a year from now," said Rep. Joe Barrows, democratic majority whip in Kentucky, "it'll be interesting to see if any notion of changing the Electoral College has either gained or waned."
On the Net:
www.fairvote.org
www.avagara.com
www.secondconvention.org
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.