Electoral College is OutdatedEditorial
By The Denver Post Editorial Board
Published April 9th 2007 in The Denver Post
Maryland and Hawaii moved to the forefront of a hot political debate last week when their legislatures approved plans to cast their Electoral College ballots for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
If the states' respective governors sign the bills, they would add fuel to an effort to essentially sidestep the Electoral College's current system for electing a president.
The Electoral College is a rickety relic that gives unequal weight to voters depending upon where they live. It should be thanked for its service and consigned to history. But it will take a good deal of debate before any changes are made.
The goal of the National Popular Vote campaign is to ensure that the presidential candidate who takes office prevailed in the nationwide popular vote.
According to the U.S. Constitution, states have unfettered power to allocate their electoral votes and may change their state laws governing the awarding of their votes. The plan to direct those electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote would take effect only when enacted in identical form by states that control a majority of electoral votes - that is, 270 of 538.
Under the current, winner-take-all system, each state's electoral votes go to the candidate who prevails in that state's popular vote. Since even the smallest states get at least three electoral votes, smaller states have a disproportionately large voice. For instance, an electoral vote in Wyoming represents 164,594 people, but in California, it covers 615,848 people. Colorado has nine electoral votes, with each representing 477,918 people. Furthermore, states not "in play" are overlooked during presidential campaigns.
The system led to the unsettling 2000 presidential election in which Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes but lost the presidency to George Bush by four electoral votes. Given the close elections in recent years, it easily could happen again.
Those favoring the status quo say it supports the two-party system and a change could have unpalatable consequences, such as increasing campaign costs as candidates focus their attention more broadly.
The National Popular Vote effort has 305 legislative sponsors in 47 states. In Colorado, Senate Bill 46 is stalled in a House committee. We'd like to see House leaders shake it loose for further deliberation.
Certainly, caution is appropriate in considering such fundamental change, but with thorough debate we think it will become apparent that this change will make our system more representative of the will of the people - each and every one.
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.