By Si Cantwell
Published September 16th 2004 in Star-News
Because I am a confessed Democrat, this column probably will be viewed as a partisan position. But it's not meant that way.
The Electoral College should be abolished. Until it is, North Carolina should allocate its 15 electoral votes proportionately instead of being a "winner take all" state.
Think about it. During the 2000 campaign, we were solid red. George W. Bush won our electoral votes by a 13-point margin. Knowing that would happen, the campaigns spent little time or resources here. Things are tighter this time. Mr. Bush is leading by single digits in North Carolina, said Thad Beyle, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. So we've had a few more visits. But we still hear more about ethanol, Cuba and whether to put nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain - hot issues in other swing states - than about the tobacco buyout or other Tar Heel concerns.
We might get some of those great speeches and extravagant promises if the candidates were working for at least some of our votes. In 2000, Mr. Bush won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, the third time that has happened. States get one electoral vote for each person they send to Congress. Since every state has two senators, every state has at least three electors. That gives small states undue influence. In case of a 269-269 tie, each state's U.S. House delegation would get only one vote. I believe every American's vote should count equally.
It can affect voter turnout. In a recent editorial criticizing the Electoral College, The New York Times said, "Statistics have shown that more people vote when their vote has a better chance at making a difference." This time around, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in Massachusetts have no voice.
Two states, Maine and Nebraska, give the overall winning candidate two votes, then award the rest according to who wins each congressional district.
In 2001, a bill to do that in North Carolina was introduced by state Rep. Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat from Richmond County now running for Labor commissioner. It passed in the state Senate but ran into opposition from House Republicans and never came up for a vote there.
He pointed out that when campaigns come to a state, they spend money there.
It's understandable N.C. Republicans would view such a switch with suspicion. Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to win here, in 1976.
But with a Democratic governor and Senate majority, it's possible the pendulum could swing the other way.
This year, Colorado will vote on instituting a slightly different method, awarding electoral votes on the basis of the candidate's share of the overall vote. If it passes and Mr. Bush gets 55 percent of the vote, he'll get five votes and Sen. John Kerry four, regardless of how congressional districts vote.
The Electoral College issue comes up with every contested election, said Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. His mother lives in Hampstead.
There's a lot of information about the Electoral College at the group's Web site, www.fairvote.org.
They favor a one-person, one-vote system, but Mr. Richie is uneasy about states switching one at a time. Still, the group supports the Colorado initiative, mainly to bring the issue to the forefront. Presidential candidates will only campaign here if our votes matter. As it stands now, they might court our votes in close elections but not ones where the result looks certain.
Everybody says the Electoral College is arcane. I would add the word "dumb." But it would take a constitutional amendment to abolish it.
In the meantime, it's up to states.
The Electoral College should be abolished. Until it is, North Carolina should allocate its 15 electoral votes proportionately instead of being a "winner take all" state.
Think about it. During the 2000 campaign, we were solid red. George W. Bush won our electoral votes by a 13-point margin. Knowing that would happen, the campaigns spent little time or resources here. Things are tighter this time. Mr. Bush is leading by single digits in North Carolina, said Thad Beyle, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. So we've had a few more visits. But we still hear more about ethanol, Cuba and whether to put nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain - hot issues in other swing states - than about the tobacco buyout or other Tar Heel concerns.
We might get some of those great speeches and extravagant promises if the candidates were working for at least some of our votes. In 2000, Mr. Bush won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, the third time that has happened. States get one electoral vote for each person they send to Congress. Since every state has two senators, every state has at least three electors. That gives small states undue influence. In case of a 269-269 tie, each state's U.S. House delegation would get only one vote. I believe every American's vote should count equally.
It can affect voter turnout. In a recent editorial criticizing the Electoral College, The New York Times said, "Statistics have shown that more people vote when their vote has a better chance at making a difference." This time around, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in Massachusetts have no voice.
Two states, Maine and Nebraska, give the overall winning candidate two votes, then award the rest according to who wins each congressional district.
In 2001, a bill to do that in North Carolina was introduced by state Rep. Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat from Richmond County now running for Labor commissioner. It passed in the state Senate but ran into opposition from House Republicans and never came up for a vote there.
He pointed out that when campaigns come to a state, they spend money there.
It's understandable N.C. Republicans would view such a switch with suspicion. Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to win here, in 1976.
But with a Democratic governor and Senate majority, it's possible the pendulum could swing the other way.
This year, Colorado will vote on instituting a slightly different method, awarding electoral votes on the basis of the candidate's share of the overall vote. If it passes and Mr. Bush gets 55 percent of the vote, he'll get five votes and Sen. John Kerry four, regardless of how congressional districts vote.
The Electoral College issue comes up with every contested election, said Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. His mother lives in Hampstead.
There's a lot of information about the Electoral College at the group's Web site, www.fairvote.org.
They favor a one-person, one-vote system, but Mr. Richie is uneasy about states switching one at a time. Still, the group supports the Colorado initiative, mainly to bring the issue to the forefront. Presidential candidates will only campaign here if our votes matter. As it stands now, they might court our votes in close elections but not ones where the result looks certain.
Everybody says the Electoral College is arcane. I would add the word "dumb." But it would take a constitutional amendment to abolish it.
In the meantime, it's up to states.