By Journal Sentinel readers
Published June 17th 2006 in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Last Sunday, the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board asked readers to
offer their best arguments on whether the Electoral College has a place
in America today in light of a movement to let the popular vote dictate
presidential election outcomes. Some of the responses follow. For the
record, of the total letters received, about one-third of writers favor
the Electoral College system and about two-thirds would like to see it
abolished or modified.
Get rid of old system
Since I was in high school and thanks to some good civics teachers, I have been an impassioned advocate of abolishing, not tinkering with, the Electoral College. If electors are still in place, a way will be found to corrupt the results.
Lacking the instant communication systems we have today, the Founding Fathers put in place a way to get the election results to Washington. This sometimes took weeks. This is no longer true.
Again, my civics instructors more than 60 years ago talked about one man - change that to one person - one vote. One teacher was positively incensed while lecturing about his vote and my future vote counting for less than that of a person in Wyoming. People - not acreage - vote, and there is no longer any difficulty in counting results. CNN does it.
Is the Electoral College anti-democratic? Absolutely. Where is democracy when a candidate wins the vote of the people but loses the election because of this antiquated, unfair process? National Popular Vote can be a step in the right direction.
Fern K. Ramirez
Fond du Lac
***
Concept just a gimmick
The idea that the American people aren't wise enough to elect a president on their own, if it ever was true, is long obsolete. The Electoral College is a needless gimmick that does not serve the political process. There is no reason to maintain it. Its existence makes a mockery of democracy by allowing a president to be put into office with fewer votes than his opponent.
The concept that an individual's vote in a closely contested state is more important than another citizen's vote in a landslide state is unfair and unjustifiable.
It is also divisive. In reality, there are no red or blue states. All states have voters of both parties. Candidates should run on the issues of importance to the entire United States, not be encouraged to pander to the voters of the swing states.
Let's show the world that a democracy as great as ours is a true democracy. Eliminate the Electoral College. It is long overdue.
Steve Jozefczyk
Franklin
***
Well, life isn't fair
The presidential election system isn't perfect: The winner of the popular vote does not always get elected president but does most of time. If your particular candidate is on the short end of the popular vote but becomes president anyway, then the system is fair in your eyes and the other side feels cheated.
Is life ever really 100% fair? The June 11 editorial made the point that smaller electoral vote states suffer under the present system and would see more campaigning if the system were abolished. I doubt that. The entire population of Wyoming is less than one-sixteenth the population of New York City alone. Does the Editorial Board really think it would be economically sound for a candidate to spend a lot of time traveling throughout Wyoming for days to reach as many voters as he or she could with one stop in New York? I think not.
The Electoral College isn't perfect by any means, but it has worked relatively well for two-plus centuries. Leave it alone. By the way, I was one the voters who did feel cheated in 2000.
Allen E. Schatz
Milwaukee
***
Let popular vote decide
It has long been my opinion that all senators and representatives should vote for what is good for our country - instead of Democrats against Republicans, or vice versa. I agree with the organization National Popular Vote that Wisconsin should join other states and sign a compact that would have the members of our Electoral College cast their ballots for whoever wins the national popular vote.
Like every state, Wisconsin has as many votes in the Electoral College as the total of our senators and representatives in Congress. Their votes, regardless of whether our representatives are Democrats or Republicans, would be cast for the person who receives the most popular votes to be our president in 2008.
Jane C. Ellis
New Berlin
***
Change the system
My proposal for changing the system for electing the president of the United States is as follows:
First, base electoral votes for each state on the number of voters in that state as a percent of total votes cast throughout the nation. For example, if Wisconsin voters constitute 2.3% of the total votes cast, our state would receive 2.3% of electoral votes.
Second, the candidate receiving the most votes in each state would receive the total number of electoral votes allocated to that state.
This system would encourage high turnouts, in that the more votes cast in a given state, the higher percentage of electoral votes that state would receive. The disproportionate allocation of electoral votes under the present system would be eliminated.
The only drawback would be that it might take a day or two longer to determine the winner of the election. But after all, it took about seven weeks to determine the winner of the 2000 election.
Stanley B. Jay
Elm Grove
***
It's a controlling measure
Thank you for the June 11 editorial "Founding wisdom or founding folly?"
The Electoral College should be legislated out of our Constitution. It was put there by our founders in order to control our democratic process. We can see through their male and moneyed and land-ownership minds. We should elect the president by popular vote. The Electoral College is an anachronism - an unnecessary, controlling step in the election of the presidency.
The 2000 and 2004 elections prove my point: popular vote.
Dorothy Tennessen
Milwaukee
***
A promise worth keeping
There's more to maintaining a stable democracy then basing elections on pure majority rule. Also, an environment must exist for a peaceful and orderly process of transferring authority from one party to another. The United States has a history of achieving this, with one notable exception in 1860.
The Electoral College facilitates this orderly transfer. Instead of votes in every state in a popular national count becoming subject to recount in a close or challenged election, it narrows the re-examination. But more importantly, the Electoral College amplifies the differences between parties making the public more willing to accept the legitimacy of extremely close elections.
The Constitution does not endorse simple majority rule. The presidential veto, a two-house legislature with only one representing population and the Supreme Court are the most obvious contrary provisions.
Yes, the Electoral College concentrates campaign activity in a few critical states. It permits a presidential candidate with fewer popular votes to be elected and it places impediments in the paths of minor parties. Yet by contributing to orderly governmental successions, preventing recounts from spreading to every precinct in the nation, it remains one of the constitutional compromises worth keeping.
Everett Long
Whitewater
***
Direct election necessary
From the start, there has been progress in choosing direct elections. By 1828, all state legislatures except one let voters pick their electors.
Two reasons for the indirect route vanished when the slavery advantage was lost with its abolition and when Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, first in New York and then nationally, created our modern political parties. Their caucuses, nominating, campaigning and constant political activity made possible a national direct election. For Van Buren, strong parties with internal debate and vs. opposing parties were the lifeblood of the democratic process of a successful republic.
Our country's remarkable growth now requires direct election rather than the translation of the popular vote into a college vote. Today, we are faced with paramount national, continental and world rights, duties, needs and costs far beyond the minimal national concerns in the days when the states united.
We might not get better presidents with direct elections, but every voter will be modestly sure votes cast anywhere have the same weight and party nominees will have reason to seek maximum exposure of their merits.
We the people of the United States will have spoken, not we the people of the several states. Let's say goodbye to this college as a historical curiosity.
Bob Kealy
Milwaukee
***
Founders' idea wise, fair
Why would Wisconsin or any other state want to surrender its autonomy to a few states? Why should the top 10 most populated states, which have 50% of the population and congressional representation, be allowed to select the president and vice president?
Yet that's what would happen if we went to popular election of these offices or, as National Popular Vote proposes, required states to cast their electoral ballots for whoever wins the national popular vote. What would be the point of the other 40 states even showing up to vote? Even if 100% of Wisconsin voters selected Candidate A, it would require our electors to vote for Candidate B if he or she got more votes nationally.
The Electoral College reflects each state's representation in Congress based on population and thus provides proportional representation in selecting a president and vice president. This decision by the Founding Fathers has proved to be both wise and fair.
Yes, a few times the winner of the popular vote has not been elected because of the intervention of the Electoral College. So what? It is the backbone of our federal election system and should be maintained for the reasons that it was included in the Constitution originally.
J. Michael Steinhardt
Pewaukee
***
Electors no more qualified
The Electoral College was established under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to provide a mechanism for such elections which would avoid "mischief," "intrigue" and "corruption" with a decided elitist approach.
Under No. 68 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, in part, wrote: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." In other words, the "mass" was not sufficiently prepared or intelligent enough to elect the president.
Horse manure! There is no sound basis that the electors are any more qualified, intelligent or representative than the people themselves. Further, the present system is grossly unrepresentative and discriminatory to citizens of the various states.
In the 2000 unadjusted census, Wisconsin had 5,363,675 people and 10 electors, while Wyoming had 493,782 people and three electors. So each Wyoming citizen had more than three times the voting power of a Wisconsin citizen in the Electoral College.
It is long overdue to amend the Constitution so that each citizen's vote will be equal, the majority - or plurality - will elect the president and the present discriminatory and elitist system will be relegated to the mothballs of history.
Gary R. Yakes
Oshkosh
***
Some don't realize it
Our Founding Fathers are to be congratulated on creating the most perfect document the world had conceived up to that time or since to govern a republic. Unfortunately, they didn't properly address slavery, voter's rights, women's rights and the proper way to elect senators and presidents.
We finally went to a popular election of senators in 1913. We still haven't gotten the president thing right! As well as the Founding Fathers have done, and they did most things right, there is no reason why one big mistake made originally should not be corrected.
Presidents have won the popular vote and lost in the Electoral College. Does that make any sense? Ask average Americans if they know they do not elect the president but they vote for an elector who doesn't have an obligation to vote for the same person they may want.
If we were to write a Constitution today as a new nation, would we put up with an Electoral College? I think not! Let's go to a true one person, one vote. Here is one place where the common good is worth more than the lame argument of states' rights. It's time for the now revolution, to take back the rights most of thought we already had.
John Illian
Menomonee Falls
Get rid of old system
Since I was in high school and thanks to some good civics teachers, I have been an impassioned advocate of abolishing, not tinkering with, the Electoral College. If electors are still in place, a way will be found to corrupt the results.
Lacking the instant communication systems we have today, the Founding Fathers put in place a way to get the election results to Washington. This sometimes took weeks. This is no longer true.
Again, my civics instructors more than 60 years ago talked about one man - change that to one person - one vote. One teacher was positively incensed while lecturing about his vote and my future vote counting for less than that of a person in Wyoming. People - not acreage - vote, and there is no longer any difficulty in counting results. CNN does it.
Is the Electoral College anti-democratic? Absolutely. Where is democracy when a candidate wins the vote of the people but loses the election because of this antiquated, unfair process? National Popular Vote can be a step in the right direction.
Fern K. Ramirez
Fond du Lac
***
Concept just a gimmick
The idea that the American people aren't wise enough to elect a president on their own, if it ever was true, is long obsolete. The Electoral College is a needless gimmick that does not serve the political process. There is no reason to maintain it. Its existence makes a mockery of democracy by allowing a president to be put into office with fewer votes than his opponent.
The concept that an individual's vote in a closely contested state is more important than another citizen's vote in a landslide state is unfair and unjustifiable.
It is also divisive. In reality, there are no red or blue states. All states have voters of both parties. Candidates should run on the issues of importance to the entire United States, not be encouraged to pander to the voters of the swing states.
Let's show the world that a democracy as great as ours is a true democracy. Eliminate the Electoral College. It is long overdue.
Steve Jozefczyk
Franklin
***
Well, life isn't fair
The presidential election system isn't perfect: The winner of the popular vote does not always get elected president but does most of time. If your particular candidate is on the short end of the popular vote but becomes president anyway, then the system is fair in your eyes and the other side feels cheated.
Is life ever really 100% fair? The June 11 editorial made the point that smaller electoral vote states suffer under the present system and would see more campaigning if the system were abolished. I doubt that. The entire population of Wyoming is less than one-sixteenth the population of New York City alone. Does the Editorial Board really think it would be economically sound for a candidate to spend a lot of time traveling throughout Wyoming for days to reach as many voters as he or she could with one stop in New York? I think not.
The Electoral College isn't perfect by any means, but it has worked relatively well for two-plus centuries. Leave it alone. By the way, I was one the voters who did feel cheated in 2000.
Allen E. Schatz
Milwaukee
***
Let popular vote decide
It has long been my opinion that all senators and representatives should vote for what is good for our country - instead of Democrats against Republicans, or vice versa. I agree with the organization National Popular Vote that Wisconsin should join other states and sign a compact that would have the members of our Electoral College cast their ballots for whoever wins the national popular vote.
Like every state, Wisconsin has as many votes in the Electoral College as the total of our senators and representatives in Congress. Their votes, regardless of whether our representatives are Democrats or Republicans, would be cast for the person who receives the most popular votes to be our president in 2008.
Jane C. Ellis
New Berlin
***
Change the system
My proposal for changing the system for electing the president of the United States is as follows:
First, base electoral votes for each state on the number of voters in that state as a percent of total votes cast throughout the nation. For example, if Wisconsin voters constitute 2.3% of the total votes cast, our state would receive 2.3% of electoral votes.
Second, the candidate receiving the most votes in each state would receive the total number of electoral votes allocated to that state.
This system would encourage high turnouts, in that the more votes cast in a given state, the higher percentage of electoral votes that state would receive. The disproportionate allocation of electoral votes under the present system would be eliminated.
The only drawback would be that it might take a day or two longer to determine the winner of the election. But after all, it took about seven weeks to determine the winner of the 2000 election.
Stanley B. Jay
Elm Grove
***
It's a controlling measure
Thank you for the June 11 editorial "Founding wisdom or founding folly?"
The Electoral College should be legislated out of our Constitution. It was put there by our founders in order to control our democratic process. We can see through their male and moneyed and land-ownership minds. We should elect the president by popular vote. The Electoral College is an anachronism - an unnecessary, controlling step in the election of the presidency.
The 2000 and 2004 elections prove my point: popular vote.
Dorothy Tennessen
Milwaukee
***
A promise worth keeping
There's more to maintaining a stable democracy then basing elections on pure majority rule. Also, an environment must exist for a peaceful and orderly process of transferring authority from one party to another. The United States has a history of achieving this, with one notable exception in 1860.
The Electoral College facilitates this orderly transfer. Instead of votes in every state in a popular national count becoming subject to recount in a close or challenged election, it narrows the re-examination. But more importantly, the Electoral College amplifies the differences between parties making the public more willing to accept the legitimacy of extremely close elections.
The Constitution does not endorse simple majority rule. The presidential veto, a two-house legislature with only one representing population and the Supreme Court are the most obvious contrary provisions.
Yes, the Electoral College concentrates campaign activity in a few critical states. It permits a presidential candidate with fewer popular votes to be elected and it places impediments in the paths of minor parties. Yet by contributing to orderly governmental successions, preventing recounts from spreading to every precinct in the nation, it remains one of the constitutional compromises worth keeping.
Everett Long
Whitewater
***
Direct election necessary
From the start, there has been progress in choosing direct elections. By 1828, all state legislatures except one let voters pick their electors.
Two reasons for the indirect route vanished when the slavery advantage was lost with its abolition and when Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, first in New York and then nationally, created our modern political parties. Their caucuses, nominating, campaigning and constant political activity made possible a national direct election. For Van Buren, strong parties with internal debate and vs. opposing parties were the lifeblood of the democratic process of a successful republic.
Our country's remarkable growth now requires direct election rather than the translation of the popular vote into a college vote. Today, we are faced with paramount national, continental and world rights, duties, needs and costs far beyond the minimal national concerns in the days when the states united.
We might not get better presidents with direct elections, but every voter will be modestly sure votes cast anywhere have the same weight and party nominees will have reason to seek maximum exposure of their merits.
We the people of the United States will have spoken, not we the people of the several states. Let's say goodbye to this college as a historical curiosity.
Bob Kealy
Milwaukee
***
Founders' idea wise, fair
Why would Wisconsin or any other state want to surrender its autonomy to a few states? Why should the top 10 most populated states, which have 50% of the population and congressional representation, be allowed to select the president and vice president?
Yet that's what would happen if we went to popular election of these offices or, as National Popular Vote proposes, required states to cast their electoral ballots for whoever wins the national popular vote. What would be the point of the other 40 states even showing up to vote? Even if 100% of Wisconsin voters selected Candidate A, it would require our electors to vote for Candidate B if he or she got more votes nationally.
The Electoral College reflects each state's representation in Congress based on population and thus provides proportional representation in selecting a president and vice president. This decision by the Founding Fathers has proved to be both wise and fair.
Yes, a few times the winner of the popular vote has not been elected because of the intervention of the Electoral College. So what? It is the backbone of our federal election system and should be maintained for the reasons that it was included in the Constitution originally.
J. Michael Steinhardt
Pewaukee
***
Electors no more qualified
The Electoral College was established under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to provide a mechanism for such elections which would avoid "mischief," "intrigue" and "corruption" with a decided elitist approach.
Under No. 68 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, in part, wrote: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." In other words, the "mass" was not sufficiently prepared or intelligent enough to elect the president.
Horse manure! There is no sound basis that the electors are any more qualified, intelligent or representative than the people themselves. Further, the present system is grossly unrepresentative and discriminatory to citizens of the various states.
In the 2000 unadjusted census, Wisconsin had 5,363,675 people and 10 electors, while Wyoming had 493,782 people and three electors. So each Wyoming citizen had more than three times the voting power of a Wisconsin citizen in the Electoral College.
It is long overdue to amend the Constitution so that each citizen's vote will be equal, the majority - or plurality - will elect the president and the present discriminatory and elitist system will be relegated to the mothballs of history.
Gary R. Yakes
Oshkosh
***
Some don't realize it
Our Founding Fathers are to be congratulated on creating the most perfect document the world had conceived up to that time or since to govern a republic. Unfortunately, they didn't properly address slavery, voter's rights, women's rights and the proper way to elect senators and presidents.
We finally went to a popular election of senators in 1913. We still haven't gotten the president thing right! As well as the Founding Fathers have done, and they did most things right, there is no reason why one big mistake made originally should not be corrected.
Presidents have won the popular vote and lost in the Electoral College. Does that make any sense? Ask average Americans if they know they do not elect the president but they vote for an elector who doesn't have an obligation to vote for the same person they may want.
If we were to write a Constitution today as a new nation, would we put up with an Electoral College? I think not! Let's go to a true one person, one vote. Here is one place where the common good is worth more than the lame argument of states' rights. It's time for the now revolution, to take back the rights most of thought we already had.
John Illian
Menomonee Falls