A thoughtful idea that will never happen. Consider, gerrymandering and voter suppression are not unusual features of the American system, and you cannot even stop that from happening.
32
As a 10th and 12th generation Yankee WASP, I'm not interested in having an illegally-obtained state like Texas or California make my vote worthless. In a purely majority vote election, the decision would be made by states that didn't exist when the Constitution was written. The electoral college gives some weight to those states that made this country. It was New England that gave this country what little moral and intellectual structure it has. All subsequent states built on a framework that came from New England. Consider what the consequences of the Civil War would have been had the Old Northwest Territories been settled by people from the plantation slave states.
25
Oh, wait!
I have some other ideas:
1. Reparations for all Blacks (must prove minimum of 1/32 African blood) for the suffering your great great grandparents underwent, possibly, from some other White’s great great grandparents (not mine who were abolitionists).
2. Forgiveness of all student debt. While we are at it, forgive ALL loans. After all, Shariah Law forbids usury, so why stop at the kids. Any lender is hereafter a bankster (a term I read here for the first time).
3. Ban all religions. Let’s get our laws in alignment with our actions and prohibit free association. The college campuses know how to suppress debate so let the students handle this with their intimidation mobs.
4. End all limits on abortions and provide free contraception at all ages. It is time to give the people what they want. And legalize pornograghy...we’re not all religious prudes anymore.
5. Any company without perfect proportion to national gender and racial metrics will be taxed heavily or taken over by the government.
6. Any person suffering from continued trauma owing to the foregoing will hereby receive state-funded anti-depressants and bibs to manage drooling. A fixed income will be provided for their care in an approved facility for the chronically sad.
We have so much work to do. We mustn’t stop at the Electoral College when the world is so widely and patently unfair.
22
Three years ago a Dublin garda asked me why I voted for Trump. I said I didn't, and neither did most Americans. He replied, "It's the electoral college, isn't it?" I agreed, and said it was insane, to which he agreed. So why do we continue this insanity?
62
William Safire pointed out in 2000 that if we elected the president by popular vote, we would not just be recounting FL we would be recounting EVERY electoral district.... i.e. A popular vote required uniform NATIONAL voting standards, uniformly enabled and enforced..... Not impossible of course .... but a lot more complicated than just using the current Rube Goldberg system.
7
The arguments for and against the Electoral College are part of the history of the nation and its Constitution. I think the founders were correct in their final product and more knowledgeable and less political than Mr. Wegman.
22
@Samuel Spade They were correct and more knowledgeable - in terms of the 1780's. But a lot of their ideas, including the winner-take-all Electoral College - make little sense in the 21st century, and I think many of the founders would agree.
The Electoral College is one of the major roadblocks, though not the only one, in the path of our aspirations to become a democracy (which we're not).
62
They compromised to protect slave states. Time for a change.
67
I am in favor of making candidates vie for the popular vote more than the electoral vote. But one massive disadvantage was not mentioned. If you have to campaign in all 50 states, the cost of your campaign rises enormously. If it costs a billion dollars to, effectively, run a campaign in six battleground states now, what would it cost to run nationwide? Wouldn't the election become even more about who is best at fundraising?
3
We hear this argument every 4 years and everyone agrees that we should remove the electoral college.
Why won't it happen? In order to make it happen, what do we need to do?
18
The fatal flaw in the Electoral College as envisioned by the Founders was that they assumed it would be made up of reasonably intelligent people who would have the best interests of the country in mind when voting. They actually thought these men would put the country first and prevent an obviously unfit person from becoming President.
Oops.
Trump proved them wrong in spades. He is the most obviously unfit person ever "elected" yet the electors went ahead and put him in office anyway. So really, in it's most important test in our history the electoral college proved itself an utter failure. It is obvious it has no use whatsoever.
70
The EC won't go away because it disproportionately benefits the GOP.
59
While you're eliminating the EC, why not eliminate the States completely? I.e., the Senate, quasi-sovereign extra constitutions and governments, and so on? We would become the United State of America, and much better for it.
13
All seems reasonable, and that's its death knell.
13
When I was in the ninth grade (I'm 71 now), I gave my first speech against the Electoral College. My ninth-grade logic went like this: The EC was established by rich, white men to control who was elected president. In order to vote when the EC was established, one had to be: (1) male; (2) white; (3) own land; and (4) be literate. Poor, white males couldn't vote, neither could women (whether wealthy or poor). Most poor, white males were illiterate (and those were the males who were my forebears). Blacks were considered 3/5 of a person. So my ninth-grade self concluded (as my 71-year-old self still does) that it was rich, white men wanted to decide who would decide the presidency. We wait to do the formal EC meeting and vote until December, since that's how long it took those electors to travel by horse or buckboard to the site and cast the official votes. Those votes can now be cast instantaneously (something my ninth-grade self could not have imagined).
Is the EC outdated? You bet! Even before the Internet was invented, I knew that. And I wasn't a political strategist; I was only in the ninth grade.
71
Geez look at all these comments wanting to preserve the electoral college. I am willing to bet they are from rural states over represented in the Senate. Whatever happened to the fundamental principle- one person one vote? I am from Maine - a rural state over represented in Senate and i am willing to give up to make the US live up to its democratic principles. Gee- is that so weird for you people from conservative states who claim to be “the real Americans”?
46
Our election process is like a model T in the Indy 500. A far better process is that used in some US municipalities and other democracies: Preferential ranked ballots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
It's time to recognize the obsolescence of our current system and embrace a process that accurately reflects the will of the electorate.
17
The electoral college is of course an archaic tradition but it’s not your worst problem.
What’s truly an abomination in the 21th century is to hand over the executive power to one single person , a person who also is head of state and unchallenged commander in chief...and as it has been proven lately also practically speaking is above the law.
It’s almost amusing, your ancestors staged a successful rebellion in order not to be ruled by a sovereign monarch while the people back in Europe still was . Today it’s the other way around
31
@Sture Ståhle You're right, we don't need a sovereign monarch. Trump isn't one, he just thinks he is.
Something else we have no use for is folks in other countries lecturing us on what our "worst problem" is. Apparently, "A total of more than 1.5 million crimes were reported in Sweden in 2019,... including an increase in rapes, drugs-related crimes, vandalism, and a decrease in home break-ins and thefts." (from Wikipedia)
Maybe you should concern yourself with that instead.
6
A popular vote would also make the Dems create a more nuanced voice on abortion and religion. As it stands, the GOP has hijacked those issues and there is no reason for it. There are a lot of Dems in Kansas but the general election simply doesn't matter to them. The Electoral College is a disgrace as is the concept of winner-take-all.
19
It will never happen. Republicans won’t ever approve.
11
Is this article dated 2020 or 2017? Poor dead horse has been beaten so many times.
8
Here is proof of the assertion that the electoral college needs to go:
Florida.
That’s it.
Have you all played the Florida Woman/Man game? You type in Florida Woman/Man with your birth day and month into the web browser, and see what comes up.
Mine is “Florida Man arrested for chasing people with alligator during beer run at store.” Florida infamously gave us George Bush Jr. Florida also voted for Donald Trump. Floridians also deny climate change while at the same time installing multi million dollar bilge pumps in their cities to keep the ocean out. Why would you need to install industrial bilge pumps if the ocean wasn’t rising?
The electoral college needs to go.
23
Jess, I do not know what is wrong with you. How do we eliminate the foreigners and keep the dark people and women in their proper place? All those people demanding equal rights. Only us wealthy property owners deserve to make the decisions. Do think keeping the country white and rural is that easy?
11
Yeah, I’m sure a bunch of woke lefties who are still whining about 2016 should determine how we choose presidents. I’m not happy trump won, and I didn’t vote for him, but I’m going to have to go with the founders on this one. Their ideas have stood the test of time way better than the open borders (even the nyts now admits it) free stuff crowd.
11
#202134 in a series of 309281 about abolishing the Electoral College.
These are all completely idiotic:
1) The EC will never be removed - that would take the ratification of an Amendment by 3/4 of the states. 24 of the 51 states support the EC (DC included).
2) The "National Popular Vote Initiative" is unconstitutional - because in at least 1 state, the Electors would from the other party.
3) I live in a small state. I do not want the idiots in CA, NY, NJ, IL, TX, and OR telling my state what to do and who the president is.
4) The REAL ISSUE is that the Dems cannot buy a rural vote. That is because Dem issues (promoting gay and trans, open-borders, centralized power, an all-powerful central government) are completely unpopular in rural areas. If Dems want rural votes, they need to wise up and get better policies.
17
With several sanctuary states allowing illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses, and where states like CA and NY DMV applications have a “register to vote” box, coupled with CA’s new ballot harvesting, and some coastal states allowing voting by computer, the recipe for illegal voting is upon us. Illegal voting is being condoned by the democrats, who are turning a blind eye to these atrocities.
14
That anachronism..The electoral college, stole the Government we are supposed to have. How much more traitorous can it get?
The current electoral college 'appointment' to the oval office lost the election by 3,000,000 ballots.
A line of 3,000,000 people stretches for over a thousand miles! How illegitimate can you get?
Where is our.......
Government Of The People, By The People, For The People?
25
No, no it's real american - confuse them to death and then you can sell them anything!
4
I don't want California and New York picking the President, do you?
16
The Electoral College will be remembered as the monster that ate America.
10
Point 1: Without the Electoral College, every president would be chosen by a few concentrations of voters. This would mean presidents would represent mainly the people on the west coast and in the northeast. About 40 states (or more) would have nothing to say about it. That's why we have an Electoral College in the first place.
Point 2: The whole discussion is a waste of time. It requires three-quarters of the states to approve a constitutional amendment, and only an idiot would think that 38 states would vote to permanently exclude themselves from a role in selecting the president.
Point 3: Like so much else about our incredibly successful democratic republic, it was designed around compromises. It requires a minimally sophisticated populace to understand and value that fact.
Point 4: Electing the POTUS by popular vote is a "win-win," unless you look at it from the perspective of the party in power. This is a likely reason the GOP lacks the motivation to get behind this idea. From their viewpoint, the system is working exceedingly well for them. Why jeopardize this? Get real. If Dems were in this position would they roll the dice? No. Get use to this fact. The Electoral college is here to stay. For the rest of your life & beyond. Here's a better idea. Democrats should move to the center. Stop fighting stupid cultural wars so they can win back the millions of working class votes they lost. Do this & they'll win the electoral college on a more consistent basis.
15
No, just NO!
4
Yes, please!
2
Thanks for spelling this all out. Now can you please write an article on what we have to do to get rid of this insane system. We are not a democracy if we use an electoral college system to choose our president. It amazes me that after electing an insane idiot that lost the popular vote, four years later we still have the same unjust system.
7
This is tedious. We all know the system is ridiculous, but we also know there is no way to overturn it, save by a constitutional amendment and why should the swing states every agree to lose their outsize power? When you have some insight into how to actually get rid of this stupid system, then I'll be interested. Merely laying out the reasons again does nothing.
5
Yes. Yes. Yes
1
35% to 40% of Americans are opposed to democracy and representative government, preferring a tyranny of the authoritarian minority to a fair system.
They are comfortable with Republican cheating, lying, deception, vote suppression, voter file purges, gerrymandering, black-box-vote-counting, and a lack of voting machines in cities to help drown democracy in their Republican bathtub.
We have met the enemy...and it is Republistan and their tiny little fake American flags on their suit lapels.
Nice GOPeople.
16
1 person 1 vote > 1 acre 1 vote.
4
This is such a waste of time. Yes, the Electoral College is idiotic and no, it isn’t going anywhere.
Why not try pushing for something meaningful, like Medicare for All or an end to our endless wars? Why do moderates love these Quixotic process crusades?
2
Yes, yes, yes!
2
Tell you what, Jesse...
When the EU dissolves the borders among its 27 members, and no longer takes any decisions based on a one-country one-vote among those 27...
Then come back and talk to us...
And please – no smug rebuttals about the "obvious difference" between that situation and ours...
Since you’re all so enthralled by the moral and decent leftists that win national European elections – but repulsed by the vile and base rightists now prevailing as often as not…
PS
If anyone knows the "obvious difference" between the seditious rebels of Catalonia and the sovereign citizenry of Belgium – that'd be worth hearing...
PPS
If history and everyday life are any guide...
Humans yearn to be included and compliant – but their more profound and satisfying actualization comes from excluding others and finding them to be non-compliant…
That’s – obviously – going to turn out really well, before too long…
2
Yes Jesse it would be a wonderful world for democrats if we ridded ourselves of the electoral college but would it be good for the country? How many states would be needed to elect a President? I say would be less than 10, maybe less than 5. If you think this sounds like a fair deal to you, what would the other 45 states think? Wouldn't we be ignored voters when we were conservative and lived in a red state? Would a state with great fiscal numbers want to be linked with a NY State or an Illinois that are going broke with the scam system of public officials inflating public unions retirement plans to "golden" status. The dumbest thing mentioned in this article is this:
“I think it would help Republicans if they knew they had to campaign all over the country,” he said".
Trump worked 3 times harder than lazy Hillary in the last election and had more visits, and events than Hillary by over double. He visited more states more often.
Here is the bottom line: you were beaten fair and square by conservatives last election. Get over it please! You are losing in the arena of ideas and you have had to push your most liberal idiot out of the election the last 2 cycles. You behavior since 2016 has been like a child throwing a tantrum. The democrats do not deserve to run anything until they decide if they like Freedom or their Socialist Utopias. Please go away!
PS: A family member of mine moved to Wisconsin 15 years ago to get out of "conservative" Virginia. She went the wrong direction!
5
Learn from Denmark!
They have a 100% democratic and fair voting system where every vote matters. Not like USA. See what you got! :( :(
8
Then why live in Kansas?
1
Not this old tired argument, again.
5
Yes! Yes! Yes!
2
Factor in what the country looked like when the Constitution was adopted. Now, try to take what was originally written and apply that to 50 US states. Can’t be done. You choose to live in Montana. I choose to live in California. Applying the one individual, one vote idea, my state has a lot more votes than yours, yet, you want equal influence in how the nation is governed. What you really are demanding is that my vote be diluted and your vote multiplied. Power to the people, no matter where they choose to live!
9
I always wonder why news organizations waste ink and digital space discussing the elimination of the electoral college. Eliminating it legally would require most states to voluntarily give up political power by voting for an amendment to the Constitution and that's not going to happen. I suppose instead there could be a violent revolution started by the populated states.
Perhaps instead news organizations could write opinion pieces to help resuscitate the lost art of persuasion.
5
I have argued with friends, including fellow lawyers, about the electoral college for years. It is astonishing how many people misunderstand what the constitution actually says when it comes to the electoral "college." Almost everyone seems to think that "winner take all" is in the constitution, when of course it's not. Almost none understand that "winner take all" is inconsistent with both the text of the constitution and the drafters' intent. Almost all seem to think the electoral college was intended to protect small states against large states, which is false, without pausing to think that in fact it doesn't do that, since the smaller a state gets relative to other states, the fewer electoral votes it gets. The electoral college, especially with the winner take all statutes in effect in 48 states, is not what the founders intended. In fact, it's inconsistent with what they intended. We have been disregarding the constitution on this issue almost since the beginning. That a handful of swing states should determine the election of the president is an absurdity. The NPV Interstate Compact is a simple way to end it.
10
Even ignoring gerrymandering, voter suppression, unlimited campaign money, deceptive marketing practices, and potential manipulation of the voting process, the US system of elections is disempowering. The first-past-post system used for most elections makes no accommodation for the strength or weakness of either the winning or losing candidate’s support. Parties other than the dominant two have little chance of gaining any power, in part because first-past-post tends to favour a two-person contest, but also because our system's lack of a formal opposition party or the possibility of coalitions makes anything but a win meaningless. And structural features like the electoral college make voters in some parts of the nation better represented than voters in others. For all these reasons, the dominant party in the government is often not representative of the majority of voters, and the two major parties may not satisfactorily represent a large portion of the people. While we condemn failing to vote as irresponsible, in many ways not voting is rational behaviour. Unless one lives in a district where the election is closely contested, one’s vote or lack of vote is unlikely to affect the outcome of the election. And even if one is in a closely contested district, the system itself limits the significance of one’s choice as the options presented are limited, often unattractive, and, once in office, have little reason to be accountable to voters.
2
Wow. Another editorial about how the Times doesn’t like the electoral college. *Yawn*. How insightful.
I got news for y’all. It ain’t going away...no matter how many strongly worded op-eds y’all write.
5
if the Liberals don't like the outcome just change the rules....why bother with elections at all.. communist / socialist states don't have any problems with elections.
4
I guess the author is a democrat
3
So that the big dirty, dangerous, polluted, crime filled cities pick our President?
Millions of those living in the big cities vote out of legacy and habit and have no idea what is going on in our country or the world.
They come out out every four years and basically vote for who ever PoP culture or the Liberal media tells them to.
Not good. ( even for those aforementioned )
4
How many times can this column be written.
5
Quit mincing words. The electoral college is stupid. Winner take all is stupid. Popular vote for President. Common sense. America admit your mistakes, wake up for Christ sake. Hillary got 2.8 more votes than Trump in 2016. Democracy? No.
3
No.
3
The rest of the world is apprehensive about the Coronavirus and we have yet another 2016 sore loser column about the electoral college.
Will some at the NYT redirect their writers to new subject matter? Everyone reading this paper knows it’s writers want to change the election rules. This horse has been beaten to death.
3
Um, no.
3
Because we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Like duh. Wegman should at least take a refresher civics class.
5
The EC, like the 2nd amendment are pointless appendages. Their time has long since passed. But for each the complexity, nuance and mechanics of addressing each is the largest theoretical barrier.
Thus experiment of a Democracy is a shadow of what it was designed yo be and has become a Frankenstein Monster. It us out of control complicated by the current of the oval office who is a traitor, a criminal and a moron.
In addition to “just counting votes” to engage voter turnout we need the option that the ONE vote can be pledged FIR or AGAINST a candidate. Don’t see someone you like? Vote against the one you least like.
3
The electoral college has been in place since the beginning of our government. The left wines like grade-schoolers only when their perception is that it is "unfair", and you only hear the wining when things don't go the left's way. Grow up, it is our system, Criminal Hill lost, put your adult pants on and win an election under the rules of our constitution that have been in place since the dawn of our current government. Your fake "rage" that seems to never end is a joke. What DOESN'T rage you, what DON'T you wine about?
3
Yes!
1
The National Popular Vote bill is the answer. If enough states pass this legislation, then it will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
This website explains how: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The legislation has already has been enacted in 16 jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes. If states states with another 74 electoral votes pass it, then the Electoral College will be a thing of the past.
5
Feature, not bug. Those old white racist blowhards who wrote the constitution were so hateful and racist. They put the electoral college in to ensure rich people would continue to rule. The USA never was a democracy. This is why fascists are so loved today. Pay attention.
3
What an amazing idea! You are a genius, I bet you are stable, too! Now why don't you run right off to DC and have Congress agree to that, then head off to the small population red states that punch far above their weight in the body politic and have them and their ratify the constitution amendment necessary to abolish the electoral college. We'll wait.
5
Pardon me, but “It’s the money, stupid.”
Idiot! The electoral college serves a valid purpose... it prevents the tyranny of the majority. And until liberal dictatorships like CA agree to implement rigid voter ID systems, we have no idea who really is voting. ALL of Clinton’s supposed vote advantage came from CA and there is NO accounting for how many illegals voted. The kalifornia dictatorship open advocates for allowing ANYONE to vote!
3
Pre-civics, 100.5. Anyone who pays attention knows all this. And we know that a constitutional amendment is needed to dispose of the EC. When hell freezes over...
2
Simply put he EC affords some people in some areas power. Those people refuse to relinquish power so the antiquated system that negates the popular vote(as well illustrated by the 2016 election) and keeps old white men in power keeps on keeping on. The vote of the people is not in the interest of those currently in power, staying in power is their only interest. Popular vote be damned.
1
What should also be added is that Electoral College does not work the way the Founders intended.. Originally they were intended to be Platonic guardians who were wiser than the damned stupid electorate and could override the voters' "bad" decisions. It was soon discovered that this gave the Electors way too much power, and so it was replaced with a system where the electors were pledged to particular candidates. Even today it's possible for a rogue elector to change his vote,and this could cause a Constitutional crisis.
I've read that before Napoleon declared himself Emperor of France, he experimented with an Electoral College whose members were probably pledged to support Napoleon, and thus give his rule pseudo-democratic legitimacy.
1
The only remote chance of changing the laughable American democracy and voting system is if the Democrats can win back the White House, the Senate and the Congress. But at least two factors act against it.
The winning party never need to change the system that help them win power. Once they get into office, they break any campaign reform promises. That's what Justin Trudeau did in Canada.
The other bigger problem is American politics and how the media reports it. The presidential campaigns suck up all the oxygen, and it seems the democrats forget that it is important to win back the Senate and the House.
So much for getting rid of the Electoral College.
2
You'd think that promoting and protecting democracy would be considered virtuous that no one running for office could disagree. But here in AZ the GOP dominated state government has brazenly fought to overturn the results of citizen-led referenda and to greatly hinder the ability to bring new issues up for popular vote.
Their motive: hold on to power...the people be damned!
There will be no progress on solving the Electoral College mess until the Republicans are out of power. We can only hope that Democrats are more altruistic.
1
"If you were designing a system to elect the political leader of a major constitutional republic in 2020, how would you do it?
"The answer is easy, or at least it should be: by a national popular vote — a system in which all votes count the same and the winner is the candidate who gets the most."
And what would assuredly eventually happen would be a close vote that, with no mechanism for compartmentalizing votes, would lead to incessant recounts that would never resolve. Every ward, every precinct, every Congressional district and state would have to recount every vote with every challenge to the previous recount. A state that went 70-30 for one candidate might be fodder for a half-dozen votes that could move a 49.99 candidate closer to 50.01 percent.
Two living-memory examples: Gore-Bush in Florida (2000) and Franken-Coleman in Minnesota (2008).
Gore-Bush was never resolved by a count, instead settled by a Supreme Court intervention; Franken-Coleman was resolved only after eight months of suits, countersuits, and competing recounts.
And those were just single states. Imagine a full national recount with 0.01% differences and provable statistical uncertainties of at least 0.1%. (Franken's eventual margin was 312 votes out of 3 million cast: 0.01%.)
If not the EC, then some state-by-state or congressional district sub-votes.
Winner-take-all is not the problem; fractional allocations just push the uncertainty into smaller and smaller fractions.
Republicans are intent on using their power in government to get at the money.
The Republican Party is a business.
They have no interest in anything that helps the country.
And they continue to get away with it.
Power=money=power=money. . .
3
Because then you would have large swaths of the country that would no longer want to be a part of the USA.
We would not be the United States if it were not for the electoral college being a part of the founding of this country. Understandably, the states with a smaller population insisted on it to be a part of this experiment of a democratic republic. We are the United STATES. Both states with large populations and small have some equal footing in the electoral college.
I hear complaints that campaigns only focus on swing states because of the electoral college. They assuming certain states and cities are in their “camp.” However, with a popular vote for president, the large population centers of the East and west coast would rule over the smaller states.
With the electoral college, each state gets the number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its senators plus a number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts.
This still gives population centers an advantage, ameliorated by the 2 given to every state regardless of their population.
The make up of the electoral college is identical to the representation of both houses at the federal leve
3
All true. For simplicity's sake though, you only need proportional representation. The electoral college is fine. Winner-takes-all is the problem.
However, I'm beginning to suspect proportional representation as well. The political gamesmanship surrounding Biden is a case in point. I'm beginning to feel the real problem with American democracy, nay, the republic in general, is a two party system those confused founders never envisioned or intended.
We should be a bicameral representative parliament. Just like every other free government in the world. A government that is beholden to the electorate. Parliaments can vote no confidence. Parliaments can hold snap elections. Parliaments are forced to establish a governing coalition.
What is America? Nothing but a disgraced mess.
1
exactly. eliminating winner take all is the fair way. problem: GOP don't do fair
1
The problem is that the Electoral college works to the Republican advantage. Without it we would have had a Democratic President for 29 years and counting. So what to do? Abolish the electoral college far into the future, say 2052. Who knows what the advantage is in 30 years? The only way to get Republicans to go along.
1
@Donald Beury: "The problem is that the Electoral college works to the Republican advantage."
The problem is that Democrats and Republicans alike in 48 states have agreed to game the system with "winner-take-all" laws for awarding electoral votes. BOTH political parties are in it for themselves and not their states' electorate.
1
Why is the electoral college the only Presidential vote that actually counts rather than the popular vote total of individual voting citizens?
That right to vote that so many Americans died defending in so many wars. That sacred right to vote enshrined in our Constitution?
Even as Electoral College rules are not even consistent across each of the fifty states.
If such a system is so wise why not for all elected offices nationwide?
Would that system be acceptable for electing mayors, governors, sheriffs, district attorneys, a municipal water works commissioner, aldermen, judges, even corporate or condominium board members?
I see no mention of the The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in this piece. I think it merits a look. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at all. This is a legal end run around needing to amend the Constitution.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
3
This far too logical to have any chance of passage.
1
Wegman, I chance to say that the founders of our country and designers of the Constitution were far more intelligent than any of the pols alive today. Complexity is not representative of intelligence. To allow a few tribal oriented large cities to dictate their ideas on the rest of the country is still beyond the scope of your mind.
Please Chill. This is an old , discredited idea which will never be accepted.
3
Trump was all gung-ho for getting rid of the Electoral College- right up until the time it gave him the presidency despite getting 3 million FEWER votes.
Now he's all for it, and his minions in Congress are not going to do anything to upset the apple cart.
It may have been a good idea back in Colonial times (though even that is doubtful) but it certainly is an antiquated institution today, and need to be retired to the dustbin of history.
President Gore
President Kerry
President HRC
What a different world this would be. And hold off the onslaught of hate fellow progressives. It would be a much different world no matter what you say.
3
What if 85% of the eligible voters voted?
Like in the Socialist Countries?
1
The Electoral College is a last vestige of original sin (slavery) and thus should be eradicated forthwith. There is no better reason than that.
2
The electoral college was a pretty good idea until it got gerrymandered and manipulated and perverted to where a minority of the population was able to use it to elect exactly the kind of unqualified populist rabble-rouser it was intended to protect us from.
3
apply this to Congressional representation too... 2 senetors per state is even more egregious.
1
If you want to break up the union, try to get rid of the electoral college. Of course it requires a constitutional amendment therefore it will never happen because there are to my count at least 34 states that would never go along. If by magic, Democrats especially those from New York California and Illinois and the coastal elites could magically eliminate the EC, I see 34 states seceding from the union, and rightfully so This just seems more of complaining from Democrats that they cannot win under a system that has been in place since our founding.
25
@Mitchell myrin
Hi Mitchell,
Actually, the system we use today is not the one the founders designed. They did not anticipate political parties, and they also did not anticipate state winner-take-all rules. When James Madison, the father of the Constitution, saw those rules in action, he was so troubled that he proposed a constitutional amendment barring them.
In addition, most citizens, and most states, favor a popular vote. The only states that benefit under the current system are the battlegrounds, and they do not represent the whole of the country.
159
@Mitchell,
Do you think Republicans in California would then all move to Mississippi to join the secession?
Your scenario of civil war is pretty absurd.
The very thing that makes you support the EC, the greater populations of the “elite” states, would make the seceders vastly outnumbered.
22
@Mitchell myrin
"This just seems more of complaining from Democrats that they cannot win under a system that has been in place since our founding."
Hmm. By my rough count Democrats have won about 22 times under that system, including in 2008 and 2012.
28
ABH's advice to you Mr. Wegman,and all left wing Democrats, including yourself, is not to TINKER WITH AMERICA's most cherished INSTIUTIONS!We know you, second person plural, would like to abolish the Second Amendment, open up the voting rolls to non citizens, already an accomplished fact in some states, and it would be only a matter of time before the Constitution is scrapped altogether on grounds that it was written by "a bunch of old white men,"and is not relevant to the "revolution of rising expectations."Crane Brinton's words,of today, based on gender equality and identify politics!You know what they say:"One man one vote once!"If Electoral College were abolished, we would be on our way to a dictatorship.When Sen. Schumer stands in front of the SP and calls out by name 2 Justices and implies that bad things will happen to them if they render Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, and nary a peep from the "liberal medias,"you know that we strict constitutionalists who believe in the rule of law are being threatened.Schumer wants, seeks rule by the mob, but by his mob.FDR. who suspended civil liberties in war time also tried to pack the SP but failed, but given the changing demographics, future efforts to subvert the Constitution will no doubt have a greater chance of success.But let us hope not!Remember our Anglo Norman "ancetres" and their brave stand at Runnymeade where they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta!Lessons of history!
1
@Alexander,
The barons of the GOP would have opposed the Magna Carta — assuming they even know what it is.
It gave too many rights to the serfs, something the GOP hates.
1
What if we had a four party system? Although Trump is approaching fascism, Biden, like Obama and Bush, are more about protecting the status quo, and we can't make the needed changes regarding healthcare and the environment.
Your first two sentences say it all. Obviously, if one would define a constitution for the US today, no one would ever accept something as ludicrously undemocratic as the electoral college, plus, to make it even worse, the idiotic winner-takes-all rule.
And while you are at it, your rigid two-party system with the really laughable process for selecting a candidate are also contributing to a disastrously undemocratic process.
I wish all of you good luck with trying to change it.
1
Presidential "elections" are entirely absurd, and need to be simplified to a fundamental level.
My advice is to adopt the "KISS" principle ("keep it simple, stoo-pud") and just leave it up to me to assign the presidency to some worthy of my own choosing. I promise to be wise and beneficent.
As with most good ideas, the Republicans will fight it to the death.
1
I've never heard such nonsense. The Electoral College was created for a purpose and that purpose was to fairly elect a President from all the people and regions of the country. Not the overly populated urban areas. Democracies that have evolved with the direct Popular Vote have historically proven it is not the best solution and been victimized by the result of Democratic Dictatorships. The United States of America's form of government, a Constitutional Republic, has been the envy of the world and more successful than any other in history. Don't let these charlatans fool you.
@Tommy,
In 1789 there were no “overpopulated urban areas,” and the EC had nothing to do with that.
History is our friend, and learning it will help us to avoid making inaccurate statements about it.
1
Mob rule, ?
Is that what we’re talking about here. ?
If we eliminate the EC then say goodbye to the Republican Party.
2
I'm always interested in the odd way trump supporters can throw entire cities (Chicago, SF) and even states (CA, WA) in the garbage as trump insults them, even as they pledge their allegiance to "One Nation, Indivisible". As the author states, millions of republicans live in those states too! Those voters put up with their president braying hatred toward THEIR states, but why? trump slapped ME in the face when he called my governor 'a snake' for not glorifying him.
White nationalism is what unifies republicans. They know perfectly well that store clerks in Sacramento, or nurses at a SF hospital, employee of Amazon, etc are not evil spies. repub citizens trust their co-citizens to pump their gas, teach their grandkids, count their money at the bank, police their world, put out fires, cure their illnesses, etc. No need to verify folks' loyalty to trump in order for their world to hum along.
But when necessary to serve trump's anti-immigrant, whites-only promise, they WILL and DO turn on those same citizens in a heartbeat, grinning at his vile vitriol designed. to. divide.
Why is that, trumpies? There's only one reason you'd interact with hundreds of people every week, without any fear that they're going to call a bunch of 'illegals' to beat you up as you buy your coffee. Trump's promise that your tribe is going to make the rules, not those dark people who want you to share America's promise now.
3
@deb,
What a superb post!
2
@deb : NOT IMMIGRANTS!
Immigrants come here legally.
ILLEGAL ALIENS.
They are illegal aliens.
Until you know the difference and use the terms properly…nobody will listen to your screeds against Republicans.
The solution exists. Are you familiar with the National Popular Vote:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
“The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes.”
4
Several loose if unpopular thoughts:
1) Your going to get 38 states to agree to their political castration HOW??? The EC is going nowhere folks.
2) The so called Interstate voting Compact would likely NOT survive the inevitable Supreme Court challenge which it would get the first time a State casts it votes for the loser of the State Election. Everyone here complains about disenfranchisement? That's what casting a states votes for the LOSER of the State would be, Beyond any reasonable doubt it would disenfranchise the States voters.
3) Folks for all the complaining to get ANY change in the allocation of Senators would take all 50 States Unanimously agreeing to the change. Not very likely you must admit. It's hardwired in Constitution folks. Not to mention the Senate was NEVER intended to reflect population. That's why every state has 2 senators. While Wyoming has 1 rep to Ca's how many??
4) For those saying the Blue states should cut loose the Red states & go their own way? Their isn't any right to secede that was rendered moot by force of arms in 1865. I don't think the Federal Military will stand down this time either. The South counted on the North to be unwilling to fight. The Blue Staters are making a similar mistake. Secession will not be folks. best to change the system not indulge in fantasies.
2
What if the United States was actually a functioning democracy.
ABOLISH THE COLLEGE!
The Electoral College in Undemocratic
2
Meh, Dems never complained about the EC when they won.
@James,
The EC always reflected the popular vote when Dems won. There was no dictatorship of the minority.
Now that the odious reality of the EC has been exposed for two out of the last three elections, everyone who supports democracy should be for its demise.
3
Long live the Electoral College!
1
If you're in St Louis, are you OK with voters in New York, California, Texas and Florida deciding for you? That's the outcome.
2
That is fallacious reasoning - eliminating the electoral college would eliminate the state by state element of our elections, not swing the results the other way; your argument assumes that all Californians would vote blue, but that's not true. If we ditch the EC, the votes of the many conservatives in California would actually count.
1
@RB,
Other voters don’t “decide for you” in a democracy. Everyone has an equal vote.
You obviously don’t trust your fellow Republicans in New York and California.
2
& yet some Dem heads want to stop the primary and call it b4 all states have a say. In fact, Dems have rigged the primaries for years to prevent a left candidate.
As anyone with stats 207 A&B would quickly say, after reading the NY Times bit today on page A 22, you gotta partial to predict. Biden having a 178 delegate lead ain't enough.
Let's remove the southern states SC,AL, AR, NC, OK, TN, & TX. In November Dems lose them regardless. They gave Biden a 173 vote edge. Subtract and Biden beats Bernie by a mere 5 now.
Discount, then, UT, ID MO & ND, which gave Biden a 15 delegate advantage. Dems lose those 4 in Nov, also. That leaves IA, NH, NV, CO, ME, MA, MN, VT, MI, WA & VA (because Dems have won it more often than not since 2000).
Biden leads by 9 delegates...but- CA still has 27 to assign, odds are dead heat in states Dems should to MUST win come Nov.
In 2016 the same loser states for Dems dictated the moderate SAFE candidate would get the nod. She lost.
If Dems were smart they would not play up FL, but pay attention to AZ and the midwest...that is the better general election predictor.
Or, please, shut off the primaries. Then we can put together our party in time for this November. (4 record: I "unfriended" after the 1994 Clinton debacle)
1
Thank God the men that created the Constitution are legions wiser and more intellectually capable than Jesse Wegman.
1
@J,
That’s not an argument.
The founders tried to predict the possibility if a demagogue like Trump by giving the electors independent votes.
The Republican Party wouldn’t like that.
3
We can't even effectively control voter suppression which would no doubt be even worse if voters could directly elect leaders.
https://fair.org/home/elite-media-dismiss-voter-suppression-on-grounds-that-its-complicated/
Change will come by evolution or revolution. Pick one.
Stop beating this very dead horse, the Republican party and voters will never let it happen. This fantasy is over, next!
1
We should perhaps consider that out electoral college mechanism was created at a time when people owned single shot flintlock weapons and black people were auctioned off to the highest bidder and used to build the foundations of this great nation we now enjoy. Only property owning men were allowed to vote and some people only counted as 3/5 of a person.
Is there any surprise the electoral college is not perfectly suited to today's environment?
When we talk about MAGA - can someone please explain exactly ho far back they think we should look for a comparison.?
2
Two thumbs up. See who resists this and see the ones who are afraid. Three million more votes for Hillary and we're stuck with an incompetant Donald Trump. Not to mention a war we had in Iraq under another loser, George Bush. Enough already.
2
What a common sense idea.
1
If Hillary Clinton had won 2016 elections, this article would never be written... popular votes are not fair game, simple because California, New York, and Texas can pick a president every four years, and small states like Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Arkansas has no say at all in picking a president..
Every time the democrats lost an election, this kind of talks surface again...
@Amir,
“Every time”? You mean twice?
You don’t have much compassion for the Republicans in the big cities whose votes don’t count.
Great idea. Let’s start with Democrat party first.
Count the votes people votes. Eliminate “Super” Delegates and states with “winner takes all”.
1
@Greg,
I agree that that’s a good idea.
But both parties select candidates from a small group of elites.
That’s a separate issue from the undemocratic Electoral College.
2
Please stop.
The electoral college was set up to prevent the domination of rural America by urban America.
Believe or not Arkansas still counts no matter how much the NYT despises the people who live there.
The solution politically is to come up with a message that resonates with the entire country, not just the New York City, SF, and LA.
1
@maguire,
That’s incorrect.
There was no “urban America” in 1789. In fact, by far the most populous state was rural, Virginia.
History lessons are free on the Internet.
2
The electoral college exists for one reason: the tyranny of the big city political power.
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
All of these are uniparty operations that cannot be permitted to overrun rural states’ representation in Washington power struggles.
Sorry, crybabies, the Founding Fathers were smarter than you and knew all about your potential for power grabbing.
@Reality,
Nope.
That’s an argument the right uses today, but it has no basis in history.
The economy in 1789 was agricultural, and the most populous state was rural, Virginia. There were no “urban states.”
The EC was set up with the right of independent voting, not the winner take all system that evolved, specifically so it could prevent a demagogue like Trump from taking power.
It was never intended to allow a minority to rule the majority.
3
Popular vote is how we hold every other election. If we had popular vote there would never had the Iraq war..Bush would never have been President...We would be spared the current nightmare...Time to change the way we do other things...No more pardons...no executive orders...proof of taxes paid..less power for Senate in choosing judges..
We need an overhaul...ASAP
1
The author has skipped over what significance a U.S. State has in the first place.
The author has also skipped over the difference between the proportionally systems relative to voting for U.S. Senators and U.S. House of Representatives and how the systems come together as a compromise when voting for U.S. President and why it was so important back then and now too!
This is the typical left-wing bubble-gum article (way) of looking things. On the outside it’s so elementary and reasoned-out but on the inside, it’s a pure unadulterated attack on the backbone of America! This is what leftist logic looks like.
Much of the U.S. Constitution was written as a compromise between the colonies, because, funny enough, these men back then had some really good experience living under a government which they didn’t want to completely emulate. You hear all the time: worst president this or worst politician that—WELL—back then they had this thing called “the worst king ever!”
The states have a significant purpose: to be the checks and balances system facing the federal government, when the federal government thinks it’s all too powerful! Like a king! And it’s not a king!
Democrats win all the time when it comes to the presidency, but now their super left-wing portion wants the equivalent of the VIP pass at the amusement park so they can skip all of the work that entails running for president. What a sham!
Did you get up a 5 am today to start your tractor to grow food? I don’t think so!
@William,
Living in Germany, did you start your tractor at 5 am today to grow food for America?
You discredit the founders if you think such highly sophisticated, well-educated men would have approved of the domination of the country by a demagogue supported by a comparatively less educated minority.
In fact, they expected members of the Electoral College to exercise individual judgment in voting in order to prevent such an occurence.
2
why mess with something that has worked for nearly 300 years? because of population? ridiculous
1
@Pilot,
Because it isn’t working now.
BTW, 300 years ago, in 1720, there was no United States.
2
If we counted all the votes and see who won the Banana Republicans wouldn't like the results, so they will never let it happen.
2
Good idea. Two of the last three presidents have been elected by less than a majority of of the voters. Bush was A terrible president and Trump is a terrible president.
1
I live in a red state. A very red state. My Senators, my Congressional rep, my President, just take the taxes I pay and use it for everything I oppose. And when I express my displeasure, they blow me off. I don't even get a form letter response to emails and letters. And the office staff can't even be polite it take time to hear me out.
We are really stupid to put up with it.
2
I'm for abolishing the Electoral College. But I think a reverse prioritization might occur. Campaigns would focus overwhelmingly on CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, and so on until we get to about 60% of the population. That brings us to about Virginia (#12) or Washington (#13). Then they would rely on national polls to do their "campaigning" for them in the hinterlands. And another impediment to this idea: talk about campaign spending! It would go through the roof. I still wish it would happen though: I think we could get out the vote in California.
If it is true that voters hate to be ignored and the writers book advocates removing the Electoral College without going through the process of constitutional amendment (you know, voted on and approved by a majority of the states)... What does that tell us? Because by avoiding the states buy-in it's simply saying that the states with larger populations will have higher representation and the votes from the distained smaller stated will not get sufficient consideration - effectively ignored.
It's clear that the writer has a lot invested in this notion, having written a book, but political science shouldn't simply be statistics. The act of removing the Electoral College will have an effect similar to the Civil War and would destroy the country. The concept of a union and fairness needs to be retained.
It's pretty destructive to have national policies that are designed to please only a handful of states. Nothing is perfect, but the tyranny of the minority is worse than what would happen if presidents had to get a plurality of votes nationwide.
2
@Margo,
Hyperbole much? “Destroy the country”? Really?
Yes, I suppose that would be the case in the minds of the rich Republicans who rule with the backing of a minority of bigots and dupes.
But I’m sure the majority who take back their country and try to make it better could live without them.
The question is whether this could be seen as progress if the rules were changed?
That is a resounding no. It would fundamentally, unequivocally change the spirit of the United STATES, the spirit that is based on state's rights and preserving proportionate representation at the federal level. No elections are done at the federal level for a reason and for all those yelling "DeMoCRaCy" well yes it is a democracy at the STATE level.
I for one would not like to move any further away from the state-based model of government, especially since this move would compound what has already been done over the past 150 years. And anyone thinking this won't have unintended consequences is kidding themselves and goes way beyond the further concentration of power into the hands of a geographically less diverse population.
Well, you live in Ohio, so your vote counts. I've never been so fortunate as to have my vote for president count, so I have a different perspective.
1
@MM,
The US was founded on the union of the states, not states’ rights. The Constitution makes clear that federal laws supercede state laws.
It was never intended that the majority would be ruled by a minority.
Thank you for this piece, Mr. Wegman - along with a few others, I would love to learn here without necessarily reading your book :) what best next steps could realistically be taken to change the electoral college system? And what can an individual do? How to support what organizations working on this?
1
"Every four years, 40 to 45 states are considered safe for one party or the other, even though in all of them there are large numbers of voters who cast a ballot for the losing party...When the electors cast their presidential ballots that year, it was as if none of those voters existed.
Why? It’s not the Electoral College by itself, but the state winner-take-all rule..."
You've just made a strong argument AGAINST using only the popular vote!
@misjosc,
Nope.
If electors vote according to the proportion of voters in each state it would be the same as a popular vote.
The EC would be an unnecessary middleman.
1
Keep each state's number of electoral votes -- thus keeping each state's relative power -- but allot the state's electoral votes in proportion to each candidate's vote share in the state, rather than using winner-take-all. And drop the human electors, they serve no role today -- just award the electoral votes by the proportional formula (permitting fractional votes).
1
Mr. Wegman: Thank you for taking time to carefully and respectfully respond to the doubts and concerns expressed in this comment thread. Reading your responses has been very illuminating, especially your comments about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I look forward to reading your book when it is released next week.
3
Same arguments apply for replacing representation by district with proportional representation. In Germany they elect representatives by district, but then add at large representatives to make the legislature proportional to the popular vote.
3
@Steve - And that gets the German far left and far right parties representation! Is that what we want for the US?
1
@Donna,
Yes. That’s how democracy works.
Your post implies that you would deny equal rights to others because of their politics.
1
@Yep, right on.
Instead of abolishing the Electoral College, perhaps it would be more feasible to reform it. The problem with it is the winner take all format. As described in the article, if you win by one vote or a hundred thousand, all the state's delegates are yours. Inequitable to say the least. The obvious solution is to do what Maine does today - award delegates as per the percentage of the state's popular vote. Had that system been in place in 2016, Trump would never have won.
2
From the 14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I realize this pertains to states, but, in principal, it's obvious that the Electoral College violates the requirement for equal protection of the laws and, if worded so as not to be limited to states, would violate the Constitution.
1
Mr. Wegman, I couldn't agree more, now how do we do it? I was wondering why couldn't the 3 million voters whose votes were effectively inconsequential in the last election file a class action because they were not treated equally?
3
The problem is that this solution is much too simple and fair. Republicans will never go for it, because it undoes all of the work that they've done to skew the system towards them since Newt Gingrich wrote the playbook: gerrymandering; giving disproportionate power to the (false meme of) "real Americans in rural states; refusing to cooperate with opponents in any manner whatsoever; demonizing all Dems, etc.
This strategy has worked so well that America now believes that it's much more conservative than it really is. It succeeded in giving Republicans more power than they've deserve for the past 20 years.
They're not going to even be willing to discuss this issue. case closed.
those tactics have
4
There are many good points in this long-winded article but so what? Amending the Constitution as would be required is not going to happen given the makeup of our citizenry and the differences that divide us.
Life would be great if cancer did not exist or I could be the closer for the NY Yankees. Neither will happen.
Let’s focus on what’s possible, not chase Edens that are not.
2
@Mark,
Great strides have been made in fighting cancer, without which I would not be alive.
And even though you’re not a starter for the Yankees, somebody is.
What would happen to states that have such small populations that they just wouldn't matter electorally? Why would anybody visit North Dakota if it didn't matter who won there either way? And what would that mean for the people who lived there - if the president, and people running for president, didn't need to take them into consideration?
@JL Guess what - candidates don't take North Dakota into consideration now because tis not a swing state! Why think that states have votes? Every single one of those voters in North Dakota will have their votes count as much as any other vote in the country. All votes will matter, candidates will have to run truly national campaigns.
2
@JL,
Why would the voters in small states not matter?
Those states are populated by both Democrats and Republicans.
It’s with the EC that the votes of the minority in each state don’t matter.
Wholeheartedly agree with abolishing the electoral college system. I am also a big fan of proportional representation for our congressional elections. It’s time the people took back our government by making sure that our votes give us a real voice and a real choice.
3
Okay, so if the “small states get ignored” argument is valid then ask yourself why the smallest counties in your state are under-represented when it comes to electing it’s US senators.
That’s not the case you say. Sure it is. Until 1912 each state’s US senators were elected by the state legislature, not the direct vote of the people. When Lincoln and Douglas debated in the 1858 Illinois senate race, it was to convince voters to cast ballots and elect “Lincoln-men” or “Douglas-men” to the Illinois House, which would then vote for the senate candidate of their party.
Counties fared pretty well after the direct election of senators, just like small states will fare well with direct election of President.
Oh, by the way, the Electoral College better represents our founding fathers fear of the mob rather than their interest in one person-one vote democracy.
2
Our founding fathers could not possibly predict or plan for the future of the USA that is ours today. The desire to live according to centuries old circumstances is noble yet not possible. A great many factors have changed... increased mostly — population, guns and disease. And many have decreased — available land, potable water and truth. Present day society is finding it utterly impossible to abide by rules hastily conceived of almost 250 years ago.
@Paul G
No, the founders could not have predicted how the Electoral College would be mis-used, but they depended on the civility and public minded-ness of people. They created a system that only resists conquering by a dictator, not the election of one.
The Electoral College requires a national candidate to build coalitions of support across a large, broad, and diverse nation. Running up the score by pandering to voters in California, New York, Texas, and Florida basically disenfranchises the rest of the nation.
2
@Jasphil SO now a few voters in a handful of swing states get pandered to and everyone one else is ignored, Your argument is nonsensical.
I'm struck by the deeper divisions within this society. Examining the 2020 primaries, the West has supported Sanders while the South, Midwest & East have not. Complicating this divide, each of these regions has dramatically different problems that often get ignored at the national level, yet are too serious for a single state to address. Climate change is a good marker for this: we are enduring an historical drought that is harming food production and sustainable communities. The solutions call for far more expenditures than D.C. is willing to consider.
Is our nation too large to govern? Or might we consider creating a dominion like Canada, grouping our states into regional governments, as a response to our varying needs? California along with Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Colorado & Idaho could have its own semi-autonomous government dealing with such issues, and leaving D.C. to conduct foreign policy & social entitlement programs.
As for the Electoral College, it has given us two terrible potuses this century alone; that to me suggests that reform would be beneficial, yet even if we were to conduct a popular vote, our regions would still have winners & losers -- it would simply be somewhat more just.
1
I'd rather be trying to save the Constitution from Trump's constant attacks than criticizing it, right now. Nothing is going to change about the electoral college before November.
The way to overwhelm the electoral college and win the Senate is to pick Bernie as the nominee because Bernie appeals to the rural voters and independents that we need.
I'll vote for Biden if I have to, but I don't see how Biden beats Trump. The primaries measure the Democratic Party loyalists, not independents.
Independents would vote for Bernie because he is actually INDEPENDENT in both name and spirit. What Democratic Party loyalists don't understand is that Bernie has an ADVANTAGE because he "is not a real Democrat."
The only thing Republicans hate more than socialists, is Democrats. In 2016, 70% of Republicans said that Bernie is the most honest candidate in the race.
Democratic primary voters would vote for Bernie to beat Trump. Independents are not as likely to vote for Biden.
The socialist label doesn't hurt Bernie among swing voters because everyone knows who Bernie is and what he wants to do.
The Democratic Primary voters are making a huge mistake.
Democratic Party loyalists are picking a loyalist that will lose instead of the independent that independents want to vote for.
Independents wanted Bernie last time, so you gave them a party loyalist, and Trump is president. Are we really going to do the same thing again?
1
How I would change the system:
— Eliminate the Electoral college.
— Have one primary held on a Saturday, nationwide, in May, instead of staggering them state by state.
— The primary for both parties should be on the same day
— People can vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. This allows independents to participate uniformly. across the nation in the process, and parties get a measurable idea of which of their candidates is appealing to independents.
— People vote for a first, second, and third choice, weighted accordingly.
— If even with weighted voting, no one gets 50%, there is a runoff of the top two.
4
“Mr. Plouffe had a warning, though. “A progressive should be careful to think that this is some panacea.” Once both parties start appealing to voters everywhere, he said, it scrambles the traditional political calculus in unpredictable ways.”
I would like to understand more about Mr. Plouffe’s warning. Would it weaken political parties, and if so, might that also be a good thing?
1
1000% agree (and I'm coming from a place that doesn't even have Congressional representation)...but how do we change this??
2
Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
The bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
NationalPopularVote
So, you're proposing democracy based on the will of the people? In this country? Good luck!
3
The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
I agree it needs to go. Who in Congress can get this started?
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
3
The arguments for the popular vote are many. Here's one more.
Russia manipulated just a few voters in a few swing states and controlled the outcome of the 2016 election. Polling data given to them by members of the Trump campaign allowed the cagey Russian trolls to target exactly the most persuadable voters.
Russian tactics like those would be too feeble if the winner is decided by simple popular vote totals.
4
Doing this - just handing the presidential election over to the most terribly-run Democrat-dominated states - ignores the real influence fraudulent voting has throughout California, New England, Illinois, New York, etc.
Any state that has allowed illegally-present foreign nationals to carry a real-looking drivers' license is intentionally doing so to make illegal voting possible.
What will probably happen sooner or later is that California's electors will not be allowed to cast their votes one election until and unless every vote is checked for legality.
The STATES created this union and THEIR representatives wrote the Constitution. Anyone offended by that reality is welcome to shop for a safer, smaller, less-important place to go live.
3
Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview
“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”
Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
The Left is far too desperate to win, as this article proves; if we rid ourselves of the Electoral College, and they didn't win, they would quickly call for it to be reinstalled! It serves a purpose, in keeping populous radicalized States on both Coasts from ruining our Country!
3
Democrats on the coasts do NOT outnumber Republicans in the country.
@mvymvy Of course not! DUH! There are though, twice the number of Lefties living in the Coastal States, than Republicans living in the Coastal States, does that explain it sufficiently?
"It’s not the Electoral College by itself, but the state winner-take-all rule. In each of the 48 states that use this rule (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions), the candidate who wins the most votes gets all of that state’s electors, whether the margin is one hundred votes or one hundred thousand."
You miss the obvious. "Winner-take-all" was instituted by state legislatures comprised of two idiotic and power-obsessed political parties. It effectively bypasses the founders' intent. Neither Dems nor Repubs want to re-write the rules and the electorate is too ignorant to press for changing the method of selecting electors.
Electors were supposed to be apolitical "free agents", able to see past the rhetoric and wisely choose the best candidate even if it was against the "will of the people". That would require people of good moral character to be electors instead of the party faithful. What we have now are states with rubber-stamp electors for every party with a presidential candidate on the ballot.
The founders wisely set up three distinct methods of selecting three federal officials - members of the House, senators, and the president. The last two methods have been corrupted and we need to reverse course.
A popular vote for president will be worse than passage of the 17th Amendment. It will finish the transformation of our nation from a republic to mob rule. If that happens the grand experiment will fail because we the people don't care enough to do the right thing.
4
Mob rule is defined as “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.”
[The] difference between a democracy and a republic [is] the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."
In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."- Madison
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. It is not rule by referendum.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.
1
@mvymvy: "Mob rule is defined as “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.”"
Mob rule is three wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
"Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country."
Except we are not every other country. The system as designed for selecting elected officials by three distinct methods was and is a brilliant method. So enough with the "We would not be doing away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc." You're advocating popular vote for all three federally elected officials. It's not how the Constitution was designed, and for good reason.
Excellent commentary. To counterbalance eliminating the electoral college, the US Senate operates to insure that minority states are represented in our republic. I live in the first congressional district in Maine-a decidedly liberal place where Jesus Christ running as a Republican presidential candidate would lose to an unqualified Democrat. I emphatically endorse eliminating the college. One person-one vote should prevail in presidential elections.
1
Well, abolishing the electoral college would drive yet another nail in the coffin of the heritage of slavery (why use a proper noun form for an institution that buttressed slavery?). I can't imagine why anyone would not want to bury that relic. Unless one wished to return to the good old days of slave-holding.
2
A no brainer here. Time's more than up for the electoral college.
1
That wouldn't work for the GOP. 4 times in our history have elections been won by the loser of the popular vote. Two of those times were in the last 20 years, both benefiting the GOP.
They see nothing wrong with things like Wyoming's House vote being worth 40% more than California's house vote because they think its great having the minority have the power over the majority.
This is a feature, not a bug.
2
The point of elections is to give the appearance that our leaders are selected by us and will act in our best interest as we decide. This has never been the case. To allow the people to have real choice is to give up power. The power hungry and there owners will never allow that.
Many Americans, in fact most, prefer to be lied to and used. It is better for most to live under a cruel leader rather than have to suffer the consequences of their own poor decisions. At least with a cruel leader, and all our leaders are cruel, you do not have to accept responsibility for your life. It's a convenient excuse to have someone else at fault especially when you can't admit your own failings.
Americans are largely just like Donald Trump. He is a common type of person in the US and he gives us a view of how most people "think". I know many many Donald Trumps.
Politicians and media constantly tell us how smart and hard working we are and how deserving we are of better leadership and a better life. But this is just not true. Especially in the US where hatred of others is the more common characteristic. The US has the exploitative system it has precisely because most people are cruel and selfish and vote to have their government not help the people we hate.
1
Has anyone analysed how casting electors by each states protional vote, ala Maine and Nebraska, would effect the elections? It is doable without amendment and might have the smae results.
1
Let's just count the votes and see who wins.
You know, like every other election we hold.
Great idea!
1
I'm so tired of this broken record of reason. EVERYONE knows that the electoral college is useless and undermines democracy. But good luck convincing the Republican party to ever let it go. They know full well that were it not for the electoral college they would be a permanent minority in the White House.
2
Matthew Dowd may be a Republican, but he certainly doesn't represent the Trumpist/corrupt money/Republican establishment. They are not interested in governing the entire country. They seek to ruin government so it will be mistrusted and decrease voter turnout. The fact that the electoral system is detrimental to democracy is exactly what they want as a means to minority rule. The author says eliminating the electoral college could lead to a less polarized electorate. Why in the world would the Trumpists want a less polarized electorate? Division and fear is their lifeblood. "Republicans can't exist as...a whites only party". Sure they can. Just give Trumpists time. Make Corruption Legal Again!
Mr. Wegman has made a compelling case for eliminating the electoral college. Does his book address how we can do this when the "principalities and powers" are dead set against that happening?
2
Under the electoral collge some voters are worth more than others. This is EXACTLY how the White, rural electorate sees the world. They ( White, rural Christian conservatives) are better than the rest of us and deserve to rule. They now do not even pretend to believe in equal franchise. The electoral college is merely an expression of White Supremacy. The defense of such makes this clear.
2
I'm hearing the siren call of sour grapes once again as the losing party swears, SWEARS, that the system is rigged against it. One question for unhappy Democrats. Did you not know that the EC exists? Did you not think about how you must campaign if you are to succeed in an election that apportions delegates this way? Did you not pretty much ignore any state that did not touch an ocean? Baseball says you must get more players all the way around the bases to win the game. Both teams accept this as the rules of the game and the loser does not bemoan the fact that, if only we counted men left on base, it might have won...
3
A bad idea. 250 or so years of testing an idea, which has very sound basis in running a Republic of equal states and you want to do the very thing that killed early Greece. A true democracy, killed itself. A dictatorship if the majority is not the path to governance. It’s just a dictatorship. 50.1 percent ruling over 49.9 percent is a path to ending this experiment in governing.
2
The founding colonies would have never approved
the constitution without the electoral college.
They knew then as we know now, the country is
not to be lead by New York, Boston, San Francisco
and L.A.!
3
Not going to get rid of the electoral college, but it’s possible to change the “winner takes all” rule in your state. Nebraska and Maine the only 2 states offering proportional balloting in the electoral college. Your state could too, if you could get your Republican state legislature to vote for it...
1
"The answer is easy, or at least it should be: by a national popular vote — a system in which all votes count the same and the winner is the candidate who gets the most."
I'm sorry, but the above is an idiotic way to pick a winner. It only works, at best, if there are two and only two candidates, and even then, it has problems. If there are more than two candidates, then the "first past the post" system that you describe is irredeemibly flawed.
Those interested in a real voting system should look at "range voting" also known as "score voting." It's infinitely more fair than either "first past the post" or any of the half-solutions such as instant runoff voting or ranked choice. It's very simple; you rank each candidate that you are interested in on a range of 1-10.. just like you might rate a movie. The winner is the one with the highest total score from all voters.
2
Let's make this explicit. Call a constitutional convention and work out a deal with small population states or follow your instincts and use force to take thier political power, you've got the numbers.
Great idea - but it would require a Constitutional Amendment and the odds of that passing, or even getting out of Congress, are slim and none.
1
You see the Electoral College at work in my state, South Carolina. All of us here - Democrats, Republicans, black, white, gay, straight, rich and poor - agree for the need to ship our nuclear waste to a safer, out of state, storage site. And for the past 40 years, that storage site has been the one picked by nuclear waste experts as the one at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Enter the Electoral College.
In this ultra red state, which the Republicans regularly win by double digit margins, there are no votes to be had - the Republicans are going to win them ALL! So what if they lose a few thousand, even tens of thousands of popular votes over the waste issue; they are ultimately going to win all of the only votes that count - the electoral votes.
It's a very different story in Nevada. Nevada is purple. It can go either way and, more importantly, if you are a presidential candidate and it goes the wrong way, you can lose the presidency. (Remember, the 2000 and 2004 elections were decided by one state.)
So, to no one's surprise who has been paying attention to Electoral College politics, President Trump, like all previous presidents, Republican and Democrat, is NOT going to store the waste at Yucca. On the subject, he said recently,"Nevada, we hear you." And to all the South Carolinians who support the EC, he may have well have said, 'Thanks, suckers!'
2
The ballot that every voter casts in the 2020 election is deceptive. The ballot purports to offer the voter a choice between presidential candidates. Actually the votes are counted for an unidentified bunch of political party hacks jokingly known as the Electoral College.
American voters do not elect the President. They elect a state political party. And not even one state presents the choice truthfully on the ballot, or apportions the electoral votes according by the popular vote.
What a lot of dupes we are!
Not that long ago, the Democrats held the White House, the House and the Senate.
Why didn't they take the opportunity to float a constitutional amendment to the states when they had a chance?
We do not live in a representative democracy.
What if we didnt have all the Corporate media and the wealthy gas lighting and smearing the candidate that will raise their taxes to help working people?
But how do we do and will it ever pass?
Ranked choice voting weakens party power (fewer Mitch McConnels) yet increases the chance that we elect someone for their ideas rather than their personality (more Angela Merkels)
1
One person one vote works for me but to make it even more democratic, the way the Senate is represented needs a massive change. The size of the Senate needs to be expanded and the number of Senators from a state needs to be proportional to the number of people in that state, much like in the House.
In my view, people should be chosen from society by random means and if they meet fundamental requirements of health, ethical, emotional, intellectual and general rational thinking standards, they should be required to serve in government for no more than six years. Absolute term limits and no self-serving people in government and absolutely no lobbying other than by equal access means for debate among all interested parties.
The depth of corruption now, thanks to those who back the Federalists Society and the 5 male members of the Federalist Society who sit on the Supreme Court today including the so-called chief "Justice" Roberts, who spent much of his career successfully attacking and destroying the voting rights act and all of whose members are extreme pro-corporatist anti-citizen, legislative automatons who want a nation that fits the male dominant role the Catholic church sees where men tell women how to control their bodies and the fascist business view where socialism for corporations and regulations on people and none on "corporate citizens" is the rule of law. FYI, they've been hand-selected from their legal farms to be members of their plutocratic "firm".
2
Los Angeles county would have more influence than 20 or so individual states!.. then we would be one election away from permanent socialism..
The ultimate absurdity of the current system is that you have a germaphobic urban rat/ con artist, who has prospered through huge inheritance, relentless abuse of tax breaks and serial bankruptcies while sitting on gold plated toilets, appealing directly to self identified rugged individualists who ranch 2,000 miles away on desolate, nearly uninhabited lands.
I guess the further away people are, the easier they are to fool.
But I agree absolutely, all votes should have equal value.
The bulk of the country simply doesn’t believe the continued faux-superiority claims of New Yorkers and Californians, who feel the world needs to conform with their progressive views. And, when we look at San Francisco, New York, Chicago, or Seattle, we see cities that are unruly, poorly governed, and running out of money and resources. Simply put, so-called battleground states would be less critical if policies offered were less polarizing and unrealistic to working folks. Regardless, the rest of us in flyover land won’t vote to amend the constitution, have rejected the sore-loser whining of Bernie Bro’s, so get over it. Try to understand how those of us not residing in ecologically unstable urban centers (where we still have toilet paper and potable water) are indifferent to these sorts of complaints.
2
Thank you for the information. Aside from the Electoral College itself, the big problem is how so many Americans are ignorant of all this and how willing Republican propagandists are willing to exploit the ignorance. I've hears several propagandists claim that Democrats were trying to "throw away your vote" and "reverse the election", when it was reality the Republicans who did all that 3 years ago. ( The fact that propagandists all use the same wording implies that they are all getting their wording from some central committee) When I tell people that Hillary Clinton won the election they think I'm crazy.
Another piece of ignorance exploited by Republicans is the effect of removing the president. "Reversing the election" implies that Ms. Clinton would have taken over, but the real beneficiary would have been Vice President Pence. I suspect that many Republicans despise Pence and were terrified of having him replace Trump.
Progressives used to ridicule civics classes for providing a rosy view of how politics worked, but at least my civics class told me how the government was SUPPOSED to work. Bring the classes back.
Right, "eliminate states." We are the United STATES of America. I do not want to suppress our federal system just so Democrats can win.
Eliminate the Electoral College and our country would be ruled by the cultural elites on each coast who tend to be very progressive and liberal. We need to have the conservatism and wisdom of those living in the middle states to prevent a decline into depravity and godlessness.
Why would the small states ever vote to give up their disproportionate power?
You're dreaming.
14
@BDCA The small states currently have no power in the Electoral College, as many of them have long understood. In 1966, Delaware and other small states sued New York and big states in federal court, challenging the use of the winner-take-all rule as a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The only states that benefit under the current system are battleground states.
66
@Jesse Wegman So you're saying voters in VT have the same proportional voting power that voters in TX do? That doesn't seem right.
2
@Jesse Wegman
Of course, winner take all systems have this flaw in general. You can argue that the only person whose vote matters is the one person whose vote pushes the winning candidate one vote ahead of the competition. All the votes for other candidates don't count and neither really do any additional votes for the winning candidate.
Thank you Jesse. USA is no longer a functional democracy, really its been 40 years of self destruction. A new Constitutional Convention is in order to deal with our realities now. The Constitution was written to be amended, let us do it to avoid disasters like now, an incompetent elected by a disfunctional system. And quit the "America is so special" deal. Sloganeering is good for fascists which is what we have become sadly. We can and should learn lots from our neighbors and former allies.
Just think of what the U.S. and, for that matter the whole world, would be like today if the winner of the popular vote won the presidency without the intervention of the Electoral College. Al Gore would have been POTUS instead of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton instead of Trump. No Iraq war. No financial crash of 2008 (mayne). And, despite what you may think of Hillary and her political baggage, at least America would not be led by the most ignorant, self-centered, incompetent and ignoble POTUS the country has ever experienced.
On the other hand...Texas will probably go blue by 2024. At that point, electing a Republican president will be nearly impossible.
1
Keep it up, America, and you may be cutting your nose off to spite your face.
California has been getting the shaft for too many years now. Not only does the Senate power of someone in a low population state like Wyoming count for about 500 times as much as the same voice in California, with it's 40 million people, but add the Electoral College on top of that, and you've just punished California for being the biggest engine of America's economy.
Keep it up and those increasingly annoying voices we hear in California of occasional Secession crackpots will start to sound better. When I visit my family and/or travel in the South and Midwest and hear comments about how they wouldn't mind seceding again from us "Liberals", well, the idea doesn't sound so crazy.
California generates over 15% of the entire American economy, and by itself The Golden State is the world's fifth largest economy. Just a reminder.
1
Great idea. But come on. Our political system is terminally ossified. It's never gonna happen.
You are not kidding. The Electoral College is eminently anti-democratic, an aristocratic remnant implying that the 'masses' (the real people, where capital does not trump labor) ought not elect their president by a popular vote...unless agreeable with the interests of a wealthy minority that seems just happy with the status quo, seemingly in sync with the odious inequities of this capitalistic system, devoid of ethics, hence, allowing selfishness and greed to rein, and maintaining the gross injustice, and violence, of poverty in our midst.
That would be so dangerous.
1
from not campaigning in California at all to only campaigning in California..i think I'll pass on that concept..
Why can't we do that for primaries too?
Because it's the only way the GOP can win a national election.
Republicans have clung to the Electoral College because over the years the G.O.P. policies have produced a demographic change whereby people of modest income and people of color have become a greater percentage of the potential electorate.
As the attitude of Republican leaders has hardened against allowing tax dollars to be allocated to social benefits and affordable healthcare, the number of staunch Republicans has dwindled even more to upper middle class and upper-class white bigots.
With the election of Donald Trump, all of America and the world have seen that Republicans would rather have an incompetent, ignorant blowhard in the White House than make any concession to working people. Without any hope to win the general election based on popular vote, Republicans have intensified their policies of voter suppression and intimidation.
It would be very surprising to see Republicans give up any weapon – including the bizarre Electoral College.
This all about how to beat Trump not about the best for our union. You the writer go fishing will help straighten your mind.
Well, if you did, this would be the United People of America instead of the USA. You might as well get rid of states and the senate while you're at your musing because they all go together.
After the electoral college is done away with we should abolish the U.S. Senate. My Senators who represent a little over 1 million have as much clout as the Senators from California who vote on behalf of around 14 million. And most of these less populated states like Idaho and Wyoming lean way far right. The word that best describes this Mitch McConnell run Senate is tyranny.
1
These are real problems.
The solutions discussed here, as usual in these discussions, ignore the problems that are solved by the Electoral College. A workable solution needs to solve the problems without bringing back to life problems now solved.
First, there is local corruption. We are a big country, and many localities are deeply corrupt. Just around here, there are some suburban police departments that other police will have nothing to do with, isolating them. That extends to city governments, one of which near us was so corrupt that the arrest of its City Manager inside our town one night for beating his girlfriend on a public street led to the abrupt firing of our own City Manager. Corruption is not just Other Places, the Other Guy's weakness.
It is said that JFK was elected with a huge vote of Chicago's cemeteries, people who had not missed voting in elections long after they'd died. This is not a new problem.
The Electoral College isolates any one state's corruption. They can change the outcome of their own electors, but not more. It limits the downside. In most cases, they have such dominance they'd have that anyway, without even bothering with corruption.
Imagine if extra votes from a corrupt source somewhere far across the country could offset your vote, wherever you are. Now it can't happen.
Also, there is the problem of regional interests, aka the tyranny of the majority. We were very alert to that in Egypt, justifying a coup there. Don't create it here.
It makes way too much sense to just count the votes so that every voter has an equal say. Will never happen!
Every system for counting votes has its positive and negative points. Wegman describes negative aspects of the electoral college system but ignores the positive ones.
Abandonment of the electoral college should not be done lightly because it is one of the foundations of the federal system established by the constitution. Whatever the flaws of that may be, it confers historical continuity and therefore a sense of legitimacy to the presidential selection process. The movement to eliminate it smacks of a political ploy by the party that was disgruntled by the outcome of the last election when it won the national popular vote without winning the office. If Democrats were to push through the E.C. elimination as a partisan move, it would be seen as a power grab by a large segment of the country.
One practical advantage of the electoral college system is that it makes the smaller states relevant, even with fewer electoral votes. In contested elections, candidates still have to care about the interests of the plains and mountain west states and the smaller states in the northeast like West Virginia and New Hampshire. A straight national vote could induce candidates to ignore those places and more exclusively court the interests of big city voters.
A constitutional amendment is not feasible or necessary.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will go into effect if just 4 of the largest states where it is pending sign on to it. It already has 196 of the 270 electoral votes needed.
1
This is simply more proof that so-called, "Originalism" is wrong-headed. First of all, no one can claim to have particular insight into the "original" intentions of our founders than any other. It turns out that the original intentions of our founders lies in the eyes of the beholder.
Scalia was convinced that he knew it better than anyone else without demonstrating that his claim had any merit whatsoever!
1
A common talking point against the Electoral College is that it gives "land more clout than people." That is, states get credit for empty acreage, while people in densely-populated states have their votes diminished.
But I think there's a case to be made that this is the right system for a country our size. Think about this: the US is larger than the EU in land area, and almost equal in economy. All of Europe has about 513 million people, the US has 330 million.
So for context, the US is comparable to all of Western Europe, and our country contains an incredible diversity of cultures, belief systems, and occupations, mostly sorted geographically. In order for such a country to hold itself together, a president must appeal to many of these constituencies.
In the 2016 election, one candidate won by huge margins, but only in a few pockets of like-minded urbanites. The other won slim majorities, but won those majorities with farmers, coal miners, Louisiana fishermen, among speakers of French, Spanish and Vietnamese. Can we really say that the first candidate better represented the country?
Wouldn't that be like having London and Paris decide the leaders for all of Europe?
1
Good question: then the big states, which have more intense polarity, would even more greatly dominate, even beyond accounting for their population size in the electoral college. We would be a different country; because the rules under which states formed the USA would have radically changed. The Constitutional amendment that happens to harm the prospects of the current President, Senate and majority of state Governors, would need to be ratified by those same people. They would not believe that changing the underlying framework of the union would be beneficial either to them or to the union. It’s important to restate that state populations are accounted for already in the Electoral College. The result favors centrist politics rather than radicalism. I like that. I find that coastal elites are already superbly represented in our overall power structure, despite the constitutional requirement that they listen to swing states. The total disdain and disgust people show for swing states and the decent living people there is telling, as to the psychology of elites and their would-be dictators. The majority vote would be easy to buy and easy to control. Swing states are less so.
The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
1
This article and many of the comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding. The US is not a unitary country. It is composed of 50 sovereign states. Why do you suppose the pledge of allegiance says "I pledge allegiance to the UNITED States of America"? Why are we called the "UNITED States"? We could just be called "America" if we were a unitary country, as a lot of you folks seem to think.
But we aren't. We are like the EU or the Best Western hotel chain where every hotel is individually owned and operated, with a central corporate group doing some accounting and purchasing.
1
Republicans are only winning the Presidency because of the Electoral College. What incentive do they have to abolish it?
1
The author doesn't mention that the electoral college is very states' rights oriented as the Senators from each state are included in this college vote. Since this magnifies the political power of the smallest states which for some time have been more red, Republicans have self interest in keeping the biased electoral college system alive. Also of note is that a solid majority of Americans want the popular vote -"one vote one person" as the election principle, even including a sizeable minority of Republican leaning people.
1
he small states do not share a political tendency.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the D and R popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.
The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote R (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote D (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.
Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.
Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
1
I keep reading that, without the electoral college, states like Montana and Wyoming wouoldn't get any attention. Well, not quite. Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, and New Mexico have 10 senators. California, with several times the population, only gets 2. These states already have their say in things.
3
The 8 smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes) together received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections.
Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.
Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.
State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.
1
If Joe Biden wins in the Electoral College but loses the popular vote, I guarantee the abolition crowd will quickly disperse.
1
The truth is that there is no ideal system and that basically any system of election could work. The important thing is to accept the results. If you don’t like the system, change it. Anyway, I bet if Trump lost in the electoral college but won the popular vote, the Democrats would praise the former system. I personally think the coalition governments would have a better chance to function properly.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Rs, Ds, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.
Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 284 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes
The Electoral College is a holdover from American eras where public school education was largely reserved for those that could take advantage of it, which was not a majority of Americans. A significant number of Americans were minimally educated if not illiterate. This societal condition has long expired and with it the need for an Electoral College. An antique mechanism from an antique America.
Thank you for this good, timely article. I’m no history buff, but it was always my understanding that the Electoral College was created as a compromise between having Congress and the popular vote determine the President, and that the EC’s function was to temper “the tyranny of the majority.” It seems to have, especially in 2016, devolved perversely into “the tyranny of the minority.” It’s hard to believe it’s still in place.
It confounds me why the politicians don’t change it. Perhaps it’s because it makes Presidential campaigns easier, i.e., fewer states to cover, fewer constituencies to appeal to, etc.?
1
@JMA
Can you imagine two seventy-something candidates going on two separate cross-country tours to campaign? Odds are that by the end no one will have to vote to determine the winner.
This is well-known information. What is also well known is the Republican Party opposes the abolition of the electoral college because it's the only way they win. The first thing the Democratic Party needs to do after winning the Presidency, flipping the Senate, and holding onto the House is getting rid of this antiquated beast.
3
What I like about this idea is that it weakens to power candidates gain by narrow appeals to the most vocal groups in their base and their biggest donors, no matter how radical the ideas of the donors are (and I'm talking mostly about the radical anti-regulation billionaires and groups right now).
I'd LOVE to see, for example, a coherent conservative Republican approach to dealing with climate change. They're paid now to simply deny the issue, but that's slowly changing. Opening campaigns might speed that up.
Good luck with convincing the half million people who live in Wyoming and have one member of the House of Representatives, when the average Congressional District population is about 725, 000 + and that has two Senators like the 39.5 million Californians that the Electoral College system is bad.
Another way of addressing the inordinate impact of the Electoral College on our constitutional republic is to increase the size of the House of Representatives and thus the Electoral College to reflect the geographic and population growth of the nation.
4
Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.
1
The Electoral College exists because it is a very good way to allow each of the sovereign states comprising the US to vote for president.
This county was founded as, and continues to be, a sort of co-op. Each state is sovereign and answerable to its own citizens. Certain limited functions, like national defense and immigration, were logically given to a centralized government to perform.
The Electoral College exists to make sure the views of the sovereign states of Wyoming and North Dakota and West Virginia are counted. A popular vote would elect a president based on voting in a few states only and would essentially disenfranchise entire states.
We should keep the Electoral College. The forces wanting to do away with it are precisely those it was designed to thwart.
2
The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
Fair enough but it also was installed to check the people....the ‘Mobocracy’ as it was sometimes called. The founders wanted a way to make sure that if the people were swayed by a candidate who they felt would not be good for the country, the electors, who would be upstanding and highly educated citizens, would be able to gather and discuss this and then change the decision of the people. Today, that is not even close to what it has evolved into. There is nothing in the Constitution about winner take all in the electoral college. The other major reason it was implemented, and this has to do with what you referred to, is that they were afraid that the slave issue would upend the entire process and so the electoral college was instituted to help preserve the political power of the slave states which, for the most part, were the states with smaller populations. It seems, I would hope, that today we have gotten past both of those issues!! I also resent the fact that a vote in Oklahoma carries more clout than a vote in Texas!! Hook Em Horns!!
@Kurfco The Electoral College, as it operates now, elects a president based on voting in a few states only and essentially disenfranchises entire states.
It may well have been designed to thwart the possibility of voting by women, non-whites, non-Christians, and non-land owners. Which is reason enough to get rid of it.
Historically when the authors of the US Constitution saw the effects of the electoral college, they tried unsuccessfully to change it. The electoral college was intended to prevent exactly what has happened: a divisive, unpopular tyrant in the presidency. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a state or wealthy persons could simply buy electors. Could you buy an elector for a billion? Ca could buy enough electors with their budget surplus.
If you live in any one of the forty less populous states you have to understand that the author wants to destroy the single most important compromise in our constitution, i. e. that states, whether big or small have equal weight in certain matters.
If you want to talk revolution, keep this patter up. The rest of the country is not going to settle for the whole thing being run by a handful of big cities and big states.
So, dream on.
2
@Ed - States do NOT have equal weight in the Electoral College.
States with 3 electors range in population of less than 600,000 to almost a million. States have 3 - 55 electors.
Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.
@Ed - The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
59,849,899 people live in the 100 biggest cities.
59,492,267 people live in rural America.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Popular elections are often close and subject to recounts surprisingly often, depending on the recount guidelines. And recounts of 140 million votes are unwieldy, to say the least.
So, with popular elections, expect more elections decided by the Supreme Court which, you may remember, does not work well at all.
2
@michjasNo statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 58 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.
Wow, what a novel concept . . . perhaps one should also consider getting rid of gerrymandered districts - not that will make elections fairer; there's still the matter of voter suppression, voter intimidation, faulty ballots, malfunctioning machines, Russia, etc. . ..
Rather than an elaborate argument constructed to convince your readers of the value of doing away with the Electoral College, you would be better served with a proposal for achieving that goal.
The Electoral College can only be overturned by a Constitutional Amendment. This is difficult to achieve and can take decades. The language must be devised and passed by Congress. Then, 37 states must approve by vote.
How do you envision getting 37 states to approve your proposal? Unless you address that question, you’re just blowing hot air.
@rlschles - The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 284 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
The rest of the states would simply be overwhelmed by the votes of New York, Florida, and California. There is always the argument of a tyranny of the majority crushing the rights of a minority... it's made on racial issues. The founders wanted some type of balance.. indeed their may not have been a UNITED States if the smaller states not felt their interests where represented. The rest of us are frequently referred to as flyover country...we know that as derisive term. Keep it as is!
3
It certainly makes no sense anymore to have the both the Senate and the Presidency be determined via a system that is heavily biased towards low-population predominately right wing states. Because the Senate is already heavily biased in that way the Presidency should therefore be representative of the country as a whole. And the Senates low-population states will only get more outsize influence as their populations have been, and will continue to decline due their younger people leaving for better opportunities in the larger population states.
As it is now 42 Senators representing low-population states, predominately right wing, that have less than 15% of the US population can obstruct all Senate business if they want to - and they did just that during Obama's terms in order to sabotage his economic recovery plans.
The majority of Americans really are fed up with this small fraction of the country dictating their outdated, backwards demands to our society.
3
I've been hearing arguments against the Electoral College for 50 years and they've probably been around longer than that. Basically, it's like complaining about the weather.
1) The system isn't going anywhere without a constitutional amendment, and good luck getting that since many states that would have to approve it would lose clout;
2) Completely unintentionally, there's a tiny measure of justice in the current setup. The states with extra electoral clout also tend to be the highly productive farming/mining/manufacturing states from which the corporate/banking/market headquarters situated in electorally disadvantaged states extract enormous quantities of excess wealth for themselves. Thus this electoral clout slightly eases the iron grip that the professional/managerial class imposes on the rest of us with such horrors as globalization, bank bailouts and PC culture;
3) If we had a party that actually represented working Americans, it could easily win 70% to 80% of the vote in any national election, thus rendering the Electoral College irrelevant or a minor issue at best. But since both parties are first-priority beholden to the donor class, we have no such thing and are left with only a wrecking ball in the person of Donald Trump.
18
@Pelham
Hi Pelham,
We can't do anything about the weather. But we can do something about how we choose the president.
1) The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gets us to a popular vote without touching the Constitution. States have near-total freedom to award their electors however they choose.
2) The states that benefit under the current system, and which would "lose clout," as you say, under a popular vote, are not the one's you're thinking of. In fact the only true beneficiaries right now are the small handful of battleground states.
3) I agree that a party representing popular positions could get a sizable majority of the vote. A national popular vote is the best way to achieve that.
66
@Pelham -- " If we had a party that actually represented working Americans, it could easily win 70% to 80% of the vote in any national election, thus rendering the Electoral College irrelevant or a minor issue at best."
YES. Say it loudly and often.
The Electoral College may be a problem, but it is a distraction from the far bigger problem.
It is like treating the broken toe of an accident victim, as they bleed out.
@Jesse Wegman
The NPV compact seems like a legal fantasy for many reasons.
- Why would the 270 vote members care what people in other states did?
- why would a state legislature support an opposite-party candidate by not opting out of the NPV Compact?
- why would someone in such a state not sue over having their representation watered down?
Doing an end around on the Constitution carries a lot of risk when an Amendment is the clear mechanism.
5
Savvy voters in strong-Red or strong-Blue states who wish to have their minority voices are heard can vote for candidates of their persuasion for other offices, including Federal offices that impact the balance of power in Washington and state offices that impact the balance of power in the state capitals. E.G. Michigan has two Dem Senators and a Dem Governor.
The arguments against the Electoral College are made by members of the aggrieved party which demonstrated in 2016 that it couldn't run an effective Presidential campaign. It begs the question, why should we expect these people to govern any better than our current clown?
The hue and cry over the electoral college also issues primarily from pundits who, like Mr. Wegman, besides hating Trump, have books to sell and upcoming TV appearances on MSNBC. What are y'all going to do with yourselves when Trump is defeated in an electoral landslide in 2020?
5
@Gerard
Hi Gerard,
First, it's odd to argue that voters should take consolation in the fact that their downballot choices still matter, even though their vote for the most powerful office in the land doesn't.
Second, this page has opposed the Electoral College and favored the popular vote consistently, no matter who wins the White House. The one time we defended the College was in 2000, and that was before my time here. :)
Third, I'm sorry to say you've got your facts wrong about who argues against the Electoral College. Throughout American history, citizens and lawmakers and elected leaders of all major parties, and many of the founding fathers themselves, have argued for a popular vote. In 1968, 80 percent of the public supported it, and an amendment abolishing the College overwhelmingly passed the House. What stopped it from being enacted? A Senate filibuster led by three southern segregationists: Strom Thurmond, James Eastland and Sam Ervin. They were Democrats (or Dixiecrats), but for them it wasn't about party. It was about race.
And last but not least, I promise you that the sooner my book is rendered irrelevant, the happier I'll be.
54
@Gerard The 2016 campaign by the Democrats was quite effective and the candidate garnered three million more popular votes than the fellow who now occupies the WH and is an existential threat to all of us because he is incompetent.
The arguments against the Electoral College are older by decades than the 2016 election. More than anything else, the Electoral College violates the concept of equal rights that is the bedrock of the Constitution because it gives the citizens of a few smaller population states more voting clout than in a heavily populated state. (By the way when the SC gave the election to G. Bush in 2000 they argued that the votes had been treated differently, i.e. unequally.).
In short, your vote in Wisconsin or the Dakotas or Wyoming “weighs” more than twice as much as a vote from California. That gives those voters more say and more voting power than citizens elsewhere.
The Electoral College itself was one part of the deal made with Southern states in 1789 to encourage them to sign onto the Constitution. Another part was counting slaves as 2/3 of a voter and allowing the owners to vote “for them” too. This unseemly bit has been continuously fought for since Emancipation by terrorizing black voters, through poll taxes, voter suppression, and now state issued voter IDs etc.
Democracy is constantly in need of perfecting. The Electoral College treats votes in a blatantly unequal, unfair way. We need to get rid of it or work around it.
7
@Jesse Wegman Touche!
1
Fabulous. But propose some ideas for getting it changed and I might feel better.
2
@Linked
Check out the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (Chapter 7 in my book)! It's an elegant way of getting to a popular vote without touching the Constitution.
26
A few thoughts:
I am suspicious of any argument that starts out by maligning the founders; "a few dozen men who had never elected a president before, and built for a country where the vast majority of people were denied the right to vote." Well, somehow those ignoramuses---little better than cavemen in powdered wigs, really---managed to put together a country that has had a bigger beneficial impact on the world than any other in history.
Also, the fact that some people complain about the current system is not evidence that it is broken. Losers complain about the rules, winners defend them.
A person's vote was not invalidated because he lives in a "safe" state. It's simply that the majority got its way; democracy at the state level.
Finally, we should stop assuming that the 2016 election would have gone to Hillary under a popular vote. If different rules had been in place, both the candidates and the voters would have behaved differently. For example, Trump never campaigned in California--there was no point. And conservative voters in rural California have a lower turnout than liberal urbanites--there's not much point in voting. They might turn out if their votes did count. This may be a vote for a nationwide popular ballot, but don't assume it would go the way you hope.
1
The Electoral College, a constitutional-"relic", has relevance, after 1) each states agree to award the winner a "half plus 1" of electoral-votes, 2) both major parties adopt for their primary-system a total delegate-number of 538, mirroring the quadrennial presidential campaigns. No changes to the constitution, either on the local or federal level. Chances of implementation? < 1%. But that's my proposal.
1
Excellent, informative and compelling.
There's another way to look at it: The current system makes no sense. The "popular vote" system does.
Case closed. Make the change...now.
2
Rich it'll never happen. Move on
The Electoral College negates the basic concept of democracy i.e. each vote counts, and the majority prevails. Because of Electoral College, we got George Bush and the Iraq war ; and thanks to Electoral College, now we have our current president too. Someone should take this up with the Supreme Court and have it abolished, because the politicians will not do it. Mr. Bloomberg, please use your money to get this done. The country will be grateful to you.
1
As written by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers, he wanted an electoral college because he felt that the average man didn't have the understanding to elect the right person for the job.
Whether we elect by an electoral college or popular vote the same thing could be said of today's population.
However at least a popular vote would show how the majority are thinking, right or wrong.
1
@BTO Hamilton headed the Fed early on, didn't he?
He knew who buttered his bread!
What if there is a very popular figure in California. So popular he can get 90 percent of the vote in Cal. That person decides to run for president The rest of the nation isn’t so happy with the candidate though. The candidate loses every state but by a small margin. But by winning California by a huge margin wins the presidency. Would that be fair.
1
@Jim Yes.
1
@Jim,
If there is no EC there is no such thing as winning by state.
individual Republican votes in California would count the same as individual Democratic votes in Mississippi.
I could almost be convinced that the electoral college is fine if we removed the hard cap on 435 representatives, and allocated them proportionally. True, this would result in a much larger house of representatives, but in this digital age, why not?
I mean, the UK has 650 MPs in their house of commons, why don't we have more?
As long as the Electoral College favors one party over the other, you’ll never get the votes to make a constitutional amendment.
Ending the winner take all system may be more realistic, and is something both parties support. It would still be a major improvement even if only a partial one.
Before discussion about eliminating the Electoral College - and I am a supporter of that -as it is well past its "sell-by" date, there is another basic, absolute bottom line matter which must be addressed regarding vote casting in this country. Unless and until we can assure every citizen in this country that their vote is cast in a process that is free and tamper-proof, anything beyond that is simply conversation, including the Electoral College. Former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, a Republican and former head of the FBI, testifying under oath in Congressional hearings in the fall stated,"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." And then further stated, ..."they (Russia) are plotting as we sit here." If we do not have free and tamper-proof vote casting in November, we, as a democratic country are finished. That is not an exaggeration - it is the truth.
3
Counting votes is difficult and creates perverse incentives to distort the vote.
Counting Congressional districts - what Maine and Nebraska do - is much easier than counting votes and avoids "winner take all" distortions. The big problem with this plan is gerrymandering. If we get good at eliminating gerrymandering, this would be a good system, especially if we reduced each state to one Senator and added one extra Representative to each state to make districts more compact (among other advantages).
The current system will be very hard to displace because it is seen to advantage red states and it dramatically advantages swing states. Red states plus swing states is a majority and always will be. If at some future point one party seems to always wins the White House, odds are people will magically stop complaining about the Electoral College.
Please allow each NYT writer a maximum of one Electoral College bashing every four years. We have heard them all.
1
What the electoral college did in 2016 only proves its not doing the job it was created to do, what's best for the country.
2
Actually eliminating the Electoral College as such would require amending the Constitution, so is unlikely in the short term.
Having a broad national contest without there being only a small group of battleground states, however, is within the reach of the states. They don't even need to introduce measures, as some have, to award electors to the winner of the national popular vote, either. All that would be needed would be to switch en masse from winner take all to awarding electors proportionally to the vote, whether by statewide vote count or on a district basis (the former is probably better to avoid the impact of gerrymandering).
This solution could be adopted by the states without any constitutional problems (except perhaps state constitutions, which tend to be easier to amend). It would still result in slightly skewed representation of individual voters by state, due to the inclusion of Senators in the number of electors each state gets to send, so that votes from thinly populated states with two Senators and one House member count more than those from more populated states, but at least it would make it worthwhile to campaign everywhere and involve the people of all the United States in the contest.
From the article:
"the Electoral College still radically distorts our democracy."
Except of course the USA is not a democracy. Never has been. It was designed from the beginning to be a representative republic, with the states represented by the Senate, the people represented by the House, and the President by a combination thereof. As for the electoral college as an institution causing red and blue states to be ignored, if the president were elected by a majority vote, Alaska, North Dakota and Wyoming would be completely ignored. In fact, the 10 most populous states hold more than half of the US population.
If the USA were to choose a president based on popular vote, IMHO, the results might be very different than its proponents foresee, particularly if a majority were required, with a runoff of the two top candidates if there were no majority in the first round. Right now, a lot of Republicans in California, New York and Illinois may not bother to vote, and Democrats in Texas likewise, because they feel the results are foreordained. This might not be the case if the winner were determined by the popular vote. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, because I felt Trump would carry Louisiana. I would have voted for Trump if I knew my vote could be important.
@danny,
It seems to be popular among people on the right to declare that the US is not a democracy.
Well, it is, a representaive democracy, just like almost every other democratic country.
The US, unlike others with a monarchy, is both a republic and a democracy, even though it may not have begun that way.
@danny70000
Republic = the system you have described, which is most commonly referred to today as representative democracy.
When the Founders contrasted a republic with a democracy, what they meant by the latter was *direct democracy*. They were not suggesting that representatives should not be ultimately selected by and accountable to the people (or at least that subset with any kind of suffrage at that point).
Were we to eliminate the Electoral College, or even just get the majority of states to switch to awarding electors by the proportion of the statewide vote (which states are completely free to do), the smaller states would not be ignored... they would simply get about as much attention as warranted by the number of eligible voters available to be persuaded there, somewhat more if even the smallest state still got 3 electors.
As for your last paragraph, in what way would the participation of more Americans in selecting our representatives, including the head of the Executive branch, whether that be Republicans in California or Democrats in New Jersey, be a bad thing?
One point missed is the positive effect on the outlandish money currently spent to sway voters in a few swing states. If Republican presidential candidates had to spend money in Texas to make sure every Republican voted and Democratic presidential candidates had to do the same in California, the millions of dollars currently spent would be so diluted as to be almost meaningless. Since politicians show no desire to get money out of politics this might be the way.
This is the perfect reason and opportunity to work to fairly reapportion the US House of Representatives. If every congressional district represented approximately the same number of people it would erase some of the distortion in the electoral college. Rural states would see their advantage recede but fairness requires it. 3 examples; Wyoming, would be the base (population ~ 500,000), would keep its 1 Representative, Montana (population ~ 1,000,000), would gain a representative (probably a republican), California (population ~ 40,000,000), would gain ~ 24 representatives some republican some not. But each district would be more fairly represented in the EC and in the House.
I believe the House can do this on its own but it hasn’t been reapportioned in a century, it’s time.
1
Good article. And then I have a discussion with my perfectly intelligent, hard-working brother who says "yea, but then California would be deciding who is president!" Good. Grief.
2
There will be no change in the Electoral College until Texas finally goes Blue. The Republican Party knows it is increasingly difficult for them to win a popular vote and will hang on to the EC for dear life. When Texas does go Blue, you take their 39 EC votes and pair them with WA, OR, CA, the north east from ME to VA, throw in IL, MN, CO and BINGO, you are at 309. Game, Set, Match. The other 32 states become irrelevant. At that point, the Republican Party will be leading the charge for change to a popular vote. But not a minute before.
2
This article didn't discuss any of the reasons for why this good idea hasn't happened. What are the arguments from those who could actually affect change? Any quotes from lawmakers who are actually in position to do something about this? What are they saying?
The nature of the Electoral College means that at any given time one party or another has an advantage. The only way to eliminate it is through an amendment to the Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires either approval by 2/3rds of both the House and Senate or through a Constitutional Convention approved by 2/3rd of the state legislatures. Even through the party benefiting from the College may not hold a majority in Congress it is highly unlikely it will not have the votes needed to block an amendment. The same holds true for a Constitutional Convention and the likelihood of the 2/3rds of the states voting for elimination. The probability for elimination of the College is minuscule.
@Seldoc One path may be, when we have managed to cull together a reasonable and conscientious Supreme Court, the next time we have a situation in an election like Bush V. Gore, we set the record straight and move toward a more perfect Democracy!
Apparently, the wisdom of the Electoral College addition to the Presidential election process in the U.S. is above the comprehension of Jesse Wegman. As election results have gone against straight popular tallies twice within the last two decades, Mr. Wegman can’t cope with the new math. Believing in paying off the disenfranchised and the lower realms of the economic ladder with false promises purposely designed to keep them in place is the winning formula by the numbers, he wants a do-over of the entire system.
Perhaps, instead, we could just elect Presidents by geographic area and whoever has the most physical real estate in vote areas wins. Looking at the geography creates an entirely new way of viewing election results and Democrat votes only massing in urban areas presents a different picture entirely.
1
I am 31 years old and have literally never seen a general election campaign ad on TV. Never. My vote doesn’t matter because my state always votes blue even though around a third of Illinois is rural (including where I live).
1
Our current system isn't perfect but it gives people in flyover country a say in electing a president. The founding fathers were wary of a democracy in which the majority tramples on the minority. The current system favors candidates that can speak to all Americans, not just the majority.
1
@Carla Marceau
In other words, a decided minority gets to call the shots in this country. So a president who loses an election by 3M votes gets to make lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, and have them confirmed by a Senate that also represents a decided minority of the country. This after the same Senate refused to even consider a Supreme Court nominee put forward by a president elected twice by the voters in this country by large margins. American Exceptionalism at its finest!!
1
@Carla,
Your post ignores reality.
The country is now ruled by a minority.
Please explain how that “speaks for all Americans”
@Carla Marceau Madam, Now the minority tramples the majority. I have been following US politics since the proud Civil Rights Movement and the tragic Vietnam War, and visited your beautiful and extremely interesting country several times. In those decades, viewed from across the pond, never has a president been so divisive as the present one. He should have been much more careful, as his 'mandate' was flimsy. From the word 'Go', even earlier, he started insulting the rest of the world. Remember what he said about a brave man as John McCain as a prisoner of war: a loser. I was planning on visiting again around Easter, to see again for myself, but, unfortunately, I have to postpone until healthier times.
It would be great if we can change this, but how? The electoral college system benefits low population states by giving them a higher proportion of electoral votes. If we wanted to give the same proportion of voting power to California versus Wyoming, then California should have 180 electoral votes versus the current 58. A change in the voting system must pass the Senate, which is rigged in favor of the low population states to a much greater degree than the electoral college. How can we have the same people to get rid of a system that benefits them so greatly?
But the issue isn't whether we think popular vote is a better, fairer system. That's a no brainer for many of us, who happen do live in areas that would benefit from the change. The challenging question, unaddressed in this piece, is how you get the areas that benefit from the status quo to take the deal.
Alternatively, I believe that the primary should take place on a single day, minimizing the corrosive effects of navel-gazing punditry, so that people actually vote for who they like.
In the case of there being no clear majority winner in said primary, a special election between the top tier of candidates would decide the eventual nominee. This would mean that the public by-and-large would get the candidate they most want, as opposed to the current system in which voters base their choice based on nebulous, intangible qualities, such as "electability".
In lieu of a weak, gaffe-prone Biden, we might have someone more competent like a Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, or Klobuchar, if this novel primary idea was introduced.
Mr Wegman, you're preaching to the choir. I am really, really tired of reading about WHY we should abolish the Electoral College. We know all the whys. I want to read that we're DOING it. Perhaps disallowing it state by state.
I live in a RED STATE. In the past number of years, I've experienced none of the candidates running for the office of the presidency even visit this state, especially in the primaries; no blue or red candidate. "Land of the Forgotten" applies here.
What happened to of the people, bu the people, and for the people? The electoral college implications imply, "your votes need not apply" in a national election of a supposed democratic vote.
So if you win by the electoral college without the majority of the popular vote, in essence, you do not represent "the will of the people."
2
Excellent article. I’ve often wondered why we haven’t seriously considered removing the electoral college for the last three decades. Very insightful and also anticipating pitfalls or adjustments. It would be nice to know my Democratic vote in Texas would mean something for once.
The Electoral College is a time-bomb. At some point this is going to create a genuine crisis for our country. Here is why - when our country was founded, the states were much more consistently sized in terms of population. Today, States like Vermont and Wyoming have as much say in our most important legislative body as do California and Texas. This is absurd, and at some point, citizens in heavily populated states are just not going to accept having their policies determined by a minority of voters.
I respect the history of the constitution and our country as much as anyone, but we have a problem on our hands that is going to require compromise to solve.
1
That "genuine crisis"? Already happened. It's called trump.
@BN: "Today, States like Vermont and Wyoming have as much say in our most important legislative body as do California and Texas. This is absurd, and at some point, citizens in heavily populated states are just not going to accept having their policies determined by a minority of voters."
Vermont and Wyoming have equal footing with California and New York in the Senate because it's not based on population. That's why we have the House of Representatives.
"I respect the history of the constitution and our country as much as anyone..."
Not if you're complaining about the "unfairness" of the Senate.
@BN,
The EC has already created a crisis in the US— twice in the last three elections.
One brought us Bush and devastating wars in the Middle East.
The other brought us the unmitigated disaster of a selfish narcissist leading a party that is steering the nation towards fascism.
I believe more people would vote when they know that their vote will count regardless of where they live in New York or Alabama. Many people probably stay home if they are a democrat voting in a republican leaning state and likewise a republican in a democrat state.
1
If States with a total of 270 electoral votes agreed in concert to cast their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote, the issue could be resolved without a Constitutional Amendment. That is far more doable than a Constitutional amendment.
2
@fwr
19 states =271 electoral votes, WA, OR, CA, CO, NM, WI, IL, MI, NY, PA, VA, VT, MA, RI, CT. NJ, DE, MD &DC.
Since we're considering banning the Electoral College*, let's consider something equally radical: proportional representation. We can only have one president, but the legislature could be designed to give minority opinions minority representation. If 20% of people believe in X, they could get 20% of the legislative seats. As it is now, only two parties matter: Democrats and Republicans. Anyone who can't muster a majority in some districts gets no representation whatsoever. Their opinions and their votes do not count.
It isn't going to happen, but it is interesting to think about.
* The Electoral College itself isn't the problem. It has never changed the results of any presidential election. It is the apportionment of electors by the number of congress members that skews the results in favor of states with fewer people.
the electoral college resulted in SCOTUS appointment of Bush, as well as the disastrous Trump presidency. I'm not sure what you are reviewing, but two of the five elections of the 21st century is no longer an anomaly. it is an undemocratic and unfair trend.
1
@karen : It was the apportionment of electors that caused those unfortunate events, not the electors themselves. The electors all voted as they were instructed and did not change the results.
While we're at it, can we get statehood for the District of Columbia? More Americans live in D.C. than live in Wyoming. Shouldn't they get two votes in the Senate? (NOTE: D.C. already gets three electoral votes, as if it were a state, but it ought to be represented in Congress by voting legislators who can actually cast a vote -- both on the floor and in committees.
4
The Electoral College would be the greatest thing on earth if what? IF clinton would have won. The only reason liberals don't like it now, is because President Trump won the election by way of the EC working the way it was intended to work. To keep the East Coast and the West Coast from deciding elections for us.
2
@GANSTER There wasn't much importance attached to the west coast when the Constitution was written. I don't understand your point.In fact, there wasn't much of an Omaha either!
1
@GANSTER I live in central Illinois which isn’t a liberal or elitist bastion. Yet, the EC means that my vote doesn’t matter. I have literally never seen a general election campaign for president in my life. The EC doesn’t just hurt coastal elites—it hurts people in rural communities living in the “wrong” states.
@Ganster,
Please don’t try to project your cynicism onto the left.
It might be hard for someone from the party of cheating and lying to understand this, but we really do believe in free elections in which every vote counts.
You might try to understand that without the EC Republicans in California would be as empowered as Democrats in Wyoming.
California 40 million people two senators. Wyoming 700,000 people two senators.There are more Wyoming's and there are California's. Does anyone wonder why we have so many problems with our national politics? Artificially biasing the system towards the least educated most conservative and reactionary parts of the country is very unhealthy, highly anti-democratic and will ultimately, if continued, lead to the breakup of the country.
3
@Bill Langeman Dumb policies beget dumb results.
What the coastal elites (who brag about traveling the globe but never visit the many wonders of our country) forget is that America is a big, big place! Those of us in the middle produce the materials that let the urban elites live in comfort. We do the work. The beauty of the federal system we have is that it gives voice to people in vast spaces that make up our nation! Our government was specifically designed to prevent a few large cities from dominating the decisions! That is the original idea, and any change needs the consent also described in the Constitution. It is certainly not perfect, but what system is? In many European nations there are some many tiny parties in governments that decisions cannot be made.
@Donna Gray One large city dominates the politics in my state and makes it such that the rest of the state has absolutely no voice in electing our president
@Donna,
In 1789 the largest state was Virginia.
Your thesis is dead wrong.
The EC was (1) to “protect” the election from errant voters by giving the electors freedom to vote as they pleased and (2) to give equal representation to slave states with the free.
The electors no longer vote independentally and there are no slave states.
What there is, however, is a minority ruling as a dictatorship over the majority.
As for you producing everything for the “elites,” you get to enjoy the same products, and receive more federal subsidies to boot.
well, in my view, we have a broken system where it is extraordinarily difficult to get anything done. The electoral college needs to go. Imagine picking a president with no electoral college and rank choice voting? This would play directly to the candidates that had the widest appeal and would punish the fringe, divisive players. No Trump!
2
What if we just counted up all the votes by property owners for President and saw who won?
What if we just counted up all the votes by federal tax payers for President and saw who won?
What if we just counted up all the votes by professionals for President and saw who won?
What if we just counted up all the votes by debtors for President and saw who won?
A pipe dream, of course.
The proportional vote amendment is more realistic, but not really.
Those in favor of justice could take a more moderate course, which would be to change the way Federal elections are done. The Fed government could legislate taking over Federal elections, registering every one who has a SS number and voting by mail. That hugely increases voter participation and eliminates some voter suppression and the problem of registration. States may be invited to join and would receive Fed funding for their state elections, but under Fed oversight, of course.
After more of America participates, we can see where we are.
2
One or two things should be made clear about the popular election of the president. First, the US system is the norm in the world. In India, Britain, Japan, Italy, and virtually all other democratic countries the head of government is chosen by the party with the most seats, not the party with a majority of votes. In the last British election, for example, Boris Johnson's Conservative Party received forty-three per cent of the vote and was credited with a great landslide. Only France, among major democracies, has a popularly elected leader. And in France there have to be run-off elections between the top two candidates, which means that the eventual winner must once again be a minority candidate. Second, changing the constitution requires the support of the very people who will lose as a result. Delaware and North Dakota will not agree to give up their privileged status. Likewise Idaho and Rhode Island, to say nothing of Wyoming and Vermont. Getting people to vote themselves into oblivion politically is not going to be easy. Personally, I favor popular vote for president but we should be aware how difficult it will be and how many compromises will be necessary. As in 1787 we are in uncharted waters here.
2
@Frank,
That’s a stretch that doesn’t hold up. Parliamentary representation is nothing like the US EC system.
The majority party that chooses the leader is the party that receives the most votes by the people. So it is based on the popular vote.
And every other party is represented in the government, so the plurality cannot just dictate.
Everyone understands that the Electoral College is obviously unfair and obselete. Republicans fight to keep it because they know that without it they would never win another election as most Americans today fall between left-wing to moderate liberal.
3
The current electoral college system strongly favors Republicans and minority rule. The original one was heavily tilted in favor of slave owners, who were able to elect most of the first group of US Presidents. The GOP is strongly opposed to democracy in a country where most people don’t favor most of their far right agenda. So, as long as there is a GOP, there will be an electoral college. So, the Dems need to figure out how to work with the Constitutional reality rather than complaining about what could have been and likely never will be.
1
So long as the republican party can win the presidency via the Electoral College nothing will change. I seriously doubt that the framers of the Constitution could envision a time of instant results or even a time where sparsely populated states could have power over the densely populated areas. It is unlikely that any amendment abolishing the E.C. will ever pass. On the other hand Congress could increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to more accurately reflect the population. As it is now densely populated areas have lease representation than sparsely populated.
1
It's high time we get rid of the electoral college and adopt the one person-one vote election policy, because the latter is fair and the former not. The unfairness, the absurdity, of the Electoral College is, I believe, one of the main reasons young people vote in appallingly low numbers. "My vote doesn't matter," some say, and, in cases such as the last Presidential election, they are right.
3
Popular election of the President could also break up the two party system. The requirement of a majority vote in the Electoral College has precluded the formation of robust minor parties. Third parties have provided impetus for reform movements in state and local governments. They have acted a spoilers in Presidential races.
The US is ripe for third parties. The people doubt the authority of monolithic institutions like the two parties. Both parties are unhappy collections of factions. The formation of minor parties will force Congress to function properly. If no party controls a house, all parties will need to compromise.
If popular election included Maine-style ranked voting, future presidents could always claim majority support.
2
Let us think about this. There are two issues here. One is about the popular vote if it is Biden vs Trump. The other is theoretically about the Electoral College. For the first, I raise this question. Mr Biden is having what might be called "mental lapses." The media, when it does mention them at all, calls them "gaffes," which is a word that is used for no other politician. Like, for example, 150 million people were killed in the USA since Bernie Sanders voted on a specific bill. There are numerous others. We need the President of the US to be in full control of their mental faculties. But, this is discussed nowhere. We should discuss whether Biden's mental lapses would be a problem if he became president. Where is this being discussed. Second, we have the theoretical issue of whether an Electoral College should exist. well, the Germans created theirs in response to the failings of popular voting during the Weimar Republic. The idea was to balance popular voting with a federal system. That is the idea behind a Senate. So, eliminating the EC would logically lead to eliminating the Senate. The Germans have a Senate, too. They think that balancing popular vote with a federal system has benefits. So did our Founders. Why do we not think so? What really has changed?
@Francis,
That’s not an accurate description of the German system.
Germany has no winner-take-all system. Parliamentary seats are allocated proportionally based on the popular vote.
German state electors are free to vote for whomever they want as president, but since they usually pick someone from the majority party, the result mirrors the popular vote.
The anti-democracy forces will not allow this. They depend on vast disproportions that favor the low-populated states. The electoral college was put in place by slave-owners and rural landlords precisely to prevent the population centers, the cities, from exerting power in elections. Yes, this is way overdue. As Bill Maher said, "Why are there two Dakotas" that have twice as many senators as the state of California? Well, that's the Senate. But the vestige of the Electoral College, a "representative government" rather than a genuine democracy, is an entrenched 18-th c legacy not relevant to the 21st c country. It would mean the population at large would have power. Who could oppose that? Oh, yeah. Right.
3
Count me in so my vote can finally be counted! I’m tired of our system of minority rule.
7
Presidential elections have evolved into the primary way most voters come to understand what a party stands for. That was not the case 50 years ago. The fact that the campaigns opt out of all but maybe 10 states means that most voter perceptions are shaped by the dominant party in the state thus driving polarization. Even in subtle ways: in Texas I had to buy an Obama yard sign. In Ohio they're given away free. That means the only people who had Obama signs in my neighborhood were those who who shelled out the $15 bucks. My neighbors likely concluded that there was far less support for Obama then there actually was, reinforcing the "foreigness" of the Democratic Party. If Obama and Romney actually had to fight for every Texas vote, then fewer voters would default to the 'socially accepted' candidate and the darn signs would be free.
3
The EC was a racist fix to a problem of slave vs. free states. The issue was how to hold a popular election (at that time only land-owning men could vote) when in the south so much land was owned by just a few voting men, and in the more industrial north, smaller tracts were owned due to how the land was used, costly labor, etc. instead of having free slave labor. Yet, each state’s representatives wanted equal representation to elect a President, and the slave states did not want to have slavery abolished, since that was the topic of the day. If we were to have a whole nation, more easily defended, unlike then constantly battling European countries, the EC was one of the compromises.
While today smaller states complain their voice would not be heard if the EC were abolished, I must question that voice and what they want to say. Several southern swing states are dependent on the largess of wealthier states, their education levels lower. Others used to be industrial giants and that is now lost. Where was their voice when citizens needed education or to maintain good jobs?
If there is a good message out there, that resonates with people and has truth in it, it will be heard. It doesn’t take power to convince people what is truthful or honest. Political parties prey on divisiveness, often to the detriment of their own voters well being. When the EC overrides the popular vote, the Presidents we elect are disastrous.
5
A very logical argument, except for one thing: at any point in time, either one party or the other stands to benefit from the Electoral College system. Therefore a proposed amendment to choose the President by popular vote will not garner the votes of two-thirds of the House and Senate, nor those of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, as required by the Constitution. It is a deeply flawed, undemocratic system, but we're stuck with it.
@Greg Otis
While it is a fact that both parties could benefit, recent history demonstrates that only one party has.
4
@Greg,
In reality, only the Republicans benefit from the EC, as their voters are a majority in the smaller, poorer, less educated states.
1
Stuck with it?! Not with enough political/social pressure from the American public.
"Tyranny of the majority".
What is that? Equal rights under the law?
People's interests above corporations and profits?
No random discrimination allowed?
3
There is no need to wait for a Constitutional amendment. Google National Popular Vote. If your state has not already passed it in the legislature and the governor signed it into law, then get on the bandwagon.
We could get rid of the Electoral College before this November.
5
The electoral college is the mother of all gerrymanders, conceived by men who were not nearly as democratic as popular imagination believes. It is long past time to put it on the ash heap of history.
6
Every time I hear people in "Flyover Country" ask why voters on the coasts should pick our next President by majority vote, I have to turn the question right back around at them: why should the underpopulated central and western states do the same through their exaggerated electoral weight?
Hillary won the last election by three million votes (Al Gore tallied over a half million more than Bush). Do these voters not count? Then what is their incentive to continue to vote when their hopes are dashed again and again?
With greater political sophistication comes an ever greater distortion by the Electoral College of the true intent of the Founders of our nation. Intended as a compromise between large and small states, it is the last vestige of those compromises made to form our country. One by one - white universal suffrage, the Civil War Amendments, direct election of Senators by popular vote, women's enfranchisement, etc. - we have formed a more perfect Union. The time is way overdue to make this last change.
Historians can ponder when the EC has distorted the national will: Andrew Jackson and the "Corrupt Bargain", the Tilden-Hayes Swindle but, most recently, the tortured logic of the Supreme Court that began with "hanging chads". This outdated institution has resulted in the Abomination of Bush and the Terror of Trump.
Abolish the Electoral College immediately; institute some form of ranked-choice voting that is as fair as possible. Prevent a worse demogoguecracy!
10
Because usually the person who wins the popular vote wins the electoral college and the only reason that doesn't always happen is so many people live in California that it would pretty much always be the deciding factor and that probably isn't great either. Agree that the small states have too much power and having two senate seats per Dakota is absurd.
1
@Ted,
Many people have moved from smaller states to California.
They are still the same people as they were before, but simply because they moved they lost the power of their vote.
It’s one country, and it should not be dictated to by a minority of the voters.
3
The author's argument is based on fairness, logic and common sense. Three things that are completely foreign to today's GOP. The GOP is not interested in what is good for the nation. They are only interested in what is good for them (staying in power) and Fox ratings.
5
We have a broken system / the electoral college. But a realistic, practical fix isn't that easy. The FIRST key problem is having a national, reliable voting registration and a timely, accurate reliable tabulating system. We don't have that now. We have a broken voting system, slow, easily hacked, corrupted by political forces, not easily accessible. The SECOND key problem is how to deal with a close election in which there is no clear winner. Consider, a national election that is very close, with millions of military and mail in votes straggling in, disputes in many states about accurate vote counts, millions of provisional ballots. A crisis from a bad system. So we would need an exit strategy in such a crisis- If no clear resolution (whatever that is defined as) within 45 days, the election is sent to the House of Representatives for a vote. So don't fix a broken system with a failure prone solution. And the national voting process is broken. And a close race is inevitable.
3
The problem is states run their own elections. If every vote across the country counts equally, then small heavily-partisan precincts/counties have huge incentive to "cheat" with almost no fear of getting caught. Right now, no one cares if rural Alabama has minor voting irregularities in the presidential vote since it doesn't matter. But with a national vote (or even just apportioning the electoral votes within a state), it will. So eliminating the electoral college MUST include forcing states to enforce minimum federal election rules, with oversight provisions. This makes the hurdle to get this all done even higher. And it requires thinking through the new problems. I'm not convinced there aren't more problems with direct voting than with the electoral college (and we've had 200 years to learn its flaws).
1
@K,
Calm your fears.
Direct elections work just fine for everything except the president.
Oh, how I wish Wegman's piece will not be forgotten. The principle of one person, one vote should have priority over the electoral college, which I understand was created to safeguard property over any mob like inclinations of a democracy, e.g. Shays' Rebellion, and before the rise of political parties in the U.S. A president without a popular vote does not have a popular mandate. What prevents the floating of a constitutional amendment, I suppose, is that a party in power in Washington that has benefited from an electoral vote would not be predisposed to it.
5
Excellent column, you make very good arguments.
But there are also problems....
1) is the issue really the Electoral College---or is it state-by-state winner-take-all. you could certainly do away with the latter, without doing away with the former. You could designate electors based on Congressional districts, rather than states.
2) Your idea might be an extremely tough sell to the states, who might want to cling to their electoral votes. Small states might fear that all campaigning (and yes, the majority of federal grants) would be concentrated in big states.
3) A compromise might be to retain the Electoral College, but wipe out winner-take-all. AND--possibly more important--no electoral votes corresponding to Senate seats. Electoral votes allocated among the states strictly according to the number of congressional districts, period.
4) A problem with what you suggest is if an extremely close election occurs, such as the 2000 election. Would you want to have the chaos in Florida extend to all 50 states? Do you think that would be likely to result in a fair outcome--however you define fair?
One disadvantage of a true popular vote is what to do in the event of a close election requiring a recount. Are you going to recount all 50 states? Not a great solution. By contrast, the 2000 election messy as it was, involved the recount of only one state (Florida) because of the electoral college.
Bottom line, I propose retaining the electoral college, but with proportional allocation in each state as opposed to the winner take all, similar to what is in effect with the current Democratic primary.
@Robert,
I agree that, given the virtual impossibility of a constitutional amendment, proportional allocation of EC electors is a good solution.
I don’t that as relevant to or a solution for vote count irregularities. Such will always exist.
There are a few important points here:
1. The intent of the Electoral College was for it to be a deliberative body. It was not supposed to be a formality that rubber-stamped the state votes. See Federalist no. 68.
2. The presidency is the only office in the country that is elected by something other than the popular vote. If we, the Great Unwashed, can be entrusted with the duty elect every other office in the land, why not the presidency?
3. The EC has NOTHING to do with proportional representation or protecting the rights of smaller states. That's what the Senate is for. It was widely known that George Washington was going to be the first president, and he was from Virginia, which at the time of the first presidential election was twice as big as any other state. If the founding fathers had intended to protect smaller states with the EC, they did a pretty poor job of it. And it wasn't their intention. See point 1.
3
Two things will make this change difficult.
1. 38 states are needed to amend the Constitution. There are currently at least 13 small states the benefit from the system. While they only play a minor role now, they would be completely ignored with just a popular vote.
2. They might not say it, but the 2 parties like it. The chance of a 3rd party candidate winning is zero - 1992, Ross Perot got 18% of the popular vote, but not electors. The two parties don't want competition that does not exist now.
2
@John,
You’ve ignored one of the article’s main points: that the EC disenfranchises voters from both parties.
I don’t think voters in small states think in terms of their states, but as individuals. Republicans in Michigan would have the benefit of seeing the votes count of their fellow Republicans in California.
For presidential elections, states should be taken out of the equation.
It's a national position, so we should have a straight nationwide vote.
5
The Republicans will never agree to dropping the Electoral College and electing our Presidents by popular vote because they know their party's candidates will never again win the support of a majority of American citizens. This is the same reason why they will never stop gerrymandering and suppressing voters.
As George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum put it, "If conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism; they will abandon democracy."
6
Be careful what you wish for. Campaigns would be very different - there would be a need to get out every last vote even in states where the candidate was hopelessly behind or safety ahead. My guess is that this would make campaigns very very expensive and increase the influence of big donors. It is no surprise that the campaign professionals Wegman spoke with endorsed the change - they would stand to benefit quite a bit (and a little surprising he does not recognize or acknowledge that).
3
@Ambrose,
Imagine that. There’s a price to pay for democracy.
But national popular voting under one federal standard would actually be cheaper than fifty separately administered systems.
I totally agree. I am a Democrat and if lived in "red" state, I would feel completely irrelevant in presidential elections. My vote would mean nothing. The same situation with our fellow Republican friends (not all of them are bad people, trust me) who live, for example, in NY or CA. This is fundamentally unfair system and should be abolished. I am sick and tire of the system when just a couple of states time after time decide who is the POTUS.
5
Candidates probably still wouldn’t come to my state much - but it would be cool to go to a rally where the candidate was actually present someday.
2
Since we will not get rid of the Electoral College any time soon (it would require amending the Constitution), let's eliminate the "winner take all" allocation of a state's popular vote. I would suggest using Congressional districts or some other pre-defined limits and devising a method for allocating the two electors assigned by Senate representation. Clearly what we have now is not working; time for a change.
4
@alboyjr While we're at it, we should probably limit Supreme Court terms. Life changes over time, but many old people do not. Indeed, many refuse to consider any other ideas.
Like their bones, their minds have become brittle.
2
Eliminating the Electoral College is just one change we might see this year. Because of the Coronavirus, the national political conventions will likely be dumped and delegates will vote online and speakers will be in a studio or Skype. There will be no rallies or people going door to door.
1
@Rick In my old age, I see hope. Older Republicans will soon be dying off and making room for people, including Republicans, who are willing to learn from their mistakes.
1
The Jesse Wegmans of the world only bring these things up when they're trying to jimmy the system. There are no good reasons to abolish the EC, regardless of how cute the descriptions (sell-by date) might get. And if they were successful, they'd be the first to whine when the absence of an EC somehow failed to protect them in the future.
4
This makes complete sense, which is why it will probably never get passed. But here's the thing: rural voters like to complain they are the ones who need special consideration so their voices are not outweighed by more populous states. But why is their disenfranchisement more worthy of compensatory rules than those who typically are under-represented in this country, i.e. black voters, Hispanic voters, etc? They are every bit as American as their white, rural counterparts.
Further, those rural areas get oodles of federal funding and subsidies for agriculture, healthcare, and more. How is it that the people who are supplying the bulk of the tax revenue for those subsidies--i.e. the urban blue regions--get less representation than the recipients of those funds in red states who pay considerably less?
I'm actually fairly surprised the Tea Party wasn't a Democratic endeavor instead of a Far Right one, given these facts.
One person, one vote. Repeal Citizens United. Stop the gerrymandering. Get rid of the Electoral College. And while we're at it, delegates in the nominating process also have to go, if every voice should count the same as every other voice. We'd have a much different-looking pool of Democratic front-runners, if that was the case.
11
@Sabrina I wish more people were aware of the points you are making and there should be more, because you are not the only one shouting out the obvious to them.
1
There should be a law requiring anyone who publicly complains about the Electoral College to specify a feasible way to abolish it, or pay a stiff fine. We all know that the conditions that led to this constitutional compromise in the 18th Century no longer obtain, and we have very fresh memories of what happens when a president is elected despite the voice of the electorate. If abolishing the Electoral College were doable, it would have been done long ago. The fact is that the states that benefit from outsized representation in electing a president will never support the required constitutional amendment to change it. Failing that, we have only various schemes to get state governments to agree to ignore the votes of their own constituents for the sake of majority rule. We won't change things we COULD change to make our elections more democratic -- like, say, overturning Citizens United -- so what makes us think abolishing Electoral College will ever happen?
2
Sure but I think there’s value in constantly bringing it up and keeping it in the public discourse at all times.
3
The days are long over when we had states with single, unified interests that could be represented by an elector. Travel is easy, voters have information on their finger tips, and people's jobs depend on international companies. There just isn't any reason to play this game with our choice. Millions of votes counted for absolutely nothing in the last presidential election. Let's move into the 21st century.
9
If there had been no electoral college in 2016 HRC would have won. She DID win the popular vote by 3 million or so.
6
And I’ve heard several people opine that if Gore had won the office as well as the popular vote, the twin towers and the Pentagon would still exist unscathed.
@RLiss Then a mindless, dilapidated few decided they didn't like democracy and usurped the vote of, "We the People."
We are a lesser nation for it and it is bearing its poisonous fruit as we speak.
But how can we get from here to there, given Article V amendment rules and other relevant constitutional provisions?
2
@david in camogli
We can get close if we pass a law that increases the number of House seats to the same proportions as existed when that number was capped.
No they do not count as the same. This is because we live in a representative republic, not a democracy. It would not be healthy for large population centers to have full control of the country. You essentially would have New York and California deciding for the whole country. We have a republic because we have a large divergence in population priorities throughout the country, it requires consensus to accomplish policy goals. Instead of attempting to suggest to change the game to accomplish your policy agenda, maybe do the hard work of convincing others, and swaying them to your side. Otherwise all this talk just displays your ignorance, and desire to steamroll opposition, instead of building coalitions. How is that honestly what is best for all members of our society?
3
So we let the least dynamic and important parts of our country have the most influence? Great argument.
8
So Jessie, do you think that everyone in NYC is a liberal? There are no conservatives? What the article as well as most of us in states that regularly vote along party lines feels is that as minority party members we don’t get much say. My thinking is that if it’s a popular vote, then make your case nationwide to those that feel trapped in the party politics of their states. Appeal to swing voters and independents in those states. If your message is strong enough you can pull off the popular vote.
4
It will be very healthy for the citizens of the US to know that their vote is actually counts.
1
The fact that it overrides the actual number of votes,in my view, deprives me the value if my constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.
I have NEVER understood the value of the electoral college, at least in contemporary America. No history lessons please. Suffice it to say, it needs to be repealed.
12
@GDC You don’t want a history lesson, but do you realize that what you want would cause at least 34 states to secede from the union. Including big ones like Florida and Texas. Is that what you want? Do you want New York California and Illinois to make all the decisions for our country?
@GDC The EC needs to be, "Abolished."
In its original form, the Electoral College placed the decision in the hands of the Electors. The point was to prevent the election of an unqualified, populist president. In its current form, where the electors do not serve a role in the decision, it does not fulfill its original purpose, as shown in the election of 2016. Abolish? Yes. But the same reason for its need to be replaced are the reasons it will be exceptionally difficult, as the small states count the same as the big one.
6
Well-written and we’ll-argued. Unfortunately, the arguments you put forth in favor of eliminating the Electoral College are the same arguments politicians will use to keep it.
Since people (politicians are people) typically aren’t cool with drastic changes to systems that have been in place for centuries, here is a middle ground: Keep the electoral college, but require states to distribute electoral votes based on the percentage of votes a candidate receives in a given state.
Doing so would allow the electoral college to stay in place (for those who love 200 year old institutions) and allow the votes of the losing party (within a given state) to actually matter.
5
When we had the juice to abolish it no one did anything meaningful to abolish the electoral college but now it’s alll the rage! I think this is ridiculous not because I think we need the EC but we really do have bigger fish to fry and this is a distraction that serves the Corporatist purpose. People are collecting money for this issue instead of supporting the Democratic underticket. We need the House and the Senate as much as we need the WH. We cannot hope to abolish the EC before the 2020 election so let’s focus. But then we can’t distract people from the real issue voting for a man who will readjust the priorities from corporations to people or voting for one who told the big donors and corporations not to worry because nothing will change if we admit that the EC is in place and will be for 2020.
Hillary knew what the rules were and she decided she couldn’t lose. She failed to realize it was an election not a coronation. Let’s focus on the election we have and work hard to elect someone who will put the corporations in their place!
1
What is needed are constitutional amendments that eliminate the electoral college and gerrymandering. This would allow a grassroots movement for ratification similar to the ERA.
5
Yes, yes, yes, the Electoral College is a controversial provision in the Constitution. A lot of the electorate are unhappy with the Electoral College deciding presidential elections contrary to the outcome of the national popular vote.
I'd say get over it, because that would be the most efficient action to take. But I'll put it this way more pragmatically: It's not what should take energy and focus right now, and certainly not to take energy and focus from the vital decision this year about the presidency.
It will take several years minimum to get Congress to pass the necessary constitutional amendment. Which may not occur. Perhaps likely not occur.
It would then take likely a decade to get the states to ratify. Which may not occur. Likely not occur.
There is a time and place. This is not the time. Right now, it's an unnecessary distraction. Save your breath. And vote. And work to get out the vote.
3
@Rocky,
It would not take a constitutional amendment for Congress to pass a law requiring the states to distribute their electors based on the number of popular votes.
Of course, the other undemocratic institution, the Senate, would be a harder nut to crack.
I want to know why the solution people propose is to remove the electoral college (an act that requires a constitutional amendment). It would probably be an easier sell to repeal/modify the reapportionment acts as they and return us to “what our founders wanted” ie a house where the number to number of representatives is directly tied to the population
4
One's view on the Electoral College comes down to who's ox gets gored.
Right now it's the Democrats, so they cry for a popular vote.
Sorry.
The Presidential election is a fifty states contest. I'm not prepared to cede my choice of president to California voters.
6
No doubt true that's why more Democrats support it now, but at least those people have a rational argument, unlike the pro-Electoral College crowd.
2
@David,
States like California didn’t grow out of thin air. People moved there from elsewhere. They then lost the power of their vote.
Your post doesn’t address any of the arguments in the article. But the bottom line is that you think you deserve to have a more powerful vote than your fellow Americans in the coastal states.
That’s dictatorship, not democracy.
1
I mean, they would still just get the one vote like anyone else. So what’s the issue?
Sadly the US has made it a point to stop, circumvent, discourage voters at every turn then they simply didn't count a lot votes until we found out after Bush v. Gore when it came out that mail in ballots were never counted and were given the lame excuse that they "didn't need to be counted" because the election was essentially over. Then there our bogus laws that illegally take the right to vote from a substantial number of people every year. Our "democracy" is just a bad joke.
6
The problem with the nations l popular vote is to can lead to mob rule of the majority. The electoral college gives protections to the small world people. It protects from large states like the failed California running the nation. It provides an easy way to tell who won the election while a popular vote would be susceptible to voter fraud and constant recounting.
The only change I would support in the electoral college is a proportional allotment of the electors.
Honestly if the democrats win through the electoral college they would be big supporters of it while the republicans would hate it
3
Let's go back to monarchy - you don't need to count votes at all. I don't understand why rule of minority is better than the rule of majority. And voter fraud is much more easily to commit on the state level where small number of votes could make big difference on outcome of the EC
@Nathan,
Your argument is undermined by the fact that the US is run today by the minority.
That’s not democracy, it’s dictatorship.
@Nathan
Great. Now we have mob rule by the minority. Like the Senate making Trump above the Law.
Your way is just so much more comforting.
If Americans really want voter tabulations changed, we the people need to pressure and influence our elected officials to partake in setting the voting rules for the country as a whole and not as 50 individual ways.
Campaign Finance Reforms and Term Limits are/would be the most essential changes needed. SCOTUS needs to over- rule against Citizens United. Corporations are not people. Lobbyists should be outlawed from lobbying.
Paper Ballots as a back-up in conjunction with electronic voting. NO RCV for a two party system; if you want RCV create at least two new party's that are not democrats or republican party's members.
Create a national voting day and require voters to vote- perhaps with a paid off day for voting.
Losers of an election do not get to change the way we vote. You lost for a reason HRC, Al Gore. And Trump won because someone lost 3 states votes by only 88,000 votes and 46 EC votes which would have given HER (a female) the presidency in 2016. But would she and the Congress be for all the changes mentioned above?
Example: Still waiting for the ERA to be passed. 12 states mostly in the south have not ratified this...should we then change the rules of the game(disregard Mitch McConnell's Senate/southern states) to accommodate the 38? or should we follow Ruth Ginsberg assertion to start over as time has expired a while ago; both leave us with no passage.
But most only want to change the system for their own party's gain.
@Kerm - - - The very appropriate Citizens United ruling came because desperate politicos were choosing sides and had set one rule for unions and a different rule for other organizations.
The Constitution and the Supreme Court will always prefer for political speech to be available to all with the fewest limitations.
If you are being lectured that the ruling was bad, you are listening to people who admit their ideas will not win free elections, period.
@L,
Your assertion has no basis but cynicism.
We are not all self-serving opportunists, although I can see how the behavior of the man in the White House encourages such traits in others.
As to specifics, corporations are special state charters to limit financial liability of owners. They are not “persons” and have no right to enjoy the privileges of human beings while incurring none of the responsibilities.
1
The President is in theory a representative of the entire country. Both George Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote but were made President by the electoral college system. Given Republican willingness to gerrymander, suppress voters, conduct phony investigations, and otherwise push the legal limits to win, it is doubtful if they will give up this advantage until it works against their interests.
5
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been signed into law by states that represent 196 electoral votes. The compact pledges member states' to direct all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
State representing 74 more votes would make the electoral college moot.
C'mon 74!
3
This risks a nationwide recount after an extremely close election. Think Dade County was chaos in 2000? Try that on, nationwide.
Also, direct election of the chief executive is a large part of the problem. Virtually every functional constitutional republic in the developed world has an indirect election, whereby the prevailing political party elevates their choice for a chief executive. Parties wish to look responsible, so plainly unqualified narcissists are not selected.
1
Since the current electoral college system has little chance politically to go away any time, may I suggest the following strategy:
If Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Steyer (and also Mr. Buffett etc) really care about Democratic causes and would like to see Democrats elected nationwide, they can use some of their vast resources and relocate some of their business operations to the sparsely populated states (Montana and Wyoming are really beautiful places, you know?) and systematically move some of their employees over there. As long as these employees (who will be moved from New York, California, New Jersey, etc) satisfy the residence requirement at their new state, provide generous allowance so that they can still do part of their work and living in the former states of residence.
The benefit to the progressive billionaires is that they can probably save a lot of money through lower taxes and lower cost-of-living adjustments to their employees. In the new economy age, you'll be surprised how many jobs can work efficiently far away from the headquarters. The benefit to these states is that it contributes tremendously to their local economy.
If the formerly Californians and New Yorkers ON AVERAGE are democratic-leaning, which is a reasonable assumption, over time these sparsely populated states have a good chance of flipping blue.
This can be the best use of their billions than running hopeless national campaigns.
4
This is an excellent article that clearly points out the inequities of the Electoral College. It does not indicate the actual reason that the Electoral College was included in the Constitution, a reason that has not existed for more than a hundred and fifty years.
Agrarian States South of the Mason Dixon Line with large numbers of slaves demanded two conditions before agreeing to sign the Constitution, the 3/5ths Compromise and the EC. The 3/5ths Compromise counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of apportionment in Congress. This gave Virginia, for example, a 42% increased representation in Congress. The EC took that increased representation in Congress and translated it into increased political power to select the President. 6 Presidents were elected from Virginia in the less than 80 years before emancipation. Only one President was elected from Virginia thereafter.
The EC should have died with emancipation, but smaller more rural states recognized that it gave them increased political power. That increased political power is the reason that many small States do not support eliminating the Electoral College today.
5
This is an obvious problem. But sadly, and equally clear, is that our Constitution makes is nearly impossible to do anything about this, barring a total blue wave election some time in the future that gives Democrats control of 2/3's of the state legislatures, while also having a huge majority in both houses of congress.
So we need to work with what we've got.
3
For four score and 15 years the issue had been whether we were a confederation of sovereign states, like the EU, or a nation of states with large amounts of self-regulating power within each state. The Amendments passed after the Civil War made clear that the sovereign power was at the federal level and within the national Constitution, but with the clear sense that states should still have guaranteed rights and powers.
The EC is a clear exception, albeit an original intent. Here's a way to think of its current effect on the popular vote:
330 million people, 435 seats in Congress equals about 760,000 people per seat and per EC vote. By the EC rules, we also allow each state two votes from senate seats, not separately as in legislative work, but combined with the House votes. The result is to give about 1.5 million "virtual people" to each state. That increases the "virtual population" of California by about 4%, but the "virtual population" of Wyoming by 360%! (579,000 + 1,500,000)/579,000 = 3.59.
Later Amendments are supposed to supersede what came before. How is the Electoral College, Article II, "Equal Justice Under Law", Amendment XIV? Plainly put, it isn't. No new Amendment should be required.
2
@SpeakinForMyself
Additional thought:
For the Scalia-type Originalists: Yes, the original language should be a key basis in law, but when it comes to Amendments, it is the original intent of the amenders, not so much the Founders, that matters. Yes, the Equal Justice clause should be seen in terms of the people it sought to make legally equal in 1868. But the language was also clearly very, very broad. One can hardly assume, after the debates over the 13th and 14th Amendments, that the broad language was not intentional.
Slavery was already banned in 1865. And while the 15th is clearly aimed at former slaves and their descendants, the 14th includes broader language as to who it covers in Section 1, where it specifically applies the Equal Justice first to 'any citizen', then to 'any person':
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That was the intent in 1868!
There is not much to argue with here; but at it's conception, the creators and thus the electoral system never respected the idea that the concerns of all the people in the country should matter. This is the real problem.
2
@Al :
The Preamble of the Constitution ("We the People...") states otherwise.
Although I will grant you that it has gotten trashed since the original signing. But if you want what the Founders really wanted for their new country, read the WHOLE Preamble.
If you like keep the electoral college then have the decency not to call this a democracy:
“An election is a formal group decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office. It is usually used in Democratic nations.”
5
The electoral college ensures that ALL the states participate.
Without the electoral college, the president would be selected by New York, California, Florida, and Texas alone
Keep the electoral college.
6
@Bicycle Bob The question boils down to whether you want the president to be chosen by citizens, which would make the nation a democracy, or by states, which would keep it a pseudo-democracy (or as I think of it, a demockracy). It seems to me that true democracy is the way to go, since we already claim that status anyway.
1
@Bicycle Bob says "the electoral college ensures that ALL the states participate."
Bob, the entire editorial is about how that is NOT the case. The "safe" states, both red and blue, do not get to affect the election in any way.
Those who love the electoral college need to supply a good, rational answer to this question: "MY vote for president should count more than YOUR vote for president because..."
2
@Bicycle Bob :
So, why does the US not get the 85% participation rate the failed Socialist countries of Scandinavia get?
I recently examined the vote counts in the 2016 election and what effect the electoral college could have really had. Here are the results:
Actual results:
Clinton - Approximately 65 million votes
Trump - Approximately 62 million votes
Clinton wins popular vote by 3 million but loses electoral college, taking only 20 states to Trumps 30.
Theoretical results:
Votes for third party candidates in states Clinton won - Approximately 3 million. If all these people voted for Clinton it would have given her a 6 million popular vote win but no change in electoral college voting.
Next, votes for Trump in states Clinton won - Approximately 21 million. Subtracting these from Trump and adding to Clinton would result in:
Clinton - Popular vote 89 million
Trump - Popular vote 41 million
Yet , since this would not give Clinton any more total state wins, Trump still takes the electoral college vote and becomes president. And it would all be legal.
Obviously the likelihood of anything like this ever happening is almost zero, but the possibility does exist, and is very scary. One more reason why the electoral college needs to go.
2
Replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote would just replace the flaws of one system with the flaws of a new one. "50 percent plus one person" all but guarantees no voter outside a major city would ever see or receive attention from a presidential candidate again.
The problem is the winner-take-all distribution of each state's electoral votes. The solution is to award one electoral vote to the winner in each congressional district, plus two votes to the overall winner in each state (which would mirror the calculus by which states get their electoral votes in the first place).
Suddenly New York and California wouldn't "safe" states to ignore anymore. The value of a campaign stop in rural Wyoming would become a lot closer to the value of a campaign stop in downtown Charlotte or Cleveland.
And we'd accomplish it without succumbing to the transitory, "my-side-lost-this-time" siren call to abandon the founders' wisdom about the tyranny of simple majorities.
Because it was wisdom, and it remains correct today. As our partisans take turns alternately forgetting and recalling.
2
@Jim
I will take it over the REALLY bad system we have now.
The Democratic Party should set an example by running their primaries this way. Unfortunately, all of them other than Bernie admitted that they don't want to do that.
2
Why do people keep wasting ink (or bytes I guess) on this argument?
The numerous smaller states will never agree to give up their over-representation. You have to amend the constitution to do this and it is not going to happen as 2/3 of the state legislatures would have to approve it.
2
@Ron "You have to amend the constitution to do this"
No, you don't. See the National Popular Vote movement, which seeks to have each state amend their process for choosing electors to assign them to the winner of the NATIONAL vote, note the state vote. Once enough states representing 274 electors have done this (small states need not apply) then we will effectively have a national popular vote.
1
I find it amusing that Matt Dowd was quoted in this article, seeing that he worked for a President who had won office while barely losing the popular vote.
Out of the last five presidential elections, two of them - 40% of those elections, were 'won' by the loser of the popular vote. Of course the GOP, the beneficiary of the current Electoral College rules, is steadfast in their opposition to any changes to it. And honestly, who can blame them? For the last decade they've been consistently losing the national popular vote not only for the White House, but for the House, Senate, and state legislatures as well, yet thanks to gerrymandering and the nature of Senate representation have maintained majority status.
However, if the EC was eliminated tomorrow, it could result in electoral changes and different voter behavior that nobody could predict. Some of these changes might even benefit GOP candidates in some cases.
2
The EC provides infinite leverage in gerrymandered districts and allows the race to be focused on only a few of these. The gop figured this out a long time ago. The problem is the Supreme Court, which is controlled by the GOP. It will take a constitutional amendment - good luck.
2
@Skinny J Not necessarily. If Democrats can retain the House and regain the Senate, we can expand the Supreme Court and then pack it with more liberal-minded, conscientious justices.
It is possible if Democrats have the will.
Great article. It says it all. And all we would have to change is the ‘winner take all rule’. Hope is alive.
3
There is a saying in Maine: “You can’t get there from here”. There are enough states whose influence is totally disproportionate that there will not be enough states to eliminate the EC.
But it can be mitigated. Increase the number of Members of the House to the same proportions that existed when they were capped.
3
Until the year 2000, I always assumed—foolishly, it turned out—that the candidate who won the popular vote would also win the Electoral College because that’s the way it had always happened for over 100 years. I’m sure a historian could point to some elections where it almost came into play, but to me it just seemed like a useless relic, if I even thought about it at all. Then 2000 happened, and I became aware of all of the problems with it, which are nicely summarized in this editorial. Donald Trump’s election and his subsequent targeting of New York and California, and his exclusive focus on his supporters in the “battleground” states, have only made the dangers of this outmoded system more obvious. People who live in the 40 to 45 states that can safely be ignored by the presidential candidates all pay income taxes to the FEDERAL government, and we all deserve to have our concerns taken into account by the one federal official who supposedly represents all of us.
7
The states that formed the United States under the U.S. Constitution argued and agreed on the parameters by which states would be represented in the national elections. There was and remains the key concern that certain populous states would impose their choices and beliefs on smaller states.
Abolish the Electoral College? Maybe we should ask whether it is time to abolish states. Or to realign the United States.
1
Yes, I would abolish the Electoral College, but also the Presidency, the Senate, and the States. Then, we would have a parliamentary system. Done.
1
"“The first thing you do is eliminate states completely,” Jeremy Bird, a field director for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns,..."
So, the franchise will be denied, to people in states deemed to be not influential. Both parties will show up at the 6 or 7 states with trailer loads of money.
Restricting the franchise is 45 states could also suppress the down ballot elections.
The problem I see, as a NEVER OBAMAer, the national map showing Obama's winning districts, covered a small portion of the country. The Republican districts showed 85% of the
country did not vote for Obama.
I don't believe this topic was ever brought up when Obama or Clinton was in office. And, since Trump won, NO ONE has begun the constitutional process to get this started.
So far, all talk and no action.
1
You’re talking about a geographic map, not one of population.
As a show of good faith, we invite the state of California to distribute their electoral votes based on their popular vote. I'm sure this gesture will quickly result in all states following in kind. Then the presidential vote will become significantly closer to the popular vote and the Constitution will not suffer any further "cobbling".
California?
3
@B It seems they have already done that. They are members of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once enough states with electoral votes sign on, all members of the compact will pledge all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote.
I plan to urge my state legislators to pass this. Do you?
3
@B Such action by California would be challenged and tied up in the courts for a couple of years, and it's likely that it would be found unconstitutional.
@Nick
Nebraska and Maine currently divide up their electoral votes. Every state has the right to do this.
1
This is a pointless academic exercise. You won’t get 37 state legislatures to overturn the electoral college.
There is no way that the beneficiary of such a model is giving up the power. It happens to be that conservatives benefit from this model.
What matters is democrats going all in to win the so-called battleground states. And thankfully, with Biden there won’t be any blue states turning purple.
Democrats need to put more effort into winning votes in targeted red states that could make a difference. Places like Ohio, Kansas, Montana, Arizona Louisiana and Missouri. States where moderate democrats have recently won senate and governor races.
3
Sorry, Mob Rule is not the way we will run our country, particularly at a time when there is so much polarization and shaming of views by the Left.
The whole focus of this argument is to stifle people in less urban parts of the country who watch in horror as the cities, with more Libertine attitudes and mores, disassemble the traditional fabric of the country.
You, as a Progressive, may choose to move at a higher rate of speed; but those who have a voice through the Senate and tempering mode of the Electoral College have just as great a right to not be run over by Progressives.
If the nation is to hold together, and not fracture into revolution, the least must be heard clearly.
6
That’s what the Senate is for
Having been thwarted in presidential elections is no reason to advocate for the removal of the mechanisms meant to apply fairness in representation across the country.
This idea is juvenile and the equivalent of flipping the chess board because the player could see an impending loss.
Get better quality campaign proposals and and a candidate who could be trusted to carry them out and THEN see how the political process works.
5
Every few years somebody proposes that it is time to re-write the Constitution. Often the Electoral College is one of the anachronisms mentioned, although the Second Amendment, the ERA, term limits for the Congress and other topics have also stimulated the call.
I have generally been opposed to a new Constitutional Convention for the mere "fixing" of somebody's pet peeve about our federal government. But I could be convinced that a Constitutional Convention may be more important now, for strategic purposes; to answer major identity questions about America and the American Experiment as it is constituted now, not in 1787, then the need for a better national governing structure was first put forward.
There would be considerable benefit to answering such important questions as a nation, as:
- Are the states as important today as they were in 1790?
- How much power do we want the Executive to actually have? The Legislature? The Judiciary?
- How does the creation of the "multi-national corporation" change the way we regulate commerce?
- How does how we defend our nation today change the role of the "well-regulated militia?"
-How does owning a weapon that can kill 10 people with the single pull of the trigger, as opposed to the need to go through a 25 second reloading procedure after every shot, change the way people feel about gun ownership?
- Does citizenship matter?
Put simply, who are we as Americans today?
Maybe it's time we really ask ourselves.
1
A simple tally of votes would be massively unfair to the GOP as it would significantly hamper their extensive voter suppression and gerrymandering achievements.
A better way for the future, would be where only white men who are paid up members of the GOP should be eligible to vote or sit on the Supreme Court.
20
@mrc Gerrymandering only applies to legislative districts. It is irrelevant to state and national elections.
1
@mrc : gerrymandering is not even possible in a Presidential race. The term refers to the shaping of CONGRESSIONAL districts and can ONLY apply to races for Congresspersons in the House of Representatives.
@Nick :
The Constitution already gerrymandered the US to favor the empty, moocher states.
Good luck persuading Republicans to get behind this idea. Since when have they cared about their voters? They cater to large donors, which is a very small constituency, and prefer to pick their voters through gerrymandering. That they get to ignore voters is a feature, not a bug, for Republicans.
6
This is one of the most sane, well-reasoned pieces I've ever read.
Which is exactly why it ain't gonna happen.
5
“The first thing you do is eliminate states completely,” says Jeremy Bird, a field director for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. Yup, that's the idea. Let Washington run everything.
First have the Senate elected rather than appointed by the States (17th Amendment). Then have the President elected rather than appointed by the States via the Electoral College. Perfect, now the two National Parties have complete control. As it is far more difficult to control 50 separate State power centers.
2
Sounds like a good plan. In 2000, A Gore would have become our president. Climate change would have been on the forefront, instead of ignored. We would not have started wars with Iraq and Afghanistan after people from Saudi Arabia hit the twin towers on 9/11, which also may not have happened because the Bush admin was warned and ignored the warning. Imagine a President Hilary Clinton, a person who has given to America her whole career, instead of ripping the people off like Trump has done his whole life. We can dream can't we?
1
@Mary Dalrymple : if there was no Electoral College....each candidate would have run totally different campaigns. They would have concentrated their efforts in big cities and big states.
Since the rules would have been different, there is no guarantee the popular vote results would have been the same.
You also can't tell what President Gore would have done in response to 9/11 nor proven that there was some "quick fix" to it -- likely if the plans were found out, the terrorists would have simply changed plans or picked a new target.
Unfortunately I can easily imagine a President Hillary, which is why I voted for Trump.
1
In a democracy, protection of the rights of a minority is always a challenge and a goal. Otherwise, rule results from a tyranny of the majority. The electoral college tends to protect small states, a minority in this instance. It appears that minority rights are sometimes important and at other times not.
3
@Neil Williams :
The "small states" have the majority of Senators.
There must be some panic if we are going back to the get rid of the Electoral College idea. During the campaign, Hillary’s team was declaring they would bury Trump in a mountain of electoral votes. They knew about the process. It turned out we can see in how she planned to be elected. She would take the North East and the Pacific States. There were those who told her she should spend more time in middle America. One of those voices was Bill himself. Those voices were ignored. On election night, states like Pennsylvania went for Trump and the so called great red wave swept across the country. That’s why we have the electoral college. So those state aren’t pushed aside and the country’s president is in just the hands of a few highly populated north eastern states and those on the west coast. When Bernie looked like he was a real threat, editorials and Op-Eds were talking about super delegates. Now that Biden looks like he may be the candidate, the articles are starting up to get rid of the Electoral College. And sure enough, it is coming out of a newspaper from one of those highly populated north eastern states. It sounds like some are worried that with Biden, there may be a similar election map as we saw the last time
1
Sins of the Founding Fathers in order:
1. 20 more years of additional slave imports
2. Equal votes in the senate for each state
3. 3/5 rule giving slave owning states more representatives
4. The electoral college
#1 and #3 resolved via Civil War. #2, still festering.
Yes, the electoral college is anti-democratic and gives a slight edge to certain states. But it is not nearly as destructive as Wyoming and Hawaii having the same power as California and Texas in the Federal government.
www.renewingfederalism.org
2
Why would the Republican and Democrat establishment freely give up their ace in hole to rig the electoral process?
1
obviously there is a dilemma between the popular vote ‚one man one vote‘ and the representation of each state. The senate is largely built on federal state representation regardless of population. The election of the president should be based more on the direct will of the people. Beware of making such a discussion a partisan one!
75
@Wolfgang: The Allies, led by the US, negotiated the constitution Germany operates under today after WW II. One wonders why the US can't update its own constitution accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
14
@Wolfgang Why should a state with a million people have the same representation in the U.S. Senate as a state with ten million? I suggest that if we keep it the way it, then the House of Representatives should have the final say instead of the U.S. Senate.
33
@Panthiest Our country wouldn't exist without that system. Smaller states would never have joined the union if they knew that their issues and interests were entirely at the whim of leaders from populous states.
The House is based on population, the Senate on geography. High pop states still have more power in that system, but rural states at least get a say.
2
America is a collection of 50 sovereign states that have ceded certain limited powers to a Federal government. The Electoral College assures that each sovereign state is represented in our national government. America was not founded on elections based on majority rule of the entire population. The Electoral College isn’t going away. It is based on an idea that is central to our form of government. It still serves the purpose for which it was intended.
79
Each sovereign state IS represented by congressmen and senators. The elimination of the electoral college won’t change that, or the third branch of government either. It only changes one branch to make that branch fairly representative.
65
@Jake ; your logic is spot on for an 18th century feudal agrarian nation, ruled entirely by wealthy, white, christian males.
The framers of our Constitution could hardly be taken to task for failing to see the future nation's diverse and federally organized states as the prosperous industrial, agricultural, technological, and scientifically and educationally inclined entities they have become.
We can thank state soverignty for a number of attributes we are pleased to have discarded; slavery and Jim Crow come readily to mind.
Our Constitution is a precious gift from very wise creators, who gave us the means to fix what needs fixing.
166
@Jake - " It still serves the purpose for which it was intended."
The purpose for which it was intended was to allow representatives of the southern states to sign the Constitution so they could all go home to their families.
The purpose for which it was intended was to allow southern states to count a portion of their slave population for the purposes of representation and electing the president who otherwise wouldn't be counted and they felt they were in a disadvantage to the north for their own practice of slavery.
The prevailing idea was for each person's vote to be counted in electing the president. The south felt that since they had fewer voters (slaves couldn't vote) that they would be at a disadvantage and that even slavery itself could be abolished.
The purpose for which it was intended was to support slavery and to calm the fears of the white south. The question is, how much has changed?
88
No one objected to the EC when the Democrats were winning.
5
@Michael Livingston’s Actually, some people have objected to the EC for decades.
2
@Michael Livingston’s : this is easy to demonstrate!
The NYT has an excellent, very complete archive!
Go back to the election years of 2008 and 2012, when OBAMA was the Democratic candidate (savior).
Not a peep about the Electoral College.
Not a word about a Constitutional Convention.
No hint that we had to get RID OF THE US SENATE (Obama was a US Senator!).
Why? because Democrats were winning, and had total control of all three branches of government.
@Michael Livingston’s Yes we did.
This would not even be up for discussion if Hillary had not lost.
4
@Rowdy Burns Your evidence to support this is....?
See other comments. This has been up for discussion for decades.
This article is nonsense. Win 70% of the votes in the top 6 most populated states and 30% in the rest and you easily get over 65 million votes. Enough to win any election. So much for appealing to the whole country.
2
The purpose of the electoral college and delegate system is exactly to allow a small group of disreputable and dishonorable thieves to control everything. They aren’t going to give up that kind of power.
1
@SW : you mean like...when Barack Obama won the Presidency and Democrats won the Senate and House?
The electoral college and the senate are vestiges the slave economy. They both should be abolished.
1
Yes - every vote should count - no matter where you choose to live.
1
The electoral college was set up because the founders wanted a backstop of responsible people in case the voters chose irresponsibly. Silly me, I expected a few Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. My political dream was that Hillary would absolutely insist that her electors vote for Kasich, pulling in enough Republican electors to give us a responsible President. Since the Electoral College has shown that it doesn't perform as intended, it is indeed useless.
There's a real disconnect here between what's desirable and what's politically obtainable.
I'm sure that a national referendum would result in at least sixty-percent support for determining presidential elections by popular vote. In the real world, however, we still face the need to amend the Constitution to get this done. That means approval by three-fourths of the fifty state legislatures. With a majority of legislatures controlled by Republicans opposed to reform, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
There is certainly a case for abolishing the Electoral College and even the Senate. Perhaps Joe Biden can start the ball rolling by saying that Delaware doesn't deserve its over-representation in Congress. But of course that's the problem - you will never get even the Democratically dominated smaller states to agree to diminish their clout in Congress and elections.
Separately, there are a number of obsolete sections of the Constitution, like the recess appointments power. I didn't note any commentary criticizing this part of the Constitution when Obama's cabinet appointments were too radical for the Senate to approve.
1
The elimination of the EC won’t diminish smaller states power in Congress. The senators and congressmen will get voted in the same way, by popular direct state votes, and their power in Congress will still be disproportional.
I sadly recognize that it's probably politically impossible, but I agree that the Electoral College should be abolished. The structure of the U. S. Senate gives ample consideration for the interests of less populous states. That's enough of a compromise with the value of one-person one-vote.
2
Make it Ranked Choice so Independents have a shot without being labeled as spoilers and their supporters told they’re wasting their votes, and you’d REALLY have something.
291
@GonnaPrint I go to vote for one person. I expect that the person I vote for will be afforded the opportunity to achieve office if he or she garners a plurality of the votes. Ranked choice turns elections into gambling halls. We do not need to try to find ways to prohibit those who represent the views of the most voters from winning elections.
2
Absolutely not.
Ranked choice does not allow sufficient consideration of candidate attributes.
Ranked choice assumes an electorate with skills and awareness that are not present and not likely to be present.
One person, one vote and repeat as needed. There is no need to change that.
3
@GonnaPrint Agreed. Ranked-choice would be a huge improvement over our current first-past-the-post system -- both by eliminating the risk of spoilers and by giving us a winner with majority support, even if that candidate wasn't everyone's first choice. To the extent that it lets independents wield more power in our elections, there are many Americans out there who would be thrilled to have more choices than the two major parties right now.
54
The Electoral College has given us two of the worst Presidents in our history, G.W. Bush and Trump. My votes in these two elections counted for nothing. Since, in every other elective office in this country, whoever gets the most votes wins, why not the Presidency? Only in America.
5
@Indigo Not "two of the worst." The two worst, at least in my long lifetime. Also in contention, but not in my lifetime: Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. Then of course, there is Richard Nixon (unfortunately the only president ever removed from office for corruption) and Ronald Reagan, about whom no criticism is unfounded.
1
Counting up all the votes is an excellent idea, it would have been an even better idea to have counted up California’s votes immediately following the election to show the nation just how out of touch Likable Hie Biden is with today’s very diverse America. Rather it is delayed in an attempt to show old smiling Joe is just killing them down their in the South, yep he’s enlisted enough corrupt clergy men and aldermen to completely cover up the fact that his voting record on important issues that damage poor folks is deplorable to use a neo liberal phrase. There is no excuse for the California delay I& nothing else they could employ an army of homeless for one day to count the votes. The could use the money and Americans deserve the truth.
1
What about the 13 states that pre-exist the federal government?
1
Can a legitimate argument not be made that the 15th Amendment repealed the electoral college since it can be demonstrated that the EC abridges the right to vote “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude?” That argument clearly reflects both the history and intent of the EC.
@W D Foster No.
During the impeachment Trump supporters claimed that the Democrats were trying to invalidate their votes. Sadly, most votes in the US don't count. Two out of the three representative arms of our government are not representative. As Wegman points out, the Electoral College is certainly not, but neither is the Senate with outsized representation of lower population states. One could argue that the House is not representative either because of gerrymandering, but at least the House is designed to be representative. And with the Supreme Court appointed by the President and the Senate, the justices don't represent the views of the majority of Americans with. This is not what the framers intended. We have devolved into the tyranny of the minority.
1
Another silly article about the electoral college! No electoral college means no union. Does the author and the people that cry about this not realize what it takes to amend the constitution.? 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. I cannot come up with more than 15 states that would go along with it. This is more about the coastal elitesNew York California and Illinois that want to run the country. This will never ever ever happen!
5
Time for a Constitutional convention to revise the Constitution.Start with the Second Amendment and then go to electoral college.
115
@LVG Remember that the Constitutional convention accomplishes nothing unless its proposed changes are adopted by 3/4ths of the states. Also recognize that while you may have great ideas about the Constitutional changes you want, there's likely a strong demand from the other side of the political spectrum directly opposed to you. Want to repeal the2nd amendment; others want to strength it. Want to incorporate Roe v. Wade into the Bill of Rights; others want to repeal it. Want more power in Congress; others want to strengthen states' rights; And so on.
The Constitution gets changed only where there is a broad national consensus. This is issue specific, not broadly changing the system. That's why we have had such few amendments over our history.
If you want to change the electoral college, build a consensus to do just this. But if you can't get 38 states to go along with you, it's not going to happen. I write this not to support the electoral college, but just to say it's a reality we probably have to live with -- like it or not.
19
@john640 Thank you for your comment. Not only is it difficult to change the constitution, it is dangerous. Republicans have been working hard at the state level so they can control a change in the constitution. I wish this article had addressed possible pathways to eliminating the Electoral College, but it didn't.
2
@LVG And then, campaign finance reform and term limits, please.
4
It's easy to see why the small-population states will never agree to modify a system that empowers them far beyond their political due.
It's also notable that they are predominately Republican, less prosperous, less productive, less educated, in poorer health, with quality of life outcomes substantially below generally larger states, and perhaps more telling, with greater income and wealth inequality.
It's not difficult to see why their well being would improve were we to move to popular voting.
2
We don't just count up the votes because we are the United STATES of America. The states elect the president, not the people by popular vote. If one feels disenfranchised by their state being red or blue, they need to work to change their state. While some may not think this system is perfect, it is better than having largely urban states rule over the rest of the country. Dems need to appeal to voters in ways that allow them to win by the rules. They once did, and did not complain about the electoral college.
71
@Southern Man
No, states do not vote. People do—and they all vote representing their own interests not their state's interest.
53
@Southern Man — Problem is, the political principle that enabled bygone Democrats to align party interests with state preferences was racism. When Democrats repudiated that principle, Republicans happily picked it up, and they glory in it to this day.
26
@Southern Man “While some may not think this system is perfect, it is better than having largely urban states rule over the rest of the country”
What, as opposed to having rural states rule over the rest of the country? You seem to have completely missed the part where the author mentions that California has the second-highest population of Republicans *in the country*. Shouldn’t they have more say over issues that affect them, a very large constituent group?
I’m an independent and your logic is why I’m so over the GOP (don’t worry, I’m over most Dems too). Constantly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
34
The raucous multi-candidate debates remind us why the founders established the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton fretted that somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the “little arts of popularity” could attain high office. James Madison feared "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" could put a demagogue in power. So the founders decided an Electoral College made up of delegates chosen by state legislatures should determine who should serve as president, permitting the decision to be made without "tumult and disorder.”
The Constitution gives political parties no role in government, but political parties—not Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary—have become the de facto government. They seized power by first persuading states to put the names of their presidential nominees on ballots. They then persuaded most states to require their electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote.Taking the names of presidential candidates off this November’s ballot and letting the Electoral College function as designed would be a good first step toward ending rule by political party hacks.
George Washington warned us against political parties. He said,
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
59
@William Case
This whole conversation is moot as there's no way this country will eliminate the electoral college anytime soon. That said, I think the electoral college works exactly the way it was designed to work, proving that our founders weren't gods who wrote a "divine" document. They were in fact mostly rich white guys trying to hang onto their power and their wealth. Enough of them recognized that political parties would be problematic (thus the quotes), but they did it anyway because most of us weren't We the People back then and couldn't vote. It's been one huge struggle for We the People to expand democracy in this nation. Too many people worship the Constitution, while too many others don't know what it says and means. In the long run it would be far easier, as the author suggests, for each state to decide to distribute its electors per the vote instead of winner takes all. I personally believe that our antiquated Constitution is so deeply flawed it needs to be rewritten, and I would start with making it easier to amend, so problems like the electoral college can be solved, along with the climate crisis and nuclear annihilation.
1
@William Case
I am glad a man said this and got a pick after all the times I've pointed this out! It needs repeating often, especially in the face of so-called "orginalists".
1
@Laura "This whole conversation is moot as there's no way this country will eliminate the electoral college anytime soon."
Not true, and/or not relevant. See National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States have been passing laws saying that once enough states pass laws to allocate their Electoral College representatives according to the national popular vote to reach the 270 Electoral College vote threshold (ensuring a majority), the agreement will be enacted. As of today, 15 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, and they encompass 196 Electoral College votes.
7
It's curious that everyone seems to agree that the interests of the large and small states are in some systematic conflict. Pragmatically, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this: people need public education, public health, infrastructure and so on in rural areas as much as in large cities; maybe more so. I suspect that this is all some rhetorical illusion, woven to hide the reality that it's just the Republican Party defending its partisan advantage.
Great column, with a solid argument for updating the way we choose a leader. And here’s one more thing, if this had been the method in 2016, President Clinton would be seeing us through this serious pandemic.
1
Yes, the manner in which our presidents and the congress are selected must absolutely be greatly improved. The Electoral College issue, the primary / caucus system, and the scourge of gerrymandering must all be addressed - carefully with regard to the probable consequences.
But even if all those issues are thoroughly addressed, our democracy will still disintegrate if huge numbers of voters are credulous saps who readily fall for obvious lies, fear-mongering, and other forms of emotional manipulation foisted upon them through social / digital media as well as through traditional tabloids and TV.
Let's fix both sides of the equation before our children's children are consigned to a Wall-E world!
The Electoral College is the greatest voter suppression tool ever. It must go.
2
I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that the electoral college is an obstruction of democracy. It needs to be fixed. But it is only half of the problem devised by the founders. The other problem is the Senate. I believe Maconnel and the republicans in the Senate represent less than 40 per cent of the country’s voters. And, the Constitution provides that the Senate election process can not even be changed by Constitutional amendment. It can only be changed if the particular state agrees to give up a senator. Not going to happen. Since 2016 we have been ruled by a dictatorship by the minority—in the White House and the Senate. Not what the Founders intended.
3
@Richard
... unfortunately exactly what the founders intended!
Sure, I agreed before a bit with the idea of the electoral college, but when you put it this way, it really makes sense. I think many people I know find the electoral college disagreeable of wrong, and accept is merely as a tradition we can’t fix. But we can and should eliminate it. It’s not sacrosanct and democracies must evolve to become more, well, Democratic. The current system warps power and tightens control for the elites on both sides of the aisle. In red and blue states—color terms I detest given they are both filled with real Americans that have needs—the “winning” side become ‘lazy’ well before the election, and their views are thus not challenged and don’t evolve to keep up with the times. Thus most politicians in Congress are automatically winners, leaving both sides with no incentive to eliminate the electoral college system, which is what ultimately shapes their thinking more then the individual voters in their own districts.
It s all part of a concerted effort to make sure the majority never rules in this country. Why should we listen to California when Mississippi has so much to offer.
4
The electoral college was the scheme put forward when the Constitution was written. It was done this way because unless it was done in this way the smaller states would not have ratified the constitution. This gives a small states more power per capita than the big states. That was the deal and I don’t think the small states will voluntarily give this advantage they have up.
3
Like the weather -- everybody talks about the electoral college, but nobody does anything about it. What's the next step and who should take it?
3
I agree with this well-written column; abolishing the Electoral College is a fine idea.
To amend the Constitution takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratification by 38 state legislatures. Please provide a realistic path to getting that done.
The Democratic nominee has won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections (2004 being the exception). Republican nominees have won the Electoral College in three of the last seven (2000, 2004, & 2016). Republicans know this, and the Trump Republicans (almost every one who isn't Mitt Romney) are doubling down on turning out the base in a few states. We are likely stuck with the Electoral College for decades.
3
@Baxter Jones The Democrats had the opportunity in the 1960’s to eliminate supermajority rural voters and didn’t. Now Kansas means more than New York. My hope is that Texas flips in November and normalcy returns (best without McConnell).
Well-written article featuring extremely thorough reasoning, unfortunately, on an issue where little persuasion is needed. Everyone understands the folly of the EC. And everyone knows that it will never go away as long as one party perceives it as an advantage. Common sense doesn't stand a chance against political gamesmanship.
5
Columns like this are a complete waste of space and time. The Electoral College will not be eliminated by November or for that matter in the future (will smaller states ever vote to diminish their power - I think not). Democrats need to concentrate on how we can win the Electoral College vote and not spend time pontificating about an unrealistic hope. Reality is reality.
11
@Ted Comments like this are a complete waste of space and time. Instead of reading a theoretical editorial for what it is, we now have to rely on them for policy dictation? Why can't an article just be an interesting statistical premise?
@Ted Yup. It was Mainers, not Californians, who held Little Round Top and turned the tide of the Civil War.
The article does a good job of describing the problems with the Electoral College, but fails to adequately look at the problems with the alternative.
While many states are ignored under the current system because they are not in play, a popular vote system would cause all of rural America to be ignored. The current urban/rural divide would be exponentially worse.
The Constitution guarantees certain rights, regardless of the will of the majority. The Electoral College works to amplify some voices that might be drowned out by the urban majority.
I am not discounting the problems that arise due to the Electoral College. But I think the author's depiction of what would happen without the College are simplistic. It is much easier to describe a problem than it is to come up with a good solution.
6
@woodyrd
However if we put it that everyone who lives in an area with a population density of less than 100/square mile should have their vote multiplied by 10 it sounds pretty arbitrary, doesn't it?
"Rural" and "urban" voters actually have a lot in common but everything gets distorted when you look at it through that lens and that lens only.
What if we put that idea in a referendum to encased it in legality. And for good measure add to take dirty money out of pities? Perhaps, just perhaps, we may get a semblance of democracy back.
This is a republic, not a democracy. If we can keep it.
3
It seems that only political writers get excited about ditching the electoral college. Especially those who support the Democratic party. The chorus for change reached a crescendo after Hillary lost in 2016. But funnily enough, Democratic presidents never seem to share this sentiment. Carter never tried to change the system during his 4 years as president. Both Obama and Clinton had 8 years each in office and neither proposed changing it. The system works just fine when you win. It is only a problem when you loose.
3
Agreed: can this anachronism. One person, one vote.
2
I agree wholeheartedly with your premise, but fear the entrenched power structure in America will not allow such a thing to happen because they want to discourage the people from voting by any means necessary. Those that rule view the will of the American people as a minor inconvenience they can just roll over in their quest to acquire more wealth and power for themselves. Just witness the five hour lines in Texas and California during the Democratic primary last week. The billionaire elites ruling over us would prefer doing away with our democracy altogether. They favor a return to a more feudal form of society. They want to eliminate all programs that benefit we the people and trap us all on the gerbil wheel of the "gig" economy, bereft of a social safety net, gathered around their million dollar estates like the feudal serfs of old, hoping to live off their garbage, droppings and cast offs. They strive for a societal structure similar to the one displayed in the South Korean film: "parasite." They love the electoral college, because it unfairly skews the electorate in their favor. Eliminating it won't be as simple as making a suggestion. It will be a battle of epic proportions, similar to passing Medicare for all. The powerful elites in this country will fight any attempt by the people to get on a equal footing with them, and they will fight it tooth and nail. Why would they change something that is for them not a bug but a feature?
1
The Founders accurately foresaw the future - large cities dominated by radical factions - and established a system that ensure that those factions can never dominate the politics of the entire nation.
This editorial proves their point perfectly, that the factions - in this case radical left wing progressive collectivists wish to impose their intellectually bankrupt worldview on all of the United States.
The electoral college, the federal republic in which we reside, elevation of individual rights over the collective, and the primacy of the people over the state are all anathema to the progressives, who have not been relegated to a rubbish tip fast enough to suit my personal perspective.
3
Our republic was founded as an oligarchy from the very beginning. With your logic of individual rights, slavery would have never ended. Woman would have remained chattel. Enjoy your Medicare - Ayn Rand wouldn’t have given it up.
@Bill
When ignorant of history, it is sometimes better to read first and type later.
The terms you use and the assertions you make indicate clearly that you understand neither the terms you use, or the principles upon which this republic was founded.
THE IDEAS OF Eliminating the Electoral College and mandating the proportional wins of delegates in all states are fair, common sense and elegant ideas. For just those reasons, they'll never happen in the US. Inherently, both the Electoral College and winner-take-all apportionment of delegates, are Rube Goldberg-esque contraptions that have outlived their validity many years ago, prior to the time that mass media networks existed. On the face of it, both the electoral college and winner-take-all ways of electing presidents violate both the Equal Protection Clause of the Consitution and its colloraly legislation, the Equal Access Act. So it looks like both systems could be thrown out if tested in court. Except that will happen when pigs fly, because tradition trumps [pun intended] reason every time!
1
@John Jones
So you're saying that a process that is laid out in the constitution, the electoral college, is unconstitutional.
Uh-huh.
As said above, when Dems win it's cool. When they lose, it's a travesty.
If you don't like it, you have a remedy.
3
In short, the Electoral College is grossly unfair and undemocratic while having no substantial reason for existing. Those who benefit from its inherent inequities will disagree.
2
@Ann O. Dyne
The reason for existing is perfectly laid out in the current political situation. The fly overs have a right to be heard. The dems want to pretend that we didn't just have the first Black president, not elected once, but twice.
If you put out a good candidate, you will have a better chance of winning.
1
Hardly. The Founding Fathers knew that the metropolitan areas of the time legislated for THEIR best interests, not the country's. That notion still holds true. The USA need not be ruled by the NYC and LA metro areas. In fact, most of the metro areas are a Democratic disaster area. You want a vision of the USA under metro areas rule? See the Democratic gardenspot of Baltimore. Lastly, if you think that 3/4 of the states are going to cede their electoral power to the last 1/4, you have another guess coming. It ain't happenin'. Not now, not ever.
3
Get rid of the electoral college? Then we would have missed that poignant moment when Trump realized that he had lost the popular vote, and claimed that many dead people had voted.
"Wow, they must have been very motivated," one newscaster said.
We also need to ensure that everyone votes. Forty years ago, Carter conceded the election before the polls closed on the West Coast, so many voters en route to voting stations turned around and went home. There should also be a national news blackout on results until all polls have closed — even in Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam.
1
Thank goodness we have a Constitution that has a strict method of amending, set up to prevent public stampedes that Mr. Wegman is trying to provoke.
In a popular election for president, about 40 states will lose nearly all input, with candidates campaigning in ten most populous states.
"Everyone" knows the Electoral College must be chucked out? What about the voters in those 40 flyover states I'll bet you never visit, Mr. Wegman.
First, you'll never get a two-thirds of members of House and Senate to vote for such an amendment. Again, lawmakers from the 40 states would be legislating away their power.
Then, two thirds of state legislatures will never approve the amendment, again knowing they'll be losing not only input into electives, but all the federal gravy that flows their way because of their outside power.
Or do you propose the "temporary majority" out Founders feared and wrote the constitutional as a roadblock should just trample the Constitution and write the "rational" version? Like, sorta like French Rationalists of 1790s did, coming up with the "popularly elected" Committee of Public Safety?
2
I have often said my vote does not count in Ohio in winner take all. And when it does count yours doesn’t. Utter madness! But know this, so long as republicans run things cheating is a path to victory.
The EC isn't going anywhere. So just get over it. Sorry, but two cities don't get to decide who's President.
2
Why should cities with massive populations like Los Angeles and New York dictate the course of the entire country? This is why Democrats don’t care about securing our borders the way Republicans do. Democrats welcome illegal immigration, indeed want to give illegal immigrants voting rights, so they can increase their voting pool. The electoral college is needed. If Hillary Clinton had won the electoral college in 2016, but lost the popular vote, every single person now screaming that the electoral college needs to be abolished would instead be keeping their collectors mouths shut and supporting it. Enough with the sour grapes over the results of the 2016 election.
4
Great points. I'd add to this that the Senate is also elected by a minority of the population, making two out of the three branches of Government elected by a minority of the voters. It's good to have one branch that gives equal representation to the less populated states, but two? It's ridiculous and un-democratic. That's what gave us the most corrupt administration in history, which is leading us down a very dark path. Obama should have worked harder to abolish the electoral college. I hope Biden will take it even more seriously, if he can somehow cobble together the super majority we need to get rid of the most anti-democratic authoritarian President in our history before it's too late.
1
What if we made it mandatory to vote? What if the sky were orange?
Really, how could this happen without a constitutional convention - and if we have one before we have the disinformation machinery that the powerful control now under democratic (small d) control, how can it NOT go badly wrong for us?
1
Don't hold your breath. As long as billionaires run the country, we will never see a true democratic election. The Electoral College is only one of many rigs currently employed to defeat the people's choice. How do I suppress thee? Let me count the ways!
1
Democracy is never a favorite of despots and minority parties, especially those in power, and so the Republican Party has systematically reduced the ability of Americans to vote and to have their vote count.
They will fight the elimination of the undemocratic Ellectoreal College to their last breath, because they know that it would indeed be that.
2
Unfortunately the Electoral College will not disappear because Republicans know they would never win the White House again. Now if we get lucky and the Coronavirus makes a whole bunch of Republicans disappear, starting with everyone who attended CPAC, then things start looking much more promising.
2
If we could just be so lucky !!!!!
@Kyle
So you're wishing death on the repubs?
Kinda destroys the notion that the dems are the good guyd.
The only "electors" needed here are American voters. The Electoral College is an antediluvian anachronism that was designed to appease slave owners, and its only purpose now is to preserve minority rule with a geographic tyranny over the will of the majority.
2
@Christy
so how did Obama win?
Between Bush in 2000 and “so called” President Trump, the Supreme Court and the Electoral College have placed the two worst Presidents in office. The Electoral College needs to go. It’s outlived it’s usefulness. .
Our only chance of getting rid of this anti-democratic sham is to vote for Democrats. If the Dems can win control of the Executive and Legislative branches, they can add Supreme Court justices and begin the process of ending the Electorial College. Why should Americans tolerate this insult to the principle of “one person, one vote?”
No Conservative wants that. It is undemocratic.
And against the Constitution.
1
Keep dreaming. The Republican Party would be lost. It will never allow the elimination of the Electoral College.
and nobody thonks should have closed the market for the virus?
when 14 days have passed and theres another explosion of cases in Italy then what ?
This is just another foolish idea. The potential problems associated with 300 million individual votes in a country of such varied interests are overwhelming. Not only does the College provide meaningful participation for all states but a multilevel safety net to absorb aberrations or malfeasance. More than ever, we need the system that accounts for the many points of view in the U.S.
1
The US voting system; the electoral college and all that must be a remnance from the elitist time of "the Great Families", and is obviously a detraction from the democratic ideal; One person, One vote.
Why must California have no more than one third (appr. 30%) of the voting power pr person, compared to states like Vermont, Wyoming and North Dakota?
That is Gerrymandering - not Democracy.
1
@Bjarte Rundereim : you may wish to look up the definition of "gerrymandering".
That is not even remotely what it means.
@Concerned Citizen
Gerrymandering is the art of shuffling tings in order to gain more votes than you are rightly entiteled to.
Whether it be borders, numbers or other stuff, the kernel of the thing is getting undue preference.
VOTE on November 3rd.
Vote Democratic or Republcan
Just get out and Vote.
Unhappy?
Again Vote.
Don't complain on November 4th.
In a country a beat away from dividing in two, the purpose of the Electoral College has never been more crucial to holding together our Republic. You sir are doing a great disservice with this myopic ideology you disguise as fair and sensible. The purpose should you learn about its inception and the genius rationale behind it, is to give a fair voice to the sparsely populated areas of the country. It is designed so that the needs and concerns of all citizens get the attention they are entitled to from candidates for President.
If Urban areas always dictate the popular vote, what happens to our agricultural population? What, they simply become slaves to our dictates, we know better for them? How incredibly ignorant and what glaring lack of respect for the voice and rights of other citizens. The left which I nearly always vote with, needs to get off it's tantrum because things didn't go its way. Let's look at how we went from Obama to Trump and don't feed me Russia. Obama has some responsibility for giving us Trump. I believe as a man with principal, he too would agree.
1
The electoral college was an elaborate scheme to balance the clashing interests of small vs large states and dampen the feuds within some of the tidewater states. It didn't work and we had a civil war on a continental scale. It didn't work in 2000 and 2016 with minority presidents and a criminal administration on the one hand and an idiotic one on the other. While national popular vote would be almost impossible to carry out accurately, proportionate voting by house district would not.
It's not going to happen this time around, nor is the elimination of the worst voter suppression in the country, the closed primary (and caucuses), which excludes millions, not thousands from voting. Guess who THAT corrupt system benefits.
1
Instead of a futile nationwide attempt to change the Constitution, why not move incrementally by persuading progressive states to reject the winner-take-all format?
Come on now. The electoral college is there to protect the slave states from democracy. As well it keeps the local oligarch in power for his biz buds with control over the economy and the local legislature.
If there is any hope for American Democracy it would begin by acknowledging what the electoral college is. Stop pretending that your political system is virtuous when your people mostly live in poverty working for grifters.
As long as Americans all think they are just embarrassed millionaires the myth will live but the country will die. Anybody remember Rome, Britain?
Straight up popular vote is my preference.
When I hear somebody say, “My vote doesn’t count.” My skin crawls.
Because it is halfway true, yet flat out wrong.
With the exception of the presidency, every vote does count from everything from county clerk to senator.
Ballot initiatives that can impact you directly, from property taxes to millage rates for schools.
Those votes do not have an Electoral college, and they can impact your world faster and more obviously.
So when someone says: “My vote doesn’t count.“
I rush to say, that’s not true.
There is much more on the ballot than who becomes president, think about it.”
2
What if we stopped fantasizing about subverting the Constitution for leftist, partisan politics and worked within our wonderful system of government?
1
That pesky Constitution again, preventing the 'will of the people' from popularly deciding their President...
The author knows full well that without the electoral college commitment by the Founding Fathers there would be no “United” States. Now, more than ever, small states need protection from the tyranny of the majority of the large left-leaning states like California and New York. But don’t worry, liberals still have Vermont, which sends socialists to the Senate.
3
@Conservative Democrat
I rather think that it is the large liberal states that need protection from the tyranny of small GOP states that continually seeking to impose a male dominated, intolerant, xenophobic racist, Christian Right fundamentalist society.
The GOP dominated bible belt has seriously distorted the wishes of the majority in America. But don't worry, the GOP still has the likes of Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee to perpetuate their anti democratic cults.
Mr. Wegman, you hit the nail on the head with this statement: "If candidates knew that they needed the most votes in the country, rather than the most votes in a few key districts in a few battleground states, they would base their appeals on what voters wanted rather than on where they happened to live."
Isn't that the core of what is supposed to be a representative democracy?
There are so many policies that are broadly supported by a majority of citizens, but stifled by the curse of $pecial intere$t group$ (think NRA, Big Pharma,)
As an interim step, all states should award electors proportionally - if a candidate gets 45% of the vote, she gets awarded 45% of the electoral votes. That would be a giant step towards a truer representative democracy.
Thank you for your research, your book, your essay. I think we all want our vote to matter.
1
Again? Is this a recurring story? But his one feature policial pundits!! Yet no history.
Still, every election cycle some genius wants to best the Founders and our 200+ years of a system that protected the minority rights of small States-- Or do we forget why we have the Electoral College and 2 Senators per State?
This "Case" is dead because you need 2/3 of the States to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, which is the ONLY way this "case" can win.
Of course this is not mentioned in this column. I wonder why?
1
It's silly to fantasize that the Electoral College will ever be abolished since the very states that profit from it would have to vote to give up their unfair power. Dream on. Fuggedaboutit and figure out how to live with it more effectively if you're on the left.
1
It shouldn't any more complicated that every vote in this so called Democracy should count.
Hillary should be President, and we wouldn't have a divided country,& the united States of America would stand for something.
If only our Founding Bumblers, “a few dozen men who had never elected a president before, and [who] built for a country where the vast majority of people were denied the right to vote,” had had Jesse Wegman! I mean, really—those Constitutional Convention guys were little better than farmers dragged in off the street. And the so-called “country” was just a bunch of guys too busy whipping slaves and abusing women to pay much attention. So let’s move to a pure popular vote. Because democracy!
What could possibly go wrong?
1
The only thing I hate more than being ignored is being vilified because of my beliefs by a president who delights in doing it.
Why not just throw all the smaller states out of the union?
It is the law. Change the Constitution if you want to implement your currently illegal approach.
Wow what a novel idea every person’s vote counts equally.
Yes this should be put in place.
The electoral college originated so slave owners could retain power. It continues today so that a minority can retain power.
It needs to go.
@Readbetween theLines
and the minority of today were probably the slave owners of yesteryear.
The Electoral College might be past its sell-by date if you happen to live in a mega-state like New York, Florida, California, and Texas. But for those of us who live in small states with smaller populations the Electoral College is the only thing standing between us and the tyranny of large-population states. Yes, it is true, New York: not everyone everywhere shares your values--or lack of values--and we don't want your values--or lack of values--shoved down our throats.
1
Let's not stop with the Electoral College. It's time to do something with the Senate as well. Both were designed as selling points in a package to pitch the Constitution to all of the Thirteen Colonies.
What to do with the Senate, I'm not sure. But, the world's greatest deliberative body has become an assemblage of cranks and charlatans.
3
Finally, someone who takes the bull by the horns. President Trump may have been elected but NOT democratically, as he received 3 million votes less than the other candidate. The first rule - their are others - of Democracy is that (s)he who receives 50% + 1 is elected. Furthermore, the reason why smaller states have a relative higher part in the Electoral College has everything to do with Slavery. On the request of the states who had a lot of them, the black slaves were also counted as making up the number of inhabitants. Perversely, they, of course, were NOT allowed to vote. 'The Economist' did a great special dossier on this, about 2 years ago. There are more dubious reasons why the American system is flawed. Why vote on a weekday ? On sunday, many more people don't have to work. Why do you have to 'register' ? Every citizen who is already registered as ... a citizen, should have the automatic right to 1 (wo)man/1vote. Most important IMHO, voting should be compulsory. Democracy works to the measure that people vote. The more votes, the more democracy.
1
Maybe this worked great in the 1700's at a little town hall in a burg with 100 people...NOW, it is an archaic joke.
Can we please graduate to a more "modern" system...like hand counted paper ballots!
In that case we would be exposed to cheating by individual states how many people actually voted in the elections.
Would you like the total number of votes delivered by the GOP or DNC apparatchiks?
Get rid of the Electoral College, mandate vote by mail for every state, and the Republican Party goes away, it just does.
No more voter suppression, no more minority Presidents like the current one, or George W. Bush...just one person, one vote.
Of course, the next step would be to take money out of politics, toss this "one dollar, one vote" system to the curb.
But as the graffiti says, "if voting changed anything, they would make it illegal".
Sure, the game is rigged, as the slaveholders who built the system made sure of minority rule, but one can hope for a future free of big money distorting everything.
Hugh
214
@Hugh Massengill
So billionaires buying votes by spending their own money should be illegal, but millionaires (Warren and Sanders) buying votes by promising free health care, free college, free everything, is OK?
The next election may be won by the person who promises the most free stuff (but of course it's not really free, and it won't be just the rich who pay for it.)
3
@Hugh Massengill
I'm a little skeptical of vote by mail; the one vote fraud case I personally know of was a woman in Florida (Rep.) who filled out and mailed in her mother's (Dem.) mail-in ballot. Never caught. The large-scale mail-in vote fraud that invalidated a district vote in N. Carolina did come to light, however. Someone else in these comments recently proposed a weekend designated for voting - great idea.
But I'm solidly behind the idea of ending the Electoral Collage, an anachronism if ever there was one.
7
@Hugh Massengill This creates a huge problem with people who are not informed voting. There are examples all over the place of people supporting people with positions they do not agree with. People don't stay current with events and therefore do not take seriously their RESPONSIBILITY to be an informed electorate. We cannot be better off having people who don't care enough to do some homework to vote. It does not make sense.
2
I used to think exactly like you do, Mr. Wegman. But my opinion has changed over time in favor of the Electoral College, and here is why.
Virtually none of our major allies elect their chief executive directly— not Canada, not the the UK, not Germany, not Israel, not Japan, Italy, Spain, Ireland, India, Australia or New Zealand.
In fact, among our allies, the only two exceptions prove actually the rule— Mexico, where the directly elected President is limited to a single term; and France, where the directly elected President has to share power with a very powerful Prime Minister.
The founders knew it was too easy for a populist demagogue to seize power if he had the unalloyed popular vote. So they created a buffering mechanism. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But realize that the large countries that have indirect elections, like US, have far, far better outcomes than the ones who elect directly... like Russia, Brazil and Argentina.
49
@David L.
In case you missed it, a 'populist' demagogue has already seized power in America and he did it by winning a minority of votes. In fact, one might argue the electoral college made it far easier for Donald Trump to win because he was able to ignore voters in 'sure' states and focus his corrosive rhetoric on whipping up the fears of a smaller minority of voters in swing states.
It's also strange that you think countries like the UK have a better political system because of an indirect vote. I'd argue it's got a lot more to do with their parliamentary style of government which allows plurality and encourages coalitions with differing viewpoints. Even the most radical leader in those countries must remain relatively centrist. The American system allows for the exact opposite.
57
@David L. Comparing the electoral system of Canada and the USA is utter misunderstanding of the systems. Not only is your buffering mechanism not perfect, it seems specifically designed for minority rule electing a demagogue.
30
@David L. -- It's questionable whether the election of Trump was a "far better outcome." Millions see his presidency as illegitimate. Besides his obvious flaws, he has never reached a majority approval rating for that reason alone. This isn't sour grapes or being a sore loser, which Republicans charge. It is the belief that he assumed power without the support of the people. George W. Bush suffered the same fate, just not as strongly. But, the Trump presidency has really shown the weakness in the electoral college system. Unless the outcome matches that of the popular vote, the winner assumes power without the support of the majority, which even a competent president would have a hard time overcoming, let alone one like Trump.
36
What a novel idea. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before. Good luck in something sensible happening with this though.
The electoral college was set up so that powerful states with large populations couldn't swing every election - which is what would happen without it. CA and NY would select every president forever which would be a horror. Long live the college!
3
@DJ Do you really think that NY and CA are populated solely with those with whom you have different views from?
There is no state, county or city, township of village that is RED or BLUE. (Except when electors are awarded by winner take all- which renders meaningless the votes of the minority) Even NY and CA are between 40% and 50% Red. Even down in Dixieland, where the Reds are dominate, Blues occupy about the same proportion of the electorate that the Reds have in the Blue states.
We live in a PURPLE country. It is the winner takes all system that creates to the polarization of the electorate and allows the candidates to campaign to their bases and not the electorate.
2
I've been told abolishing the electoral college would have the effect of minimizing the significance of most of the rust belt / midwest states. But, the union isn't a union of states if it leads to ignoring many of the members of the union. I think it reeks more of a liberal elite attempt to exert undue control, and a fear of sharing governance and power with people who are culturally different than you. I think it sounds more desperate and sad than radical and transforming.
1
These sorts of partial solutions show up every election cycle. If the Presidency is elected under unfair rules then what about The House and other elective offices? How about a more all-embracing reform measure to make primaries truly open and less party controlled? How about increasing the size of the House of Representatives to make it a more representative body? It’s the least representative body of most advanced democracies. How about an end to gerrymandering so my vote has the same value as others in confessional, state and local elections? If you are going to do pie in the sky, make it a BIG pie!
2
the abolition of ElectoralCollege election rigging will require an effort comparable to the abolition of Slavery - seemingly it would be a simple binary situation: total popular votes vs electoral polling, but like slavery there will multi-generational effects which are hard to predict exactly; but there is just no way that 'they' will just graciously give up their existing electoral advantages
1
Almost as troublesome is the parties' selection of the candidates. Caucuses, primaries, delegates who are locked in, others who are free to choose on the convention floor, and since when do the interests of rural, homogenous states like Iowa and New Hampshire speak for the whole country?!!
2
Amen. It would be nice if the US was a democracy. Not having everything boiled down to red versus blue might help to create a less toxic environment.
140
@Nancy Nicoll
The EC reflects the tension between the US as a Democracy and as a Republic of States that each have local authority. Tied with the 3/5ths Compromise, it originally gave rural states with large slave populations increased political power. Today, it gives small rural states increased political power. Protecting the political power of the small States against Democracy powered by large States was an original goal of the Constitution. Since the Civil War that goal has become less acceptable to a majority of the population. But any change requires the support of 2/3rd of the States, making change unlikely.
2
@Nancy Nicoll ...One problem is allowing state funded party primaries. This favors electing fringe candidates over centerists. In a red district, the real selection occurs in the Republican Party primary where Democrats and Independents are often not even allowed to participate. We need open primaries where all the candidates run against each other and everyone is eligible to vote, maybe progressive voting - top two face off in the fall.
1
@Nancy Nicoll So, we have red and blue within every state, making this change only exacerbates the problem
What if we started to represent the interests of blue collar workers again?
A better solution than the Republican playbook, which is to change the rules when you’re losing.
2
And while we're at it, how about voting for term limits; only the people get to vote, not Congress.
3
Everyone knows that the Electoral College does not serve its purpose in this day and age so why are we procrastinating doing something about this bad idea ASAP before it's affecting our future, again?
5
@victor g The only way to do it is to change the constitution, and that process is fraught with dangers.
1
@Joe Runciter The Constitution is as old - I believe - as the Electoral College. They both need editing to reflect our turbulent times.
@victor g They do. I agree - especially with regard to the Electoral College. which should simply be eliminated. But, once the can of worms is open various predatory birds will come to feast. You cannot legally keep the constitutional convention to just one topic as far as I know. That is why it hasn't been done. Getting the requisite number of state legislatures and governors to agree is extremely unlikely as well. The Devil is in the details and logistics.
It is difficult to give credence to your thesis when it begins with the blatant falsehood - repeated so often that many now believe it to be true - that all votes in a Presidential election are not equal. Abolishing the Electoral College would force everyone to accept the Presidential choice of a small handful of populous states instead of the choice of a national consensus of states. In each of the 50 separate Presidential elections we now have, every vote is equal.
7
@Larry States aren't people- their residents are. As the writer points out, every state holds folks with the full range of political positions, but only the majority position calls the tune. Time to permit Americans to select the president- not land.
6
@Larry It would force us to accept that we live in one nation, and that it is a democracy.
2
@Larry They certainly are not equal when the Electoral College has said with court approval that even if the majority of voters in their state vote for say the Dem they can ignore that! That really makes no sense. The article is basically about changing the system to elect by popular vote, and that is sensible.
3
The merits of the argument to abolish the electoral college are well-established, but the real question is how to get that done. At present , I see no plausible path to that result.
Otherwise, we are just beating a dead horse.
2
I mean, as long as we're dreaming -
1) Abolish or constrain the executive powers of the Presidency - It's archaic, dictatorial, and there are few, if any, examples globally of the executive presidential system not devolving into authoritarianism. There should be a constitutional amendment removing the veto power over legislation passed by the Congress. The President should be elected by simple majority across the whole country.
2) The Senate is inherently less democratic that the House of Representatives - its power to veto legislation should be abolished and it should have powers more akin to the House of Lords following the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949.
3) Representatives to the House should be elected through ranked-choice voting. The House should have the power to impeach the President pursuant to a 50.1% majority (and possibly subject to no veto or only a 50.1% threshold in the Senate).
4) No judge should be elected; independent commissions should be designed to appoint judges from the Supreme Court downwards.
5) The Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are amazing bits of legal history, but they should be comprehensively amended to reflect the UDHR/European Convention on Human Rights, which protect significantly more rights without the anachronisms of the 3rd and 5th Amendments.
Is it a pipe dream? Yes. Is it a little insulting to the US constitutional tradition? Also yes. Would it produce better democracy and stronger rights? I'd argue so.
6
@Chris
I agree the the electoral college should be abolished, but the Constitution is fine. It's the enforcement of the Constitution and the disregard for the oath that members of Congress feel they have no allegiance to is the real problem. Our system of government will work fine once our elected officials put country ahead party,.
@VMG
I think you're definitely right to an extent and I was, of course, being bombastic.
On the other hand though two of the defining features of the US system are i) it's inherently undemocratic, at every level and across most of the functions and bodies it contains;
ii) we somewhat uncritically accept a level of executive power that is really based on European monarchies. Parliamentary system simply don't permit for any one person to hold that much power - arguably not even George III in 1776 had the constitutional power Trump does;
iii) The system is almost impossibly hard to change. New Zealand with few exceptions can change any aspect of its constitution by simple majority in Parliament; compare that to the US, where an amendment must be ratified by 2/3rds majorities and all the states. You might argue that it protects minorities or lends predictability, but NZ has a better human rights record than the US and a (more) stable government, as do many other governments (Canada, the UK, etc) who don't entrench their constitutions so aggressively.
This has major downsides for us: We're essentially stuck with virtually unalterable 18th-century political ideals which require actual revolutions (Civil War, Civil Rights Movement) to modernise.
The US Constitution absolutely should be a thing of pride for the US, but it also regrettably shackles us to the ideals of long-dead plutocrats who didn't want women, the poor, or minorities to have any say in their own lives.
1
The very first step to save American democracy is to abolish the Electoral College.
When I immigrated to the US, I was surprised to learn the presidential election was not decided by the popular vote but by some mysterious Electoral College. However I was assured by everyone that it did not matter since historically both votes led to the same outcome. Since then that process has failed twice, leading to increasingly disastrous and unqualified presidents.
Republicans know that even though “their ideas are old, and their ideas are bad”, by gaming the system through the EC, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and most shamefully, begging for Russian help, they will continue to cling to power.
12
@Sri That's unfair. The RIP* didn't beg for Russian help; they paid for it.
And now we're paying for it.
With our lives.
*Russian Intelligence Party
The Electoral College is passe only if the legal significance of states is also passe.
I suspect that for many Americans this feels true. States are just different colors on the map, with funny mottos and tourism campaigns. Any legal distinction and value is lost on them.
However, our nation is not a monolithic entity. We are a hybrid nation, with a national government that does indeed employ broad (but supposedly limited) powers to coordinate 50 separate states, plus territories, sovereign tribal governments, and other entities. The states have their own distinct missions, focused on best serving their own residents. And, as Louis Brandeis suggested, they serve the entire country as laboratories of democracy, where different policies and approaches get tested and even compared.
The national government, including the President, represent both the people and the states. Abrogating the EC further diminishes the standing of states, in favor of direct democracy. That may appeal to majority mobs in populous areas, but will certainly degrade political diversity and silence minority voices.
5
@Bob Krantz
This is a thoughtful response to a difficult issue. I disagree with this position, but I understand it. This is what I come to the NYT for, not partisan namecalling.
3
@Bob Krantz when liberal elites start to suggest stuff like this, or expanding the size of the Supreme Court, or extending voting to sixteen year olds -- I know that as a New York Liberal I exist alongside people who simply cannot handle not controlling, entirely, the levers of power. You say it nicely, but I think it is just a sickness that lives in people who can't stand difference. More than can't stand difference, they must neutralize those who are different - render them inert. I guess I use to be a New York Liberal, and am now more of a classic liberal.
1
The elimination of the EC does not change the states votes and agendas, as voters in states vote directly for their own state representatives and governor. And they do so directly without an EC and maintain their sovereignty. Congressmen and senators are also directly voted for with an EC. In fact, local elections are done without an EC well. Just presidency. I’m not sure we should equate one person being elected in one branch of government at only the federal level with the elimination of minorities and silencing certain voters.
There is no need to amend the Constitution in the least little bit. Article 2, Section1 gives the state legislatures the power to: "...appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."
Since we have elections to select our leaders, it makes no sense to blindly cling to a system that was devised to disproportionally favor certain states that had the vast majority of its residents legally barred from voting or even enjoying any of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
It is long past the time that we adopted the principle that the winner of an election be the person who garners the greatest number of votes from the electorate. The only thing worse than the tyranny of majority rule is the tyranny of minority rule. The only thing that can make the tyranny of the majority palatable is the defense of the rights of the minority.
6
@RobtPost how eloquent and right on.
The idea was to let election under the control of elites. It worked, it still works.
9
The problem with the electoral college is not even the small states and gerrymandering, it is that the election comes down to often a couple of counties in a couple of 'swing states', it comes down to a very small group of people deciding the fate of the country. Trump won the electoral college by less than 20,000 votes in a handful of states that put him over the top.
There is a way to change this without congress or amending the constitution. All it will take is for states to agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, it isn't that farfetched, I think something like 180 of the 270 of the needed electoral votes are pledged this way and several states have expressed interest in joining this that could make it even closer.
4
@music observer actually it was 77,000 votes in several states that won it for the worst president ever. but your point is totally right. just try to get rid of it, the politicos don't have the will
Change would require a Constitutional Amendment.
But states deciding to apportion their electoral votes, as Nebraska and Maine have already done, does not. It is up to the states.
The argument today is that only the liberal states will do this, trying to be fair and all, and the conservative states will not, giving the conservative states many more electoral votes.
Should this happen, most of the states would end up near 50/50, and the result would be more fair, although it would still be possible to win the popular vote and lose electorally.
2
@gratis You are incorrect: No Constitutional amendment is required. The Constitution allows states to use any procedure to pick that state's electors. All that has to happen is for states accounting for 270 Electorial College votes (a majority) to agree to pick electors matching the national popular vote, not that state's popular note.
So far, several states have passed a law to do that very thing. We are 70% of the way to making every vote count. Perpetual swing states oppose this plan, because it eliminates their unique (and undeserved) power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
1
@gratis: Semi-autonomous states lost their purpose with the abolition of slavery and enactment constitutional amendments to require "equal protection of the law".
@gratis
“... only the liberal states will do this, trying to be fair...”
Give me a break. You really meant “trying to take over.”
1
In our representative democracy, ie, republic, both the EC and the Senate presume above-the-fray representatives of great learning and virtue who will put the country ahead of their and states’ parochial interests. That notion went by the boards long ago, and as we become more “democratic” and less “republican”, keeping those structures is actually detrimental to the Republic. 2 senators from South Dakota equaling the heft of 2 from California is absurd, particularly when you consider that those sparsely populated rural states will be, almost by definition, made up of tiny bubbles of conservatism “standing athwart history shouting ‘Stop!’”. This in turn reenforces the “safe state” phenomenon in the EC. The whole is a mess that has, in the name of resisting tyranny of the majority, actually morphed into a debilitating tyranny of the minority.
6
I'm in a minority of people that oppose changing the Electoral College system. Often,in Presidential elections, when voting in one or two states requires a recount, weeks go by while the recounts drag on. Now, imagine a close election like what happened in 2016 that would require a national recount! The problem is that our archaic voting process is superimposed on top of the Electoral College concept. An online voting system that can withstand Russian (and other) meddling needs to be implemented. That should be a top priority and when implemented, the Electoral College can finally consigned to the dustbin of us history.
3
@Roget T You have this exactly backwards!
If the popular vote chose the president, it would be irrelevant whether a candidate either won or lost Florida by a hundred votes. The national popular vote will have chosen the winner by a million votes.
It is the Electoral College with its winner-take-all approach that makes elections turn on a few hundred votes in one state or another.
In fact, none of the close elections were that close once you look at the national popular vote.
Likewise, the Electoral College makes it easier to steal an election. A corrupt official can flip his state's results by stealing a few thousand votes. However, even that would not be enough to flip the national result. The corrupt official would have to change about 50 times the number of votes.
"The answer is easy, or at least it should be: by a national popular vote — a system in which all votes count the same and the winner is the candidate who gets the most."
No way! We must require a majority, not simple a plurality. Therefore, ranked-choice/instant-runoff voting is essential.
Your "easy" answer is totally wrong.
5
I think the Electoral College structure serves a legitimate and desirable purpose to provide some protection to the minority from exploitation by the majority.
But most partisan Democrats oppose the Electoral College. Their opposition is understandable because currently it would work to their partisan advantage (that could easily change in the future, so be careful what you wish for). Of course, they never acknowledge that. Instead, they claim their opposition is based upon democratic principle.
The partisans claim of principle is easily exposed as hypocritical as the structure that the Democrat party uses to select its nominee for president bears many similarities to that of the Electoral College.
Democrat
4
@Errol "The purpose is ...to protect the minority from the majority". We are a representative democracy. Majorities should rule under our system but do not. Are you proposing that the tail should continue to wag the dog?
8
@Richard from Philly
Pure democracy would permit slavery and other hideous persecution of minorities and unpopular individuals.
The source of our freedom is not democracy.
The source of our freedom is the most anti-democratic portions of the Constitution....the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
1
@Richard from Philly
Pure democracy like you unthinkingly advocate could easily result in horrific persecution of the minority by the majority. The majority could establish and maintain slavery or any deprivation of rights of any minority.
The source of our freedom is not democracy. The source of our freedom is the Constitutional protections of the minority, especially the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Changing this requires a constitutional amendment. That requires both Congress and state legislatures to approve it by a super majority.
Small population states will not sign on. Period. They fear losing political relevance.
So, why waste time, electricity and space in the NYT discussing something that will never happen.
Let's find a way, and there are ways, to blunt the power of the Electoral College without a constitutional change.
3
@Steve Daniel: Two ways are often discussed: every state is able to decide how it chooses its electors. The winner-take-all method leads directly to the greatest faults of the electoral college. If electors were chosen in proportion to the election results, the EC would closely track the popular vote (although there could still be problems.) If enough states sign on to the pledge to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote, the EC will effectively be erased. We won't see any "Don't Blame Me, I'm From Massachusetts" bumper stickers in that future, but we will just have to live with that.
From the very beginning and written into our constitution larger states, those with the most population, gave up a certain amount of power in order to create a country of compromise. In 1792 Virginia complained that it had paid back its debt and was now forced to pay back the debt of states that had not done so and it did so in order to maintain the country as a whole. It is now even more evident in the power disparity within the Senate where everyone has two senators and the electoral college where that disparity continues.
In order to allow for a direct popular vote for the presidency small states must agree to allow it which seems unlikely. Its always a great idea to have direct popular voting for our president, but the real question is whether it politically possibel in this country.
We are living in a technological world in the twenty-first century. There is no reason that a safe and secure app could not be added to each and every voter's iPhone. There is even less reason to deny voters access, including but not limited to, early voting either in person or by mail-in ballot. There is less rationale to deny registration joined with driver's licenses.
The entire voting debacle has always been tied to Slavery, Jim Crow laws as well as misogyny, which sadly are long passed their due dates but we cling to this form of segregation, restriction, and gerrymandering. More importantly, these obstacles are alive and well because Republicans can not win elections without them.
2
@Carol "We are living in a technological world in the twenty-first century. There is no reason that a safe and secure app could not be added to each and every voter's iPhone."
When you make generalizations about the technology people have access to, or demonstrate a lack of understanding about that technology, you disqualify your opinion on how to use technology to make change.
7
Given that the electoral college is not going away soon why do the political parties care who wins states in a primary election that will never vote for your party in the general election ?
This year the Democratic Party should only count delegates for whoever wins in WI, MI, PA, NC, FL and CO.
Counting delegates from the South makes no sense at all for Democrats and for starters the editorial writers and talking heads on cable news could start by acknowledging that certain fact.
4
Abolishing the EC is an issue about which I’ve read and have strong opinion. However, I didn’t know about the National Popular Vote Compact and appreciate learning about it here.
3
The twin travesties of unequal per-capita Senate representation and the Electoral College were demanded by a few of the 13 original states to institutionalize liberty to enslave. They should have been abolished at the conclusion of the Civil War.
The US never does anything on a timely basis.
11
@Steve Bolger I pretty much agree with your position, but the EC was put in place to prevent a "tyranny of the majority," where states with smaller populations would almost never receive due consideration for their concerns.
But now we have the opposite. A minority can win over and over again by sidestepping the ballot box using the Supreme Court and the Electoral College. If the EC ever had a legitimate purpose, that purpose is long gone.
Have you noticed these types of artifice have become Republicans' latest stratagem for gaining office?
4
@Glenn Thomas My understanding is that the motivation for the EC was to take the election of the president out of the hands of the general public of all the states, and put it in the hands of a responsible elite, who would presumably be less subject to the wiles of a demagogue. The writers of the Constitution treasured the idea that the people had a voice, they were leery of the untamed expression of that voice, whether in large or small states.
@Steve Bolger
The current wave of "it was all meant to preserve slavery" claims is historically illiterate.
I read the 1619 Project too. I thought it added a lot of important thoughts to our national dialogue. But its most pointed conclusions were aggressively wrong.
Now: You please read some of the rebuttals of, it, starting with Gordon Wood, no one's idea of a right-winger.
I am tired of articles that point out the problems with the electoral college. They are well known but it would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of it, and that is not going to happen. Therefore what should we be talking about. One change that is slightly more likely to happen would be to double the number of representatives. This would reduce the issue that each state gets 2 electors on top of what they get due to the number of representatives that they have. This would go a long way towards reducing the extra weight that the small states get. Regarding changing the way electors are given this is a state issue and could be changed by each state at any time. However one should be careful regarding what one asks for. If a state has gerrymandered their congressional districts and appoints electors based on who wins a district then a candidate could win a majority of the votes in a state but get a minority of the electros. To prevent this would also require a constitutional amendment, which as stated before isn’t going to happen.
There are two problems with this:
1) It would require a constitutional amendment to enact. Given the makeup of state legislatures and the congress at the moment, we are more likely to get a constitutional amendment banning abortion than one abolishing the electoral college
2) It completely negates any political power of less populous states at the federal level. When California has twice as many residents as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Idaho combined, that leaves states like NY and CA with huge populations with all the control.
Now you can make an argument that (2) is a GOOD thing, but when you have to rely on state legislatures or congressmen from sparse states to abolish the electoral college - why would any of these people vote to reduce the political powers of their own constituents?
A much better plan would be to pass state level constitutional amendments that allocate electoral college votes on the basis of the popular vote in each state. No federal constitutional amendment would be required, and this would help and hurt both parties equally - Democrats in all-or-nothing states that are majority Republican would have their votes count, and the same would hold in majority Democratic-leaning states for Republican voters.
14
@Ben A better argument than any: The Founders knew only by equal representation as opposed to strict majority rule would the Union survive.
6
@Ben No Constitutional amendment required, and we are 70% if the way there to making a national popular vote the law of the land. Getting the last 30% will be very hard, but easier than a Constitutional amendment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I disagree.
The electoral college handles the population asymmetry. It smooths out the impact of population extremes, while at the same time giving them a higher weight and this should be enough.
Obama was able to win twice despite this perceived injustice.
The Democrats should start campaigning more in the rural counties and convincing people of their ideas if they want to win.
11
@John This is not a "perceived" injustice; it is quite real and unjust in spite of some candidates overcoming the odds.
Some women are quite successful in business. So where's the need for Affirmative Action? This issue is not any different.
3
@John :
But, in reality, it has exaggerated the extremes.
@Glenn Thomas
Our current system does not just smooth out extremes in population but also extremes in views due to regional biases. This ensures that change is incremental and allows for most people to feel that their voice is heard and come on board.
And whilst we are at it - the way Senators are elected leads to an even more distorted violation of the "one person, one vote" principle. 600 Thousand Wyomians pick 2 Senators whilst more than 40 Million Californians also pick 2. In other words, a vote in Wyoming is worth almost 100 times as much as one in California.
I am not so sure if the Republicans are dead against abolishing the electoral vote system. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of about 3 Million. If the Trump organisation had seriously campaigned in California, New York or Michigan who knows how this would have turned out.
What would be the process to change all this? Would it require the same procedure that is required for a change in constitution or a constitutional ammendment? If that's the case, we probaly won't see a change in our life times.
6
There are approximately 718 thousand residents per electoral vote from California. Wyoming has approximately 193 thousand residents per electoral vote. Definitely unfair to distort the representation of residents due to variations in state populations. U.S. presidential election system is relic from the 18th century when white male landowners who were able to travel by horse to town were allowed to vote.
7
Sorry but the Electoral College is not an outdated concept. In fact, in a world of social media and everyone insulating themselves in ‘social media groups,’ it’s more important than ever. The problem is how different states employ their electoral votes. The ‘all or none’ concept used by many states, like NY, is the problem. It is ridiculous that if one candidate gets one more popular vote than the other, ALL the states’ electoral votes go to that candidate. That’s the problem, not the Electoral College itself. The solution is obviously to simply divide the electoral votes based on the percentage of popular votes as it was designed to do.
14
A parliamentary system would solve this problem, but that’s not going to happen either.
5
Change - no matter how timely or reasonable - is always resisted by those who would be losing something, usually power. So pull the thread on that concept and see where it leads.
3
Let me point out that a Constitutional Amendment is NOT necessary to substitute the popular vote for the electoral college.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would require member states to commit to awarding their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College. It would not take effect until the total electoral college vote of the member states were at least 270. This would insure that the winner of the popular vote would win the election.
This far, states with 181 electoral college votes have joined the Compact. Bills are pending in enough states to get to 270. If your state hasn't joined, write your state representatives urging them to vote to do so.
120
@Len Charlap
The Compact could likely lead to scenarios where a member state awards its electoral votes to a candidate that finished second in that state. How do you feel about that disenfranchisement of the voters in that state?
1
I don't care. If a majority of Americans voted for someone to be president, they should be president. It's that simple
7
@Len Charlap: This idea can pass only during an election of a majority president; otherwise the whninig minority will block it. Seems like there's no time like now to try this. We're stuck with a despised incumbent who is far from ever getting a majority of votes, and the states needed to pass the proposed compact wouldn't be casting EC votes for him anyway, so it would be popular since it would increase the odds of the desired outcome.
That the problem is so real, the impacts are so well documented, and a “solution” (eliminating winner take all rules in those states) is so easily reached, it begs the question why this hasn’t come to pass? Obviously, 10 states have vested interest in the status quo, both fiscally and emotionally.
However, much like term limits, it will come when all we all realize that “traditions” like 2 terms as President are meaningless until codified (certainly we now know that not soliciting interference from a foreign government in an upcoming election is just a guideline, not codified law).
Trusting the brilliance of George Washington would transfer to every other future President was folly, and despite the fact that FDR was well intentioned and won by huge margins, even the staunchest Democrat would have to see it as a sign of massive egotism to seek a third term.
Disenfranchising so much of the electorate is one of the great failures of our current system. Time to change is immediately following this upcoming election, regardless of outcome.
9
I was tangentially involved in the research for Judge Richard A. Posner's 2000 "Breaking the Deadlock" book about the 2000 presidential election. Already it was impossible to get a count for just Miami-Dade county, much less the entire country. Two takeaways are 1) the count must be broken into manageable bits and 2) there must be tie-breaking rules for "statistical ties" other than a partisan Supreme Court.
The best solution may be to vote by congressional house districts, winner take all, with the newly elected House of Representatives as the tie breakers. This could be especially useful if the impending break up of the Democratic party leads to multiparty elections in the future.
1
@Barry Dayton A much better solution is to make the winner be whoever gets the majority in the national popular vote. Once everybody is counted on an equal basis, it will not matter if a candidate won or loss one district in one state by a hundred votes. Even the "close" elections were not that close once everybody is counted.
In Statistics, this principal is called the Law of Large Numbers.
There are a lot of great reasons to abolish the current system,none exist to keep it.Until the people rise up and demand the end of gerrymandering,three hours in line to vote in poor areas,electoral college ,things will only get worse, . Bernie Sanders talks about a revalution,I am not a Bernie voter but I will be willing to join one if for the third time in the past twenty years the person with the most votes loses.
6
A remedy now working its way through the states is the National Popular Vote Compact. So far 19 states, representing 70+% of the 270 electoral votes needed to elect a president, have enacted this legislation. This struggle must occur at the state level. (The idea, fully constitutional, is that the states' electors would be bound to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote count.) It might take more years to get enough states on board.... but well worth lobbying for. Of course, most of the red states will be an uphill struggle; but it took women more than a few generations to get suffrage also.
5
What needs to be changed even more ate the primaries for President. Just as the election for President is held on one day (early elections results are still all calculated on election day or thereabouts), so too should be state primaries.
5
@Stephen -- Or better yet, we should move to Ranked-Choice voting that would allow EVERYONE including "independents" not affiliated with either party to vote.
Party affiliation should not be the number one deciding factor, filtering all election votes.
If I want to re-election the governor of Florida, who is a Republican, I should not have to register as a Republican in order to help re-elect him. Especially, since I really like our district's US House Representative, who is a Democrat.
With Ranked-choice voting, I would be able to vote for a Green Party candidate, but designate a second-choice that my vote would go to if my candidate was not the winner.
5
A defining characteristic of a democracy is the idea of one person, one vote, i.e., everybody gets a vote and all votes count the same. That idea is totally lost in a country like America where a Wyoming vote is far more powerful than a California vote. The Framers were faced with the problem of cobbling a nation together from a disparate bunch of colonies or states. I figure they offered the small states equal voting power with the large states as an incentive to join the union. The electoral college will likely never be abolished since the small states would never choose to give up all that power and the Republicans would never win another presidential election.
13
@Clark Landrum — Nah. The Republicans could continue to compete effectively. They would just have to change their politics, to attract a national majority—which is the point.
Every argument I hear in defense of the EC boils down to the following (flawed) idea: that less-populated States would be subject to the dominance of more densely populated states.
Here's why this argument is specious at best:
1) I never hear exactly how, CA would dominate ND. There are never details connected with this argument. Alternatively, why don't we hear Vermonters whine about the potential power of TX?
2) No one is forced to live anywhere in the U.S.. Why should your location dictate a different level of political power? I lived in 6 different states in my life. Most very conservative and one fairly liberal. Why should my vote have had different political power depending on where I lived?
3) The Presidency is a position that, by its nature, should represent all Americans equally. Think of the national election as one big "purple" state.
4) Each state has plenty of equalizing power in Congress. It's called the Senate. And if you don't think this is enough power, just look at the enormous power that Mitch McConnell has wielded for years now. The Senate, in conjunction with the EC has actually created a tyranny of the few.
A partial fix would be to require the EC to be proportionalized. If a state has 10 electoral votes and one candidate gets 65% of the vote, then he/she gets 6.5 electoral votes.
16
@mrfreeze6
Sure compare CA and ND - are you seriously arguing that their interests are the exact same? They share a common industrial base Coal/Oil versus Software/Entertainment and we know what those industries have in common. I can't see any bullying occurring there.
You know that the Constitution was wrangled over a strong commitment to state rights? And that by popular votes you trample those embedded rights? And you know what you need to amend the constitution?
You know that many countries all over the world - including Canada - have looked at a popular vote system over that past decade and they ALL have rejected it? But then again - what do they know - right?
6
@SteveRR You know, there's no constitutional requirement that the electoral college be a winner-take-all system, which kind of negates the notion that the EC should outweigh or supersede the popular vote in states. The states could simply change the rules.
Also, to make a case for the electoral college based on "industrial" bases is absurd. Here are the largest Coal/oil produces: TX, AL, CA, ND, NM, OK. Who's going to bully who?
I live in Italy where my vote counts equally to that of a person from Rome or Milan. Italians find the U.S. system unfathomable. But again, what do they know?
2
@mrfreeze6
We have all watched in amazement as Italy has elected buffoon after buffon [Silvio Berlusconi] due to the paralysis embedded in their electoral system - the Rosatellum bis.
If you were going to look up ineffective electoral systems in the dictionary then it would be accompanied by an illustration of a 'boot' country.
And just in passing - why has Italy had four major overhauls of its electoral system in the past few decades?
You have actually perfectly made my argument for me - Italy is EXACTLY what happens with a first-past-the-post proportional system.
The elaborate arguments that are presented to justify the farce that is the electoral college amaze me. We have a long campaign to select candidates, then to discover the will of the people in selecting the president, then throw it all out and send the loser to Washington.
The members of the electoral college are not the collection of wise men who were supposed to act as circuit breakers (not the term the founders would have used) and reverse the actions of the "mob." The mob being us, the voters. They were intended to be the last resort of the establishment if they were in danger of losing power. And they don't even accomplish that. With the exception of the occasional faithless elector, they're a rubber stamp.
Depending on the politics of the day, the EC can serve the interests of conservatives or liberals or radicals of one kind or another. There is no rhyme or reason to it. We might as well get the two major candidates together and flip a coin, thereby saving the expense and suspense of an election.
We've had similar fights over property requirement and polI taxes and other anti-democratic efforts to frustrate the will of the people. I am quite sure that if Donald Trump had won the popular vote and Hillary Clinton had taken the oath of office, most of those arguing for the Electoral College would be on the other side. Donald Trump thought the EC was a bad idea until it put him in office.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is our best hope for democracy.
11
The problem with popular vote for President is that it encourages more politics to be national. This is backwards. Most governing does take place and should take place at the state and local level. The President and the federal government should handle issues like the Corona Virus(national emergencies), national defense, international agreements, national infrastructure like interstates, mediate state disputes, and ensuring that people’s rights are protected. State and local governments should be responsible for the day to day governing of people’s lives. If the Presidency is becoming authoritarian then some of the reason is that expectation is changing toward more federal government power and influence over governing. You can’t moderate politics through reducing state influence.
2
I'm getting really tired of these juvenile diatribes against the electoral collage. There is no way on God's green earth that it will ever be abolished, short of a Constitutional amendment. And that has the same chance of happening as the provierbial snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks. There are too many small-population states that enjoy their outsized status, and frankly I think that's fine. The Founding Fathers knew that large-population states would overwhelm the smaller ones if there weren't some kind of safeguard.
What I do disagree with is the winner take all part of the EC. That was never in the Constitution and is grossly unfair. The solution is simple: keep the Electoral Collage, but make it proportional. That way the smaller states still get a say, but since everyone's vote counts for more it's more likely that people will vote. And you don't need to change the Constitution to do it.
15
@Liz This is true. How states choose to divide up their electors is not set forth in the constitution. States have broad authority in how to do so. The electoral college itself, is not an impediment to change.
4
@Liz There is no good reason that my vote should count less than someone's else's. None. One person one vote.
2
I am much more annoyed that the "two major parties" choose who will become our president, and they do it with the cooperation of the major-corporate TV networks that disallow any "other-party" candidates. They also do it via the impossibility of any "other party" being able to get on all 50 state ballots. Then they make it impossible or very difficult for non-party-affiliated voters to have participation in primary elections, run by the two major parties. The voters of the USA are frustrated that both parties are owned by big-investments donors that expect a good ROI for direct contributions to both parties, and they have 40,000 lobbyists writing the laws they want their sold-out lawmakers to pass. This is not democracy. It's an oligarchy, as former president Jimmy Carter has pointed out. Currently the Corporate Democrats have decided on a half-witted Joe Biden for POTUS vs the Corporate Republican's con-man Reality TV host Donald Trump. Not much of a choice for voters.
2
This is our country - of the people, by the people, and for the people. IF we could ever get together, be politically active and take to the streets and protest, like we see other people doing around the world, we could change to a one-person-one-vote system for every elected position. If, together, United, we would simply refuse to participate in the system that exists, then we the people will bring about change. Our main problem seems to be that we are lazy, entitled, and definitely NOT united anymore. So maybe we just tank the idea of the “United” States and admit we really want to be more like Europe used to be: politically divided geographic regions that border each other. Then we don’t have to all agree on eliminating the electoral college because we eliminate the existing out-of-control federal government, the broken, failed system of no checks or balances our now diseased judicial system. Get rid of all of them and the messed-up system we can’t seem to change and clearly doesn’t work anymore. Each independent state could choose their own system and we could choose which state to live in by where we find affinity with the politics and people. It would be interesting to see how we would end up resettling. All I know is that over my lifetime I’ve watched our government and an astonishing number of my “fellow” Americans morph into something I am frightened of and don’t recognize. I’m exhausted and defeated. I don’t identify with being “American” anymore.
1
"Nebraska and Maine are the exceptions." This is breezed over, but should be the whole point of the article! Why are they the exceptions? Do they have another, different, better method we should know about?
7
@Darnell Their electoral votes are based on congressional districts, not statewide winner take all. I think that's the most reasonable compromise, giving candidates from both parties a chance to win votes in states where they don't have a majority. But again, it only works if all states agree to it.
5
There are many countries that are parliamentary democracies, where the people have almost no say in who the ultimate leader. Angela Merkel, for example, lauded by some clueless folks as the most powerful woman in the world, has held power for an inordinate amount of time without anyone directly voting for her.
So I see, the Electoral College is bad when it gives a result you don't like.
3
@Joe Schmoe
Parliamentary democracies are much better than the mess of a system that the American Founders created. Yes, we don't directly elect our Prime Ministers. Instead the party leadership plays the role that the American electoral college was actually supposed to play: vetting the candidates to choose the one most qualified to lead. Then the people vote for their preferred party and its leader. The party that wins has clear control of the government—and therefore can implement its policy without all the gridlock, inefficiency, and dysfunction that infects the US's divided government. Furthermore, the government in power is clearly completely responsible for the performance of the government. They can't blame a different branch or different party for their mistakes. This transparency makes them accountable to the people, who either re-elect them or reject them, keeping or replacing the entire government based on the government's performance. The US system is characterized by an elected monarch and a divided and dysfunctional people's assembly whose powers are ill-defined. In a parliamentary system, the majority that wins the people's assembly holds all legislative and executive power in a unified government that the people can then judge by its performance and keep or reject as they see fit.
If America really wants to reform its democracy, don't stop with the electoral college. Convert to a parliamentary democracy. Your Founders erred in more ways than one.
2
@Joe Schmoe Merkel was the "Kanzlerkandidat" aka candidate for chancelloer, nominated by the CDU (her party).. Accodingly, when you voted for the CDU, you voted for her, in that office. What is hard to understand about that? Everybody knew it was going to be her if you cast your vote for her party. How is that any different than knowing who is the candidate for the Republican Party, and then voting for that party?
1
As a practical matter, it will be many years before the Electoral College is abolished. Small states, Red and Blue, would not agree to reducing their power so much. Thus, it is hard to believe that Rhode Island or Delaware would go along with having only 1/3 the electoral clout they have now (small as that is). Given that 3/4 of the states must approve a constitutional agreement to do away with the Electoral College, that is a hill to steep to climb.
The only practical hope would be the interstate compact to deliver states' electoral votes to the popular vote winner. But there is doubt about its constitutionality. Indeed, the Supreme Court will decide this year on whether a state may bind its electors at all.
1
The founding Fathers never envisioned massive Federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Social Security. Those that favor disproportional representation should consider getting rid of those programs and having each state pay its own way as it was when the Constitution was written.
3
@Charles
If you are arguing for the dissolution of the United States, I might actually agree. I'm not sure the United States is viable as a single nation anymore. Its system of government is also so flawed and archaic that the Constitution needs to be completely revised or replaced. And to do that, you probably would have to break up the nation because you won't ever get this divided country to agree on anything.
7
@617to416
No. I'm just suggesting that, perhaps, each state should take care of their own social programs such as healthcare, welfare, and retirement if we are not going to be able to have fair input into that which we are paying for.
3
I don't care what a bunch of old men hundreds of years thought about it. It doesn't matter they're all dead. The Constitution should be revised and updated because it's dangerously weak.
I disagree that the electoral college s/b abolished, I think it serves a purpose. The trouble is, it’s too extreme. For example, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming could all be treated as 1 state with their 3 electoral votes, and still be over-represented.
In any event, you’re never going to be able to get rid of it. What you CAN do though, with no change to the constitution, is eliminate the “winner take all” system. That’s entirely doable on a state-by-State basis, and would be much more fair.
11
@Earl M
I agree; the winner take all provision is not in the Constitution.
3
The Electoral college meant something when there truly were "backwaters" in our Nation.Television,radio and the internet has long ago changed the equation and need for this 233 year old idea.
Further our every four year Presidential election should be a voting holiday. The voting percentage would skyrocket along with serious campaigning in every state.
5
Why is the Presidential election the only office in the country the only office which is not decided by a plurality of votes. All of Congress, State and Local government is whomever gets the most votes wins. Why should the most important elected official of our country not have the same rules?
13
@Donald bialer
Because the more power an officeholder has, the more beneficial it is for the selection of that officeholder to filter up through a representative system than to spring from the passions of the mob.
This is why we also started out with state legislatures, not individual voters, choosing U.S. Senators. Going back to that wouldn't be such a bad idea either.
American political theory is built on a mirage. Americans believe they are famous for spreading democracy. From Woodrow Wilson, we have posed as a leader in the global effort to support every person's equal representation in their governing. Nonsense.
The Electoral College is just one obstacle we have in the way to real representation and the equal political power of all adult citizens. Until 1920, more than half the population was legally excluded from voting. Until 1965, many of the rest were excluded by Jim Crow oppression. From the Republic’s birth to today, the Senate gives disproportionate power to a handful of states—far beyond what their population sizes warrant. Today, in too many states, equal voting is gerrymandered out of existence and political parties that lose the overall vote maintain majority power.
Then there’s money in politics. Mike Bloomberg looked pretty big when he was spending $500 Million in the presidential race. Thankfully, Elizabeth Warren exposed his flaws and the voters in the Super Tuesday states took note. But if he had not been carrying that political baggage, would we be looking at his likely nomination?
Finally, we come to five unelected justices, put there by the Senate (see above), declaring in 2010 that money is speech. The result? Clearing a path for billionaires to move into the White House or make those of lesser wealth beholden to them. Billionaires should each have one vote and not the ability to buy the votes they want.
7