Tomorrow, the battle for the presidency reaches its dramatic conclusion. And while a split between the popular and electoral vote is highly unlikely, the crusade to change the system will drag on. Those who argue most vociferously for scrapping the Electoral College — let’s call them scrappers — claim the current approach is rooted in outdated values. They insist that relying on the national popular vote would be simpler, more modern, and egalitarian. Unfortunately, those are the same arguments that gave us the leisure suit.
The Electoral College was intended, first and foremost, to retain a pre-eminent role for states in choosing their president. The framers believed that states mattered, empowering them with equal status in the Senate regardless of population. They didn’t oppose popular will outright; members of Congress and state “electors” have been chosen by direct vote for over 200 years. Yet they sought a system that would discount lopsided statewide votes and regional candidates — which the Electoral College very much did in 1888. That year, Grover Cleveland lost the presidency despite a popular vote margin that came from landslide victories across the post-Civil War South.
Comments
Sununu has done himself great harm with is speak before thinking remarks as a Romney surrogate. Why the Globe publishes his tripe is beyond me.
Remember: people only vote because of skin color! John says so!
The problem is not with the constitutional EC, but with the state laws that implement the determination of EC votes. Most folks who call for elimination are actually quite uninformed about how system works. My bet is that if state by state referendum was taken on EC, the basic framework would remain in place while individual state approaches to how to select Electors would change.
No, the problem is the EC. The EC itself sets us up for undemocratic campaigns and results in Presidential elections. See this video by CGPGrey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=fvwrel
This is transparently wrong. Today, one day before the election, my Massachusetts presidential vote is meaningless, the outcome, for me, a foregone conclusion, the candidates busy elsewhere, while a voter in certain counties of Ohio can practically expect to ride to to polls with the candidate of his choosing. With the current system, entire states are ignored, and not just small ones; most individual voters are irrelevant; and localized voter supression is an effective strategy. Nationwide popular elections would make every individual vote count, and undercut the 'wedge issue' campaigning that we now must endure since candidates would be forced to develop broad-based appeal.
Coming just before election, Sandy has made a strong case for the EC. The states most heavily hit are expected to vote for Obama; however, total turnout will probably be significantly reduced, due to the disruption of people and polling places. If we used popular vote, the reduced turnout could swing the election.
Coming just before election, Sandy has made a strong case for the EC. The states most heavily hit are expected to vote for Obama; however, total turnout will probably be significantly reduced, due to the disruption of people and polling places. If we used popular vote, the reduced turnout could swing the election.
Please get this racist off my oped page. What next... Ann Coulter? I'm very close to dropping home delivery over this guy alone.
"The framers believed that states mattered, empowering them with equal status in the Senate regardless of population." Correction: the framers from small states believed that states mattered, and the framers from large states believed that population mattered. As with much of the Consitution the Electoral College was a compromise that attempted to balance competing interests. It is very much in the interest of Republicans to support the Electoral Collage because demographic trends are not in their favor. However, I am not persuaded by the arguments in support of eliminating the Electoral College, mostly because a major Constitutional change like that requires the strongest possible justification, and I'm not seeing that.
I predict that, come Wednesday, if President Obama is elected to a second term despite losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney the most vociferous scrapper will be none other than John E. Sununu. In 'rairness' to Rush Limbaugh it is possible he will be the loudest, with former Senator Sununu being second-loudest.
Time for states to sign up to give delegates to the winner of the popular vote. As it stands now, the rural vote counts more than the urban vote. That may have worked better when the country was more agrarian, but we live in an urban society and all votes should count the same.
Oh, almost forgot, Sununu's a tool.
With respect I disagree regarding alloting of delegates. That still disenfranchises voters, especially if the majority in a state voted for the losing candidate. I consider Maine's system of allotment by district to be far fairer than winner-take-all, but, as long as we have the Electoral College, and as long as states decide on their own voting rules, overturning the will of the majority of a state's voters is just wrong. Either amend the Constitution to replace or reform the Electoral College, and accept that not everyone will be happy with the outcome, or accept that when states do it themselves, not everyone will be happy with the outcome.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
While I normally think almost everything Sununu writes is nonsense in this case I think he makes a reasonable arguement for keeping the electoral college. I generally have believed it should be done away with in these "modern" times, but the point that it gives voice to smaller states is valid. How would the middle of the U.S. feel if the popular vote were determined by heavy turnout in the northeast and California. It is at least a good argument for keeping it. The idea of getting states to change the way they allocate their votes has been a republican ploy to undo the winnner takes all approach in states that normally vote democratic but not in republican states. So I believe it should remain as it is or be done away with completely - not modified state by state.
Sununu's arguments for keeping the EC are more or less skewered in this video by CGPGrey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=fvwrel
What do you think?
Sununu does not dare articulate the real reason the right wants to keep the electoral college. A few number of swing states allow the dirty tricks operatives of Rove and the Koch brothers to concentrate their efforts to steal elections.
The Ohio Secretary of State, a Republican, just authorized the use of uncertified experimental software on some of the states vote counting machines. Elderly voters in swing states have been getting robocalls telling them that they did not need to travel to the polling places - they could vote over the phone. Etc. Etc.
There may be arguments for keeping the EC, but this isn't it:
Think about that for a moment: The country votes, and the state effectively declares: “We’re with the winner.” In Massachusetts’ case, it boils down to this: “Let the other 98 percent of America decide who should receive our electoral votes. We can’t be bothered.”
CGPGrey provides an excellent presentation to counter Sununu's wrong-headed arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=fvwrel
Sununu's twisted logic does not mention one of the foundations of democracy, which is "one man, one vote"
It is interesting that if Romney wins the popular vote then the electoral votes of Massachusetts, California, Illinois and several other states will go to Romney, taking a big chunk of what Obama is counting on.
Although I can't help but think there is a loop home in the laws of these states that let's the secretary of state say - "Never mind".
I do not find the argument that, "If you live in a state with a few voters, your voice matters more," very compelling. The legislative branch of government already has a body (the Senate) in which small state representation is deliberately disproportionate. I fail to see that Sunnunu has made a good case for expanding this.
Only Sununu can turn a column on the electoral college into an attack on Beacon Hill.
"Trees cause pollution" Sununu is a despicable character, and why the Globe degrades itself by airing the opinions of this deeply racist man are beyond our comprehension. If slavery were still legal and being debated, John Sununu would be making arguments for it (and maybe the Globe would be running them).
Even more desperately needed than reform of the Electoral College is a set of uniform national standards for national elections. On the eve of the election, Republican governors in the swing states of Florida and Ohio have been restricting voting times, thereby causing long lines and waits of up to 8 hours in some places. These transparently naked acts of voter suppression, aimed at urban and minority polling sites, are completely reprehensible affronts to democracy.
It shows how deeply cynical conservatives are when it comes to the concept of unversal democracy. They have no scruples whatsoever. With huge amounts of money from hidden, ultra-rich backers, they have succeeded in bamboozling almost half the country. Tomorrow we will see if all the money and lying pays off for them.