Abolish the electoral college

[Zorro]

Opinion by Editorial Board

OUR COLUMNIST Marc A. Thiessen noted last week that President Trump had come very close to winning reelection. “A flip of just some 73,700 votes in those three states [Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia] and Trump would be making plans for a second term — and we would all be taking about a ‘red wave,’ ” he wrote.

Mr. Thiessen’s point was that Mr. Trump’s near miss makes him a viable candidate in 2024. We draw a different lesson: It is alarming that a candidate came so close to winning while polling more than 5 million fewer votes than his opponent nationwide. The electoral college, whatever virtues it may have had for the Founding Fathers, is no longer tenable for American democracy.

We write this with full awareness of the challenges of adopting a new system, with respect for many of the people who continue to argue against a switch, and with awareness that any change may have unintended consequences. Right now, our presidential elections are conducted by 51 separate authorities, each with its own rules on registration, mail-in balloting and more. Each state counts its own ballots, and each decides when recounts are needed. All of that would have to change if the president were chosen based on the national vote count. Additionally, electoral college math induces candidates to pay attention to voters in some small states who might otherwise be ignored.

But why should Iowa’s biofuel lobby get more of a hearing than, say, California’s artichoke lobby? Small states already have disproportionate clout in our government because of the Senate, in which Wyoming’s fewer than 600,000 residents have as much representation as California’s 39.5 million. We see no particular reason voters in purple states such as Wisconsin should be valued more than voters in red states such as Mississippi or blue states such as Washington.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/abolish-the-electoral-college/2020/11/15/c40367d8-2441-11eb-a688-5298ad5d580a_story.html

[Salviati]

1. It is the one office in this country that is supposed to represent everybody...

It would be nice if all of our votes counted equally for it.

[Cartaphelius]

2. Can we banish Trump before we end

a process that has existed throughout the American Experiment?

[jrthin]

3. I think Editorial Boards all around the country,

with laser-like focus, should stay on this issue until something is done. The electoral collage is not only flawed, it is dangerous to a functioning democracy.

[Stuart G]

4. Not a new proposal...Small Populated States Will Totally Oppose This....

...It gives small populated states an unfair advantage...which they want and enjoy..

Takes a constitutional amendment to do this..Won't Happen & Hasn't Happened will NEVER HAPPEN..

(and the Washington Post knows it)......ALSO...........................................

.....SMALL POPULATED STATES WILL TOTALLY OPPOSE THIS, AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST..

(it ain't the first time this has happened, & won't be the last)....fairness goes out the window when
advantages for small populated states are discussed.

[dware]

8. Jeeez, I wish people would understand this,

there is no way that the smaller states would ever agree to this, hell, it wouldn't even get the necessary 2/3rd's votes needed in Congress, much less 3/4th's of the states needed for ratification.

[Skittles]

12. something HAS to change

why should their votes count more than anyone else's? FUCK THAT

[dware]

14. Don't get me wrong,

I fully agree that something has to change, but I'm just being a realist here and the reality is that it ain't going to change anytime soon.

[ProfessorPlum]

5. We are already a long way down the road to making the EC irrelevant.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[marie999]

11. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be declared unconstitutional

by the Supreme Court because it will never get the consent of Congress. The Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 3.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. pretty sure they need neither Congress nor the S.C.'s consent to do it

they are working within the legal framework that already exists

[marie999]

16. Have you read the Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 3?

I won't write the whole thing out, but it says that states can not make compacts with other states without the consent of Congress. The Supreme Court says that even if Congress approves of such a compact, it is unconstitutional if it is detrimental to any other state.

[ProfessorPlum]

17. _that's_ the thin reed that the pro-EC is going to hang its hopes on?

well, good luck to them, I guess. they'll have a compliant SC, for sure.

[SheltieLover]

6. Sparsely populated stated should also have less senators

[marie999]

9. Getting rid of the Electoral College is almost impossible.

Taking away senators from small states is impossible.

[Claire Oh Nette]

7. Wyoming plan

Better perhaps to expand the electoral college, and the House of Representatives.

from wikipedia:

The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently the State of Wyoming.[1] Under Article One of the United States Constitution, each state is guaranteed at least one representative. If the disparity between the population of the most and least populous states continues to grow, the disproportionality of the U.S. House of Representatives will continue to increase unless the body, whose size has been fixed at 435 since 1929, except for a brief period from 1959 to 1963, is expanded.

We've added states since 1929. Not to mention population. The original census counts did count 3/5s of certain people who had no voice to boost the power of a minority of people. The first four of five presidents were Virginians because of disproportionate representation.

Governing is compromise. Expanding the House and the electoral collage would pacify the GOP while increasing representation.
[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule|
chart shows increase in # of electors and representatives .

[RicROC]

13. the Reapportionment Act of 1929

We need to totally abandon the EC.

But since it requires some complex Constitutional maneuvering to do so, we should revisit the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which capped the # of member in the House to 435.

We should follow the Wyoming Rule and rebalance the # of House seats, which at the same time, rebalances the Electoral College.

And by the way, why does the EC have to be 'Winner Take All'?

[dugog55]

10. The Electoral College should have been abolished right after the Civil War.

James Madison pushed the EC to mollify the South that was greatly outnumbered by the North in population. Allowing slaves to be counted as 3/5s of a person whose votes went with the plantation owner helped the South in Federal Elections. Once the Civil War ended, so should have the Electoral College. Same exact thing with the 2nd Amendment which allowed the South to keep their Slave Patrols (considered Militias) functional to hunt down run-away slaves. After the war it should have been reworded to keep private citizens from amassing anything more than hunting equipment.