Joe Biden: The Electoral College isn't going away

[Eric J in MN]

...and that’s good in that NH would have nothing to do if it did.

Link to tweet

?s=21

// That doesn’t make sense since NH would get attention as the first primary with-or-without the EC.

Biden voted to keep the EC in 1979 and apparently feels the same way now.

[George II]

1. Obviously he's talking about the general election.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. He's referring to relentless GOP efforts to grab the state in a tight election

for the deciding votes.

[OKNancy]

3. The EC is not going away.

No freaking way that a Constitutional amendment would pass.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. That's true. We're stuck with it until that happens

which is not likely to be any time soon.

[elleng]

26. Right, and I'm seriously concerned about a constitutional convention so

don't expect any such 'soon.'

[oldsoftie]

4. I dont agree with doing away with the electoral college. Once the door is opened......

Look at how often the Founders have been quoted this past couple weeks regarding their fear of a president like trump. They were far ahead of their time in many ways; such as equal branches of govt. Yes, I know changes have been made over the years, but the original setup has pretty much stayed with us.
Open the door getting rid of the EC and just watch, the next one will be freedom of speech. And then property rights. And down the shithole we go until we're no longer the US.
If you have kids & grandkids you should be very afraid of this.

[INdemo]

8. Getting rid of the EC and selecting the President the same as we do all other

elected officials is going to eventually lead to loss of freedoms? ? ? ? ?

[oldsoftie]

13. It can, if you start changing things based on polls.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Joe has spoken... guess that settles it.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. "Opening the door" to getting rid of the EC might mean only a constitutional amendment,

and not necessarily a constitutional convention - which would likely to bring about the results you mentioned. But even proposing a constitutional amendment eliminating the EC would be a slow process at best that in the end probably would be unsuccessful. IMO, the EC isn't working anymore even if it seemed to be a good idea at the time, and I would like it to go away, but that's not going to happen in the near future, if ever.

[oldsoftie]

14. Thats probably true.

And trump only won by 75K votes over 3-4 states, even though HE likes to call it a HUGE victory.
The trump voters i know were totally unaware of that fact because, of course, its never talked about.
I think the Dem nominee needs to press that point CONSTANTLY. It will really get under trumps skin. "You only won by 75k votes in 3 states" or whatever the firm numbers are. Just keep hammering that point.

[elleng]

27. zacly

[INdemo]

5. Biden seems to say all the wrong things. Biden is campaigning in the 1970's here in

2020. I would not be surprised if he would announce that he is choosing Walter Mondale as his running mate.

[OldRed2450]

12. Biden is telling the truth.

Is there something wrong with being honest?

[aikoaiko]

18. Yes, if it depressed voter turnout for the Democratic nominee.

obviously.

[OldRed2450]

19. If someone says..

" I plan on doing way with the EC when I am president."

They are LYING. It's what republicans do.

[The Valley Below]

29. Right. Americans like people who give it to the straight.

That's why "Rabid Joe" Biden will be our next president.

The politics of malarkey era is over.

[aikoaiko]

43. It's like when a candidate says he will end gun violence.

There is no expectation that they were actually zero out gun violence, but we take it to mean that they will work to improve the situation.

I expect Joe to say that he's for EC reform or not. If he is, then he can say he'll work toward that goal.

[Skidmore]

22. If the facts about or system depresses

voter turnout because voters aren't educated, how is that his fault. He's right. The electoral college will be an issue. Educate voters.

[LongtimeAZDem]

24. If Democratic turnout is depressed because our nominee tells the truth, then we deserve to lose

Seriously, good god.

[Amishman]

31. Ok, let's promise everyone a pet unicorn if they vote

If motivating voters is more important than truth and reality.

Sure, we'd love to make the EC disappear. We'd like to change Senator apportionment. But those are a political impossibility in the current state. With our broken government we need to focus on the fixable. No malarkey might sound like a silly phrase, but it's a pretty good concept.

[LanternWaste]

49. And what leads you to believe his statement can depress turnout?

Objective data to support the sentiment, or just another bumper sticker?

[aikoaiko]

52. Just an opinion.

Call me crazy, but when you tell your constituents you won't do something they want, some might not vote for you.

[oldsoftie]

15. He's campaigning in the real world, not a fantasy land.

[emmaverybo]

17. The charge that Biden is lost in the 70's always confuses me in that it is but three years ago that

Biden was MVP in the Obama administration. Of course, you said he is saying things in the campaign that would appeal to voters from 50 years ago, so I gather you are not saying his policies are outdated.

His endorsements do not reflect the 70’s as they come from folks with significant political roles either recently or currently.

McFaul? Kerry? Ed Rendell? Keisha Lance Bottoms? Terry McAuliffe? Malcolm Kenyatta? Are these folks stuck in the political landscape of fifty years ago?

From day one, the Biden campaign defined the 2020 battle. Biden’s themes are timeless—unity, inclusivity, democratic values, all of which Trump is an enemy to. Other candidates picked up on Biden’s unity message. Only recently, Warren has echoed Biden on foreign relations and policy.

Speaking of which, surely world leaders could not be so behind the times that this year they were urging Biden to run:

World leaders tell Biden: We need you
The former vice president would bring deep relationships and heavyweight credentials to a 2020 Democratic field lacking in national security experience.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/20/biden-2020-foreign-policy-national-security-1228345

I know you restricted your criticism to what Biden says on the campaign trail, but it has become a trope—this Biden in a time-warp—slapped on to what he says campaigning, debating, even to what he names his bus. Enough. Biden served as VP from 2008 to 2016, actively, working on some of the most pressing issues of the day from gun control to post-war Iraq to violence against women.

You might not like what he has to say, but he is still widely loved and respected in our party, throughout America, and in the world—today’s world.

[OKNancy]

21. +1000

[BlueTsunami2018]

34. How is this the "wrong thing"?

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely zero chance of the EC being done away with. None. Nada.

The wrong thing is acting as if there’s any way this can happen.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. How can Biden have voted to keep the EC when it's in the Constitution?

Congress can't vote to either keep it or get rid of it; the only way to get rid of the EC is through a constitutional amendment. So that vote can't ever have happened.

[tritsofme]

25. It wouldn't surprise me if Biden voted on the question at some point.

At the very least in the context of a “vote-o-rama” where it came before the Senate in a non-binding vote.

[getagrip_already]

37. sheesh, facts are irrelevant? It's what he could have done?

Find a vote, even a proposed amendment, and you would have a point. Find even a sense of the senate vote.

I doubt there has ever been one. But look away. But without one, you are just hyperbolizing.

[LongtimeAZDem]

42. It is true; Senator Bayh proposed amendment in 1979 that failed in the Senate and

Biden did vote against it.

I don't care, but it's true.

[getagrip_already]

44. not sure where you found an actual roll call vote, but lets assume he did....

1979 was a much different time than 2019. Also, he was from the second smallest state in the union.; DE.

If I were running from a small state, I would certainly like the EC. Without it, my state would be a tiny footnote in the voting process. DE only has about 600,000 registered voters total. Maybe 300,000 vote. If he only winds by a few percent, that might be 50k vote difference.

Out of 60-65 MILLION on each side. But the few EC voters does make a difference. An outsized one. So given that perspective, it's understandable.

So no, it's not relevant to today. It might as well never have happened. If it did (I couldn't locate an actual roll call vote - it isn't on the senate.gov website). The vote occurred, but no recorded vote is on the site.

[LongtimeAZDem]

58. I didn't actually; it was cited in an article, and I frankly didn't challenge it, because even if

true, it doesn't matter to me, for the reasons you state.

[Eric J in MN]

60. The Constitution can be amended with votes

...in Congress and ratification by the states.

Joe Biden’s vote in 1979 against a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1979/s161

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

61. As of 1976 there had been only three elections

in which the winner of the EC didn't win the popular vote, and those elections took place under vastly different political and legal circumstances. I don't recall the EC being particularly controversial at all until the 2000 election, so it isn't surprising that the 1976 proposed amendment failed (almost all of them fail). Other prominent Democrats opposed to the resolution were Edmund Muskie, Paul Sarbanes, Thomas Eagleton, Bill Bradley and Daniel Moynihan. Times and circumstances change.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Biden recently spoke about the EC,

...and didn’t say his position changed. He said to the contrary that getting rid of the EC would mean NH would be ignored.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

63. That's true, it would be.

The EC tends to give greater weight to small states, which is why getting rid of it won't be easy. Maybe he doesn't think it's worth the battle - or worth offending voters in New Hampshire or Iowa. It's not a hill to die on, IMO.

[Eric J in MN]

64. Presidential candidates would spend a lot of time

...in NH for the primary, regardless of the Electoral College.

[revmclaren]

10. The Electoral College is in the Constitution.

Voting it out is an impossibility. Someone(s) really doesn't know or care about constitutional law.

Yet another ridiculous Biden bashing post goes down in flames....



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[beachbumbob]

32. the bot attacks swinging into full gear at Biden as he has to go down or GOP is smashed in 2020

we will see the rise of the bernie bros again and the new "warren sisters" before this over

[Polybius]

11. If we do away with the EC, Election Day will be a boring long night (or two or three) if it's close

It's fun an interesting watching each state getting called, and then watching the numbers go up for our candidate.

[dchill]

28. Whatever it takes.

The Electoral College is anything but an institute of higher education.

[jcgoldie]

72. Who cares about that?

Its deciding the fate of the country and the world not watching a ballgame.

[loyalsister]

16. "Because this is how we've always done things"

It the worst reason to maintain a racist voting system. We live in a culture that is very different from the one on which the Constitution is based. Candidates did not have near the reach that they have today, now, people of color and women are eligible to vote, and count as full 100% humans in the census. Poor pitiful white people still have power, crave more, and are desperately fearful of not being in charge. The electoral college serves them and those sentiments. It is no longer necessary. I would hope Biden could acknowledge that it would require a lot of heavy lifting to make the change AND see that it is also a worthwhile goal to consider.

[getagrip_already]

39. No, it's reality. We go to war with the army we have, not the one we want from the movies.....

And he is correct. If there were no ec, small states like nh wouldn't get any media spend, little in the way of face time, and have little clout.

The attention would all be on the population centers. Entire states would be ignored.

That's not necessarily a bad thing from our perspective, but it isn't reality and it won't be. So don't expect someone to campaign like the EC doesn't exist. It does.

The reality is that a majority of state govt's would need to approve a CA and right now, over half are in gop control.

And if we do somehow end up in a constitutional convention, the delegates would be majority right wing gop, and they would rewrite the constitution in trumps image. Every article and amendment would be on the table. Every one. Want to see the vote limited to white affluent men approved by a state agency? Well, it could happen.

Fight todays battles. Win today's elections. Don't blame a candidate for not campaigning like we didn't have an EC.

Shessh. The BDS is strong in this topic.

[loyalsister]

48. White supremacy is okay, then?

That is the original intent of the electoral college, and that is exactly what maintains it. It's not okay with me. And I want a candidate who sees that as a problem.

[getagrip_already]

50. thats a silly connection.....

Bidens position is based on current reality, not historical origins.

Should we not support the constitution at all because it was written by slave holders?

The reality is we have an electoral college and no practical way to get rid of it, no matter how much sense that might make to us.

We don't live in that world.

We control the house. Get nancy to bring an amendment up. Go ahead, then lets talk about how to get it done. But until then, we have the EC.

[loyalsister]

53. A lot has changed

The media allows candidates to have further reach than they did when the Constitution was written, negating the only justification for the EC other than white supremacy. It's possible to acknowledge that problem AND the difficulty in abolishing it. If someone refuses, it suggests to me that they see something good there.

The Electoral College’s Racist Origins
More than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern white voters, the system continues to do just that.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

[getagrip_already]

55. actually.....

there are very strong modern arguments for retaining the EC (I don't hold them, but they have some validity). It isn't just rooted in white supremacy. It goes to the whole fly over state issue.

Notably, that it would disenfranchise smaller states by reducing their voice in the election process. It would almost certainly swing debate to issues of large urban areas and suburbs, leaving a large portion of the country (area wise) on the sidelines.

That may be a good thing, but we are a country that has valued minority opinions. Is it an out sized influence? Perhaps. But that is an argument to be had.

It would be disastrous to run a campaign and ignore the EC. It exists, for better or worse.

[Kaleva]

20. There simply isn't the public support for getting rid of it.

Even those who support getting rid of the EC put as much effort into it as what one does when getting a local post office named after some dignitary.

[SterlingPound]

30. the National populare vote compact

shows that there is

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

[Kaleva]

35. The lack of action shows that there is little public support

It's one thing to answer a poll question and quite another to put time, effort and/or money into attempting to address a situation. it's human nature to do little in regard to a situation one doesn't think is important and to put forth great effort into addressing a situation that one thinks is very important. Neither you or I see much effort being made by people in attempting to get rid of the EC. Thus one has to conclude it's not very important to most.

[SterlingPound]

36. i find that argment lacks substance in a country that has more non voters than voters

and colorado just had it ready to pass until their new governor scuttled the hard work of good people wanting real representation at the ballot.

by your reasoning, there is no real interest in the era amendment

because it has been around for a while and no action

[Kaleva]

56. Compare the civil rights movement and Vietnam ant-war movement

People dedicated their lives for the cause they believed in. Some suffered hardship, some were arrested or beaten, and even some were killed. They thought their cause was so important that they were willing to expend great effort and risk much.

I like my yard to look good but I don't tell people that. But folks can tell it's important to me because of the results and some have come up to me and complemented me on it. I could be just the opposite where I tell people I like my yard to look good but don't even mow it. People will know me to be a bullshitter then.

Your comment:

"by your reasoning, there is no real interest in the era amendment"

It certainly isn't a hot topic in this primary. Lack of interest I guess.

[SterlingPound]

59. As of July 2019, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia.

Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College and 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.


"The lack of action shows that there is little public support"

"by your reasoning, there is no real interest in the era amendment"

So yea it seems you still have some weeds in that garden

[Kaleva]

65. So you are crowing about modifying the EC system.

Where the states award their EC votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

"Enforcement, however, could be very difficult without congressional approval, according to constitutional law experts. And the pact would be highly vulnerable to legal challenges, they say."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/us/electoral-college.html

One sees little effort to get Congress to go along nor does the Dem controlled House seem to have any interest in taking it up. One would think that if there was wide spread support, then the House would have passed something by now or at least be seriously considering it.

I find it humorous to read about people who get up on a box, thump their chest, grit there teeth and put on their war face even though they aren't actually doing much of anything besides putting on a show.

[SterlingPound]

66. good thing other constitutional experts think that it doesn't take congressional approval

SINCE IT IS THE STATES THAT SET THE POLICY AND SO IT DOESNT TAKE CONGRESS TO OK IF A STATE GOES BY POPULAR VOTE DELEGATION OR WINNER TAKE ALL


https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/lawsuits-filed-invalidate-state-winner-take-all-laws
Existing winner-take-all laws are state laws—they are not part of the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors was never debated by the 1787 Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In 1789, presidential electors were chosen from congressional districts in Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia, and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures appointed presidential electors in the other states.

In the nation’s first competitive presidential election in 1796, Thomas Jefferson lost the Presidency to John Adams by three electoral votes in the Electoral College. Jefferson lost the election because presidential electors were chosen in 1796 by district in the heavily Jeffersonian states of Virginia and North Carolina, and Jefferson lost one district in each state. Had Jefferson received all of the electoral votes from Virginia and North Carolina, he would have won the Presidency. Jefferson and his supporters became even more alarmed about losing electoral votes in Virginia when Jeffersonian candidates lost several congressional districts in the 1798 midterm elections in Virginia.

On January 12, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote James Monroe (then governor of Virginia, and later President):

“On the subject of an election by a general ticket [winner-take-all], or by districts, … all agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be general; but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all], it is folly and worse than folly for the other 6 not to do it.”

As a result, the Virginia Legislature quickly passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all of Virginia's electoral votes.

Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby assuring John Adams of all the state’s electoral votes in 1800.

This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant political party adopted winner-take-all so that it could deliver the maximum number of electoral votes to its party’s nominee. Ten states enacted winner-take-all by 1824 when Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said:

“The general ticket system [winner-take-all], now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”

By 1836, all but one state had enacted laws specifying that their state’s voters would vote for presidential electors on a winner-take-all basis. By 1880, all states were using this system.

In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Cleveland won the national popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. When Democrats won control of the legislature in the then-regularly-Republican state of Michigan in 1890, they replaced winner-take-all with district election of presidential electors. The Republicans challenged the Democrat’s change. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld district elections and ruled in McPherson v. Blacker:

“The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket [i.e., the winner-take-all rule], nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. … In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”

The Republicans restored winner-take-all in Michigan as soon as they regained control of the legislature.

Maine adopted district elections for its electors in 1969, and Nebraska did so in 1992.

Massachusetts has changed its method of appointing electors 11 times. Its most recent legislative action in this area was adoption of the National Popular Vote interstate compact. The compact will go into effect when it is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538).

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim that state winner-take-all laws violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the First Amendment.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment states:

“No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives each state the power to choose the method of appointing its presidential electors. It states:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows: “Each State shall appoint, in such 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."

In the 1968 case of Williams v. Rhodes (393 U.S. 23), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Article II's grant of power to the states is subject to the 14th Amendment.

"There of course can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution. For example, Congress is granted broad power to ‘lay and collect Taxes,’ but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Nor can it be thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws. Clearly, the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were intended to bar the Federal Government and the States from denying the right to vote on grounds of race and sex in presidential elections. ... Obviously we must reject the notion that Art. II, § 1, gives the States power to impose burdens on the right to vote where such burdens are expressly prohibited in other constitutional provisions. We therefore hold that no State can pass a law regulating elections that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that ‘No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.’”

[Kaleva]

67. You are putting stuff but still not showing dedicated support for getting rid of the EC

What you are arguing for is a modification of the current system. I don't have an issue with a state going away from the winner take all method and instead appropriating electors by how a candidate did in each congressional district and state wide. If any state decides to do that, that's fine by me. There is precedence for such a system as you have shown. The problem with what you and others are advocating is to award electors on the national popular vote. For that, one may need approval of Congress or even a Amendment to the Constitution.

[SterlingPound]

68. "For that, one may need approval of Congress or even a Amendment to the Constitution."

"May" is the right word

we can both find experts to agree with our side for if we do or not

as for dedicated support

that people keep bringing it up shows support to me

that it was just passed in one state and was supposed to pass in another except for the reversal of a new governor shows that there are still people backing and trying to advance this proposal.

[Kaleva]

69. I would agree that it would be more fair if every state adopted the district method

However, may lead to a candidate not getting a majority of the electoral college votes and the election would go to the House. An amendment would be needed to award the election to the candidate that got a plurality of the EC votes.

[SterlingPound]

70. that is just the risk we have to take that every once in a while an

aberration comes along that no one ever thought would happen

and we end up going to the flip of a coin or the length of two straws or the house for a vote

it can't be helped so go for how much it helps over the one or two times it can hurt.

[Kaleva]

73. I want to thank you for the interesting discussion

Your post #66 is very interesting.

While we disagree on the level of support for changes, I think we both agree that changes ought to be explored and maybe implemented.

[Joe941]

23. He is correct if we elect him...

[BannonsLiver]

38. It doesn't matter who we elect

Unless you can get 2/3 of the state legislatures to ratify a change in the process it isn’t happening. This whole thread is a testament to the value of remedial civics courses for adults. Pitiful.

[getagrip_already]

40. and right now.....

Over half the state legislatures are controlled by the gop.

In fact, they almost have 2/3. If they ever get there, they could force a constitutional convention and completely rewrite the entire thing. All of it could be changed.

That would mean a new country. With laws that would not be anything but brutal to the masses and voting would be a joke.

[LanternWaste]

51. He is correct regardless of the Democrat we elect...

(I get it... you had to say something yet you simply couldn't find that bit of relevance needed, so you simply wrote another banal bumper sticker)

[LongtimeAZDem]

41. It wasn't a vote to eliminate the Electoral College, but to change it to popular vote by state

It was Senate Joint resolution 28, 1979 - "A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States". It failed, 51-48.

Why did Biden vote against it? Don't know, ask him.

While you're at it, ask Sanders why he still hadn't gotten a job to support his son at that point.

[killaphill]

45. Very simple

Biden was a Senator representing Delaware. A small state with 3 electoral votes. He was voting in the interest of his state.

[LongtimeAZDem]

46. Sure. This is one of the lamest attacks on him yet, IMO

[MineralMan]

47. He's right. It's not going away.

The Constitutional amendment that would be required to do that will not be enacted by Congress, nor ratified by enough states. Besides, such an amendment won't even reach the floor of either house of Congress, and particularly not in the senate.

So, Biden is correct. That is the reality we have to deal with. We need a 50-state campaign plan.

[delisen]

54. It can go away but it will take leadership. nt

[I_UndergroundPanther]

57. Ec is made up of rich unelected people

And the EC and gerrymandering favors republicans and the southern vote.

We should get rid of the. Ec and gerrymandering.

[jcgoldie]

71. No se puede!

Seems a common theme with Joe.