Stanford professor stumps for electoral (college) alternative

[RamboLiberal]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/24/MNGIHK4CSQ1.DTL

A Stanford University computer science professor has come up with an idea to circumvent the more than 200-year-old Electoral College system and institute a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States.

The proposal by John Koza, who also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket, is receiving serious consideration by lawmakers in several states. Legislators in California, New York, Colorado, Illinois and Missouri have sponsored bills to enact such a plan.

Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The plan doesn't require all 50 states to join, but a combination of states that represent a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed.

Supporters say the proposal would avoid such controversial results as the 2000 presidential election when Republican George W. Bush was declared the winner despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore, a Democrat. There were three other instances in the history of the United States -- 1824, 1876 and 1888 -- when the winner of the popular vote lost in the Electoral College vote.

Proponents say Koza's proposal is ingenious because it would avoid the immensely difficult task of trying to get rid of the Electoral College system by amending the U.S. Constitution.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. I have a simpler idea

Let's amend the Constitution.

The President and Vice President of the United States shall be chosen by direct popular vote.

Each citizen of the United States is entitled to one and only one vote for each electoral contest and measure on the ballot in any and all federal, state and local elections.

[Karenca]

2. Yes, so simple--

Why do they pretend it's so freaking complicated?

Nevermind, you don't have to answer that.

[Massacure]

36. Because its easier to get 11 states to agree than 34???

The 16 smallest states would be more than eager to torpedo such a proposal because it means that they are less influential.

[krkaufman]

48. Exactly. The small states currently have MUCH more power...

... due to the Senatorial bonus in electors. And they're not likely to surrender that power willingly.

(There's a reason that the Red States are also the Red Ink States.)

[mcscajun]

3. The state route is quicker and easier.

Seriously. It requires fewer states to accomplish than a constitutional amendment.

Yet I'm not holding my breath for it.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Quicker, but less certain to achieve the desired result

So what happens it a state backs out on the agreement?

Considering what's at stake, it would be easy to draw that scenario.

[krkaufman]

49. I've thought about this, and have wondered ....

... whether that condition could be written into each state's laws. If any state backs out of the agreement, all states back out. (Or maybe any state braking the agreement would be fined some amount.)

[Justitia]

5. The current system favors less-populous Red states. We are ruled by repug

repugs in whose favor this system works.

Do you really believe the current Congress (or any mbrs of the repug party) would ever introduce such a constitutional amendment?

Do you really believe we would get enough less-populous red states to agree (need 2/3 for ratification) to dilute their power to rule the rest of us?

Not a chance in hell.

I like this guy's idea of a coalition agreement between our much more populous blue state heavy hitters. It's a lot quicker too!

I'm so tired of getting screwed by the tyrannical red minority.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Actually, that's nonsense

True, in recent history it's worked that way, but that is subject to a change in demographics.

Actually, I think as a Californian I would be losing more by abolishing the electoral college than somebody in Arkansas or North Dakota. A presidential candidate wants my vote more badly than he wants the vote of somebody in a small state. Although Bush has done it twice (by hook and crook) and Jimmy Carter did it once, it is not easy to win in the electoral college after losing the popular vote in California.

By going to direct popular vote, my vote is worth exactly what Farmer Brown's in Kansas is worth -- no more and no less.

[Justitia]

8. Do you understand how electors are distributed?? Nonsense, indeed!

Small, rural states are way over-represented in the Electoral College due to the fact they get electors based on the number of their US Representatives PLUS TWO MORE FOR EVERY STATE REGARDLESS OF POPULATION.

This is the same way we get screwed out of proportionate representation in the Senate.

Before you call my post "nonsense", I suggest you educate yourself on the math involved in the Electoral College and the resultant over-representation of small, rural, RED states.

Then you can try to convince me that any small, rural, red state would ever agree to give up the extra clout they get in the Electoral College.

And with that magic trick, we can begin to amend the Constitution in the direction of the popular will of the People.

:grr:

[Jack Rabbit]

10. And before you retort

Ask yourself how much time candidates spend in large states courting the votes that will get them a large chunk of electors as opposted to time spent in Nevada or Alaska.

[Justitia]

11. Did you even read what I wrote?? This is a well-publicized weakness of

the current electoral system.

That is why Bush didn't need to campaign in the incredibly populous state of CA (or NY) - all he had to do was win over enough of those small, rural red states to equal your number of electoral votes.

THEIR VOTES COUNT MORE.

Do the electoral math. See 1988 and Florida for a good example.

Edited to add:

If you want to keep the electoral college AND make it more fair, take the existing electoral votes of all states and SUBTRACT TWO.

Of course, this would also take a Constitutional Amendment, and ONCE AGAIN, those small, rural, red states will never agree to dilute their power in the EC.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Did you read what I wrote?

That is a situation unique to Bush. Up to now, no presidential candidate wjp actually entertained hopes of winning has dared to ignore California.

Also, Bush can make up for California by carrying Texas and Florida, two large state where he and Cheney spent a great deal of time. In addition, they spent time in Ohio, another large state that made up for their lack of comptitiveness in California and New York.

[Justitia]

18. But now, in our newly polarized Red/Blue USA, your CA vote can be ignored

in favor of the Red State voting bloc, because their votes are weighted more heavily than yours.

So, depending on the representational math in each state, it takes about 3 CAers to count as much as 1 South Dakotan / Nevadan/ Wyoming, etc.

Do you find it very democratic that voting blocs of the smallest states can overrun the populations of CA and NY? And that they can consequently be ignored by candidates who pander to "The Heartland" or "Real America" or whatthefuckever they are calling the flyover states?

The EC was invented before TV and the US Postal System.
Now that communication stretches from coast to coast, I bet most Americans could name whoever was running in the Dem / Repub party in a national election (if they cared enough to know).
So the inferred ignorance of voters in small states is no longer a valid argument.

Small, rural states tend to vote for conservatives - these votes count more than yours.

And obviously if all Bush needed was the Red "Heartland / Real America", he can completely ignore people like you on either coast.

Does this seem like an equitable system to you?

[Jack Rabbit]

24. I think we agree it is not equitable

We are in disagreement as to who benefits from the present system.

Bush and Cheney ignored California because they had no chance here. They didn't make up for it in South Dakota, Nevada or Wyoming; they made up for it in Florida, Texas and Ohio -- that is, in other large states in which their prospects were much better. South Dakota, Nevada and Wyoming put together do not have half as many votes as any one of the following: California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Florida.

Consequently, I do not agree with you. It is not a matter of small rural states voting red vs. large urban ones voting blue; Ohio and Texas have large urban populations, yet they vote GOP (we will lay aside the issue of whether Bush really carried Ohio or whether he would have carried a free and fair election in Florida).

Moral: If a presidential candidate doesn't carry one large state, he must make sure that he carries another. No one is going to win a presidential election by carrying small, rural states alone.

[fishwax]

22. bush didn't campaign in california b/c he didn't have a shot in hell there

People in Nevada and New Mexico have fewer voters per electors than people in Ohio and Florida, so in a certain sense their vote carries more sway over the electors. But their electors matter much, much less in the grand scheme of things, because the electoral votes of, say, Wyoming, obviously don't stack up against the electoral votes of California. That's why, even though all four states in the first sentence were in play during the 2000 election, politicians spent much more time and energy in the larger states--because they matter more.

Under the electoral college system, voters in small states have more pull over their electors, but their electors have much less pull in the national scene.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Well put

I'll have to save this post.

[Justitia]

26. True, but I'm guessing we have a new Red State voting bloc.

In our very polarized, highly-partisan political atmosphere, it seems like our elections are hinging on a smaller and smaller group of people.

[fishwax]

29. it's true that our elections swing on much smaller margins

I think that has exacerbated the pull of large states. Witness the last two elections, which hinged on Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

[Ediacara]

38. You're actually completely ignored in California

Democrats have an effective lock on the state in presidential elections, so no Republican bothers to campaign there. Additionally, you ARE horrifyingly underrepresented in the electoral college. Each of your electoral votes counts for 615,000 people. Each electoral vote in Wyoming counts for 164,000 people. That's almost FOUR TIMES more electoral clout. To have the same electoral clout as Wyomingites, California would have to have 206 electoral votes, or Wyoming would have to be reduced to 0.8 electoral votes. As for your Kansas example, having your vote count as much as Farmer Brown's would be a big improvement for you, since each Kansan electoral college vote counts for 448,000 people. To match Kansas and California, Kansas would have to reduce their electoral votes to 4.4, or California would increase theirs to 75.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Response

Yes, we were ignored in California because the issue of the presidential election was decided before the campaign started. It had nothing to do with whether we have 55 electoral votes or 3.

In most presidential election years, we don't feel that neglected out here. It was a very strange experience for us, and in some ways a not really bad one.

Your second point is the same one Justina tries to bring up. I don't care how you do the math. My popular vote still contributes to a block of votes the size of which is 20% of what is needed to win. Farmer Brown's vote contributes to getting a block of electors about one-eighth that size. That make my vote worth more to a presidential candidate.

If Farmer Brown is so over-represented n the electoral college, how come presidential candidates don't spend as more time and money trying to get his vote than they usually spend trying to get mine?

Even if California was ignored in the last election, the fact is that most of the effort (read: time and money) was spent in other large states, such as Ohio, with a larger prize of electoral votes.

So where did the candidates put more effort? In Ohio or Kansas? It doesn't take a mathematician to figure out why.

[TheVirginian]

21. It doesn't over-represent them nearly as much as you think.

There is over-representation in the Electoral College, aimed only at states with one congressional district. But you greatly overstate how large the disparity is.

[Justitia]

23. To me, the mathematical advantage is pretty obvious.

In 1988 the combined voting age population of the six least populous states (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) plus the District of Columbia was 3,119,000, and carrying 21 Electoral votes between them.

The State of Florida, which had 9,614,000 persons of voting age, carried exactly the same number of Electoral College votes: 21.

Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried only about one third the weight of a potential vote in any of the other states listed.

[fishwax]

27. that example just illustrates the electoral advantage for big states

If a candidate finds himself in need of 21 electoral votes, will he spend his time, money, and energy campaigning and trying to meet the needs of voters in Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, AND Wyoming, in the hopes that he can get them all? Or will he say: "screw the small states, I'm going to Disney World."

Smaller states have a mathematical advantage in voters per elector. But politicians on the national scene don't care about their electors nearly as much.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. And if the candidate had equal chances in Florida and the others . . .

Where do you suppose he would spend his time?

It would make more sense to campaign in Florida and win there, even if by a narrow margine, than to depend on carrying all the others in order to make up for not carrying Florida.

No matter how you do the math, a popular vote in Florida contributes to gaining 21 electoral votes; a popular vote in Alaska contributes to gaining three.

[Ediacara]

39. That's not true

Each California elector represents 615,000 people, and just for this thought experiment we'll keep it at a baseline of 55 votes.

Each Texas elector represents 613,000 people (1.003x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 34 to 33.9.

Each Washington elector represents 536,000 people (1.15x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 11 to 9.6.

Each South Carolina elector represents 502,000 people (1.23x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 8 to 6.5.

Each Kansas elector represents 448,000 people (1.37x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 6 to 4.4.

Each Montana elector represents 301,000 people (2.04x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 3 to 1.5.

Each Alaska elector represents 209,000 people (2.94x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 3 to 1.0.

Each Wyoming elector represents 165,000 people (3.73x more important than California) and their ECV should be reduced from 3 to 0.8.

That is of course if you want to keep the system and make it even marginally equitable. I'm in favor of scrapping it myself...

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Now tell us how much jow much money they spend

Now tell us how much jow much money they spend in large states as opposed to small ones and I think you'll see who the present system really favors (hint: it isn't Alaska or Wyoming).

Of course, I favor scrapping the EC, too.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Exactly

The only system that makes any sense.

It should include a run-off election provision, to make the sort of thing that just happened in Mexico unlikely.

[EFerrari]

16. Yes! Makes it harder to steal. I think. n/t

[Hosnon]

40. Simpler...honestly? You do realize how insanely difficult it is to amend

the Constitution right?

And why would states that would lose power vote for such an amendment?

[onenote]

4. and why would any state agree to this?

Voting for an approach that tells the citizens of your state that even if a majority of them prefer one candidate, the state is going to cast its electoral votes for another candidate doesn't strike me as a good way to remain an elected official in that state.

[hughee99]

9. So a state's electoral votes would go

to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how the people of that state voted. Do I understand this correctly? I believe we have a term for this, disenfranchisement.

[last_texas_dem]

33. But

this would only go into effect if there were enough states committed to voting for the national popular vote winner for the winner to prevail in the electoral college. It's no more disenfranchisement than New York Republicans and Texas Democrats (as well as members of minority parties in the 48 other states) are being disenfranchised by the winner-take-all in each state system that the Electoral College promotes. At least with a national popular vote system (or a system that essentially amounts to this, such as the one proposed by the article) everyone's vote countsfor something.

[hughee99]

34. A national popular vote system

would require a change to the constitution, and once that is done, there would be a different system for counting the votes. IMHO, this doesn't amount to a popular vote system, since it is leaving the current process in place and makes a "deal" between states to circumvent the constitutional method of counting the votes. How would this even be implemented? Would state legislatures pass a law requiring this? What state legislature in it's right mind would pass a law that says that even if someone wins the state, they may be legally bound to give it's electoral votes to someone else against the will of it's own voters? Of course, it would surely get contested to the supreme court.

It seems like we're finding ways to get around a system that doesn't work, when the solutions could create just as many issues as we're facing now. If we look at this as "in the last election, if we would have had this process...", but looking to only the most recent elections is not a basis for creating a long term fix. Over longer periods of time, demographics change, and what could benefit our party in the short term may come back and screw us in 30 years. Leaving aside the specific vote-counting fraud issue, which is a matter for another thread, if we want to really fix the electoral system, we need to change it constitutionally, or we're just going to create a whole new set of issues.

[onenote]

41. never going to happen

While on some level it can be argued that the losers in a winner take all vote are "disenfranchised" that is not the same as a state deciding that the winner (in terms of the votes of the state's constituents) should be declared the loser because of the preferences of voters in other states. Its never going to happen.

[Totallybushed]

13. I don't know that

the 2000 vote was controversial because Gore won the popular vote but lost Florida and the Electoral College. I think it was controversial because Florida was so very, very, close, because of the allegations of election fraud by the Republicans, and because it went to court. because half the country KNOWS it was stolen and Republicans are traitors, and half the country KNOWS that it wasn't and that Democrats are sore losers. (For the record, I think Gore won).

But will this proposal solve the problem? I don't know" I don't think so, actually.

Why? Well, if the allegations of election fraud in Ohio in 2004 are correct, Kerry would have won the Electoral college without the popular mandate. Unless the Republicans, as alleged, also stole the nationwide popular vote. But assume that Ohio was the only state they did this in. Then Kerry would have won the Presidency as a minority President.

Also, given the current Supreme Court, I don't see it passing Constitutional muster. I could be wrong here, of course. But remember, this blade will cut both ways.

[Odin2005]

15. The electoral college privilages swing-state suburbanites over...

everyone else. The urban poor are taken for granted because the Dem party bosses know NY, California, Massachusetts, etc. will go blue. In the same way the Pukes can take the libertarian types in the plains states for granted.

[EFerrari]

17. And in taking the urban poor "for granted", we are also taking

"for granted" that their votes will be targeted for suppression every effen' time. Black soldiers are a great target, for example.

This needs to stop NOW.

[Justitia]

19. Exactly, the EC can actually depress voter turnout & a party can use

that to it's advantage.

For instance, I am a true blue Democrat in Texas. This state majority isn't going blue (nationally) any time soon (ugh), but we have approximately 40% of the state population (based on 2004 vote) who have no representation whatsoever.

Texas gets the same number of electoral votes no matter what the turnout is, I'm in the 40% minority, so why vote? Especially in the "winner take all" scenario.

This works to the dominant party's advantage in the down-ballot races, and believe it or not, that is crucial here in Texas as the repubs only have a slight majority in the TX house (due to fecking gerrymandered redistricting).

They would love to convince us Dems that our votes are worthless and not to show up for any votes at all. The EC confirms this on the national vote.

[TheVirginian]

20. That's not the EC, its the Winner Takes All system.

It is very possible to have the Electoral College work under a proportional system, like Maine, and still have the advantages of the Electoral College. The winner-takes-all system is the real bad guy here.

[Justitia]

30. But the Maine-Nebraska system would have to be implemented by EVERY state

to be fair, and that is not going to happen.

Not to mention, it opens up the possibility of weakening the 2 party system - not saying that's a bad thing, but that creates institutional opposition to adopting Maine-Nebraska everywhere.

[w4rma]

31. I can't support this with the voting machine fraud that is going on.

One state with **massive** fraud could move an election by 10%.

[hedgehog]

37. We'll know one way or the other after the November elections

That's when we'll find out whether they can cook the books in every precinct or whether they have to concentrate on a chosen few.


All in all, I like this proposal for its effects down-slate. How many Democrats in New York don't bother to vote because they know the Democratic Presidential candidate will carry the state? When they know they're canceling out someone in Wyoming, they'll come out to vote.

[BootinUp]

32. Interesting,

but I doubt that enough states to make 270 votes would decide to participate.

[Orrin_73]

35. The chimp was chosen by an electoral college the first time

the electoral college was the supreme court (6-5).

[PATRICK]

42. I think the lawyers

and not the numbers scientists had better examine this one. It is an end run around a Constitutional amendment. It uses the already heady power of the states to limit the power of other states. it could provoke a law confrontation that could seriously redefine the power of states without amending the Constitution. Then the people in each state lost by the plurality candidate would in turn try to upset this determinism by mounting a challenge of their own.

I am a little leery of ingenious end runs. It seems the other side has an inordinate love affair with convenient abuses of the easy road. I think it is better as a tool to bludgeon the smaller states out of their smug security so that real change can be worked out together, maybe also without the need(or evasive stall) of getting Constitutional change.

Also this ignores the fact that electors are chosen by a slate for the state's winning candidate, NOT as representing the state! This seems a blatant change that makes the electors totally different from the past and from electors in other states. They also cannot be forcefully bound to the state's will but to their own choice.

Currently, with Bush rigging, it is easier now for the GOP to garner a plurality than to separately tweak(by necessity) many battleground states. I wonder about the enthusiasm.

[melm00se]

44. I have a feeling that

even if it was passed, it would not pass either state or federal level constitutional challenges.

In both cases, disenfranchisement will pop up as the major complaint. This compact would basically invalidate the electoral vote of these citizens.

[cobalt1999]

45. how about just leaving the poor ol' constitution alone for awhile?

Haven't the republicans done enough? Geez, I'd be happy with just following it for awhile.

[krkaufman]

47. There's a somewhat MAJOR flaw in that plan.

Unless each states' election process could be guaranteed as accurate, this solution would still allow a few corrupt states to easily flip the entire election. A few states could still easily flip enough votes to cause a shift of a few hundred thousand votes, and thereby flip an election.

And if we're going off popular vote, a close total in the popular vote would require a NATIONWIDE recount of votes. Can you say "ugh!"?

The Electoral College *does* have some benefits, including segmentation of voting problems.

Much would be aided if each state were to apportion their electors according to the proportion of the vote obtained by each candidate -- and splitting the Senatorial bonus between the top 2 vote winners, somewhat negating the imbalanced Senatorial bonus.

All that said, in the end, were we to have a trustworthy voting system, I'd prefer that we elect the President through a direct, nationwide, instant run-off (majority support) voting system.