Let's Abolish the Electoral College!

[kennetha]

Do you realize that with a shift of about 600,000 votes from Obama to McCain from people who actually voted (or by turning out an additional 1,200,000 people to vote) in the states that flipped from red to blue last night, McCain could have won a majority of the electoral college while still getting creamed in the popular vote? If I'm counting correctly, Obama's total margin of victory in the flipping states was about 1,100,000. So if 600k of those folks had decided for McCain rather than Obama or if just 1,200,000 more Repugnants had turned out and voted McCain, then we'd have a president elected by a minority of the the populace once again -- and this time he would have lost the popular vote by 6 million votes or so, not the half million that the selected, not elected GW lost it by.

I find such an outcome, even though it remains, fortunately, purely hypothetical, truly repugnant. It is made possible only by an outmoded 18th century institution that deserves to be relegated to the past. We should abolish that thing now and elect our President directly.

We'd actually see a lot more campaigning by both parties here in California and they couldn't just use us to raise money. Admittedly, presidential candidates would no long have to pander to people who live in places where there are more cows and grass and waste dumps than there are people. But frankly, that's as it should be.

[MrCoffee]

1. .

[Shardik]

27. Literally LOL!

Thanks for that.

No, however many problems we might have, the EC is a much better answer than a simple Majority Rules paradigm for obvious reasons.

[thunder rising]

2. The Electoral College keeps small states in play.

If the Electoral College is eliminated only the NE and coastal edges will be represented.

[kennetha]

5. Is Keeping small states in play worth the price?

Clearly, McCain's only hope was to pull of an inside straight win via narrowly threading the needle to win the EC. He had given up hope of moving numbers on a national scale to win the popular vote weeks ago. How would we have felt if Obama was the choice of 6 million more Americans than McCain, yet McCain became president through eking out a victory via the EC? I would have felt cheated, personally. I recognize that the EC is the law of the land. And I know that the founders put the EC in because their feared the aroused passions of the people. But the EC no longer plays a deliberative role in our politics, if it ever really did.

It was a mistake. It serves no worthy purpose. And no, giving people who live in the vast open spaces proportionately more power and influence is not a worthy purpose. it should be discarded as a relic of the past.

[Skidmore]

8. What if you had a whole bunch of small states that were blue

and some big states that were red? Wouldn't you want those blue votes to count for something?

The electoral college is a check to mob rule.

[Telly Savalas]

10. The nationwide popular vote consititutes mob rule?

It's up to residents of states like Wyoming whose votes have disproportionately greater weight to keep us unwashed masses in our place?

[doc03]

6. Now only a few swing states are represented

I'm in Ohio, give us a break we can't turn on the TV, answer the phone or pick up the mail without getting a political ad.

[cemaphonic]

11. I don't know - it seems like with the current setup, both large states and small states are ignored.

It's all the 10-20 EV swing states that get all the attention.

Nevertheless, that is certainly the perception, so it's not going to change ever.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I used to buy that argument but not after this election

Obama's strategy to win the electoral college (particularly Ohio) was to spend a good deal of time and resources in rural areas to pick off a chunk of the GOP's traditional vote. We saw this in the primaries as well with the delegate system. It seems to me that if there were no electoral college we would see Obama campaign as he did in Ohio but on the macro level. Certainly he wouldn't have ignored the cities but he would also try to drum up turnout in the less populated areas to force the GOP onto defense.

Likewise the GOP would have to campaign in the smaller areas to make sure their base turns out.

[surrealAmerican]

35. ... the exact same small states that would need to ratify ...

... the constitutional amendment necessary to abolish the electoral college. In other words this will NEVER happen. It would require a large majority of small states deciding they want less influence.

[Pyrzqxgl]

3. I was waiting for this one. Its become a traditional part of every election.

Maybe it'll even happen someday, but don't hold your breath.

[donco6]

4. Yeah, and why don't we just hold elections in the N.E?

We out here wouldn't have to bother. All those lines and stuff. What a bore.

[kennetha]

7. If the EC were abolished

California and Texas would become prime stomping grounds for votes. Now because the one is reliably democratic and the other reliably republican nobody campaigns in either one except to raise money. Even if Dems lose Texas, there are a LOT of democratic votes in Texas that could be added to our national total in a direct election that are simply irrelevant in an EC election. Same for the Republicans in CA. There are lot more Republican votes out here, even in a losing year, than there are in many of the small to medium sized states combined. In a direct election, a republican candidate would try to drive up hi vote here even if she was destined to lose the state.

[Perky]

9. I prefer the Nebraska/Maine Formulation

It would make us all vote counters totally insane,

[squirecam]

12. NO

The rethugs are now a regional southern party.

Those are the only EV they can count on for a long while. Obama will continue to being in new voters, while the rethugs lose theirs.

Therefore, the EC should stay.

[suston96]

13. My candidate won. The electoral college is just fine. The long lines were worth it..... nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. Let's abolish electro-fraud "voting" machines and the corporate media

Nothing else will be right with elections until both of those things happen.

[opihimoimoi]

15. Us Small Staters would be at disadvantage....we should keep the damn thing

its there for a REASON

[W_HAMILTON]

31. I'm from a relatively small state.

And I don't agree with you.

Why the hell should smaller states have a relatively larger say than they should in the presidential election? My vote is no different than an individual's from New York. Plus, why should larger states be punished? As Jon Stewart said, "New York is just made up of a lot of small towns, all in one building." Why should my vote count for more than their votes, just due to the Electoral college?

Small states already get equal representation in the Senate, one of the most powerful bodies in the entire government. That is enough.

[opihimoimoi]

33. LOL....Ok Ok...I agree to disagree.......

:toast:

[Rockholm]

16. NO. We Dems OWN the Electoral Map Now.

The republican strategy will be to abolish the electoral college because we have reshaped the map. They can never win (well, OK, they might)again based on the states we won last night.

[kennetha]

17. We own the popular vote now.

The Repugs are over 7 million votes behind us in the popular vote They needed only to switch about 600K to win the EC. And that was McCain's hope and strategy all along. He came closer to the presidency than you realize because of the absurdity of the electoral college.

[TheKentuckian]

18. I think it has to stay but we need to push

for a more reflective type of representation. Like was said above, the NE/ME model would be a great compromise and make both parties work to get every vote rather than those of a hand full of states.

[anonymous171]

19. Nah, then only CA, NY, and TX would matter.

[kennetha]

20. not true

States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida would still matter and matter a lot.

But here's an exercise. Figure out a way to get to 270 electorate votes, carrying states totaling the smallest possible % of the population. I don't know the answer but I bet you could get there by narrowly carrying a bunch of small to medium sized states that together constitute a good deal less than 50% of the population.

[donco6]

23. And this has been done . . . when?

What is the problem you're solving?

[kennetha]

36. the point isn't that it has happened but that it theoretically could

by the way states containing roughly 45% of the population contain enough electoral votes to make a majority.

If a candidate one each of those states, by a slim margin, 23% of the voting population would be enough to give the candidate an electoral college victory. A candidate could theoretically do that without winning a single vote in CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, MI, NC, GA, or MA which between them contain 55% of the population.

I'm not predicting that that will happen anytime soon, just pointing out the extremes made possible by the current system.

[taught_me_patience]

21. Shouldn't CA matter?

Scranton gets 20 visits from the candidates and Los Angeles, the second largest city in America gets NONE. WTF.

[doc03]

34. Obama and McCain both made more stops in Ohio

then any other state and spent a gazillion bucks here on ads. Give us an f---g break.

[taught_me_patience]

22. Something is seriously wrong when Scranton gets 20

visits and Los Angeles gets NONE. Seriously, candidates completely ignored NYC, Los Angeles, and SanFrancisco, which are major cultural and financial centers of America. Meanwhile... shitsville Ohio gets pandered to. If this shit doesn't change, I hope that California turns a bit more conservative. Maybe then, we'll get some attention.

taught.

[billyoc]

24. Good luck.

[progressiveforever]

25. Jimmy Carter said in 2000--"It should be abolished, but will never be."

He is right. It takes 38 of our 50 states to agree to the change. The small states to give the power they wield. It takes nearly 4 California votes to equal one Wyoming one--it isn't fair; but I can't see it ever change.

[jacksonian]

26. i might add the EC woked fine last night

The popular winner and the EC winner were the same, and it allowed us to find out Obama won without staying up all night.

[Donkey_Punch_Dubya]

28. In every election, there is a "what if" scenario that flips it with

a small percentage of votes. On uselectionatlas.org, there are "what if" scenarios for all past presidential elections, and in all cases, only a couple million or fewer votes changing in the right states changes the winner.

Clinton would've lost both times with a million or so changing. Bush would've lost with 600 and 120000 changing in his two elections.

But it never happens in reality. The only times a popular vote loser won the EC was when the popular vote was very close, not a 7.5 million ass kicking like last night.

Besides, even if you had enough votes to flip Ohio, Florida, Indiana and North Carolina, Obama won all kerry states by at least 8 percent, and won Iowa, New Mexico and colorado by 7-12 percent, and just those 3 plus Kerry is 273 votes. He wasn't close to losing the EC at all.

But I still think EVs should be given proportionally in every state.

[CLANG]

29. Maybe we should just move to IRV?

[Phoonzang]

32. We could just make it proportional to reflect the popular vote.

If a state has 20 electoral votes and 50 percent of the people vote for one candidate and 50 percent for the other, each candidate gets 10 electoral votes. It preserves the power of the state, while conforming to.....reality.