Birch Bayh-Washington Journal now--campaign for nat'l popular vote

[Skidmore]

Wants states to change their laws regarding voting to do I'm not sure what.

[Coexist]

1. its about the electoral college -

whether or not to abolish it.

[babylonsister]

2. Every four years I also wonder; it's nice to hear someone else

does.

[formernaderite]

12. It will NEVER happen

pretty much impossible, since the smaller states would never sign onto a constitutional amendment giving up their say.

[radio4progressives]

28. never say never..

if the dems takeover congress - it could happen - and it nearly did back in the seventies.

[9119495]

3. It is a great idea--and not just because Gore lost

It is unfair and simply wrong that small states have so much say. Add up all those Western Republican stongholds and see how the population compares with a state like Illinois or New York and you'll see my point. Our nation is becomming increasingly urban, but our electoral map will never reflect it--so neither will our national agenda.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Re-Shuffle The Deck

Right after the 2000 election several electoral scholars came out with the concept of not abolishing the Electoral College but changing the way it works.

Instead of a winner-take-all...it would still use the number of Representatives and Senators but that the votes in the college would be divided among Congressional districts.

For example...if you lived in Kansas and your Congressional District voted for Kerry, he'd get 1 vote (similar to the system Maine uses)...inversely, if asshat had won a district in California or New York, he would have gotten one of that state's votes. Each Congressional district would then be directly connected to their electoral vote and a more representative system. The two senator votes would then be the "winner-take-all"...with those going to the candidate that wins the state's popular vote.

I never heard much about this proposal after it was suggested...and was told that it was just "too fair".

[Cornus]

6. But...

...what could be fairer than *one person, one vote*? The reason for having the electoral college has been explained to me many times, but I still don't get it! Seems to me that the fairest system is: whoever gets the most votes wins.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Ohio Caller Made A Very Valid Point

Making the vote strictly on popular vote can easily focus an election on the largest, most populace states and shut out the small ones. Why bother with a state with only 400,000 votes. The electoral college process forces candidates to go to the smaller states to campaign.

There's many discussions as to why the college was created, but the biggest one I've always heard was to create a balance between the states. Now, being from a large state myself, I'd have no problem going with the popular route considering how the Democrats are the majority in the most populace states...however this situation could change.

We bantered this concept back and forth for several months...seemed like the best of both worlds answer.

The bottom line always came down that any time there's a close election, there's a clamor for electoral college reform and then it fades away for a generation or two.

[9119495]

10. I hear the small state thing all the time too

but Wyoming gets a rediculous amount of appropriations money when they don't warrant it.

And it isn't just that Democrats are in the majority in big states, they are generally nation wide. I thought I read somewhere that when you total up all house and senate races for the last three or four elections, more democratic votes were cast than republican ones...but look at Congress. There are sizable republican majorities in both houses because someone gets in from a district with 500,000 people, while it takes a person from California 1,100,000 people to get there. It seemed liek our nation was turning right, when it was really just the south and rural America.

And given the fact that our urban areas are more diverse, this means we get less diversity in congress. The votes of people of color are more concentrated and have less weight.

If the E.C. was about protecting the small states, who is portecting minorities and urban areas?

[KharmaTrain]

13. Kinda Mixing Apples And Oranges A Touch

I think the problem of small states with over over-representation is in the primary process. I live in a large state that holds its primary late. I haven't had a vote that mattered in a Democratic primary in my over 30 years of voting. It's the folks in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina who have a far greater say in that matter...and, one can easily argue that is where the elections are won and lost. Since the primary schedule is front-loaded with smaller states, by the time the bigger states get their chance, the choices have been made. We'll see if this changes in 2008. But then, at least this is better than the Repugnicans who annoint their candidate almost purely vested on the money he raised. booosh didn't win his party's nomination during the Primaries of 2000...he won it with fundraising $25million in '99.

It's difficult to say that Democrats are in the majority when the House of Representatives...which is the closest thing we have as to true equal representation...still has more Repugnicans than Democrats, but I understand where you're coming from. If anything, you're maybe a little ahead of things here. There are a lot of demographic changes that will transform metropolitan areas over the next decade. City Democrats are moving out to the burbs and beyond...breaking down the red/blue city/suburbs, urban/rural divide, and this is definitely trending Democratic. I call these areas "purple" now.

With their Hispanic bashing, the Repugnicans are cutting their political nuts off as they are in the process of alienating the Latino vote just like they have the black vote and this spells bad news in Red States. Not all Mexicans who work at the Hormel factory in Omaha are illegals...they are a growing work force in these areas and will turn these areas purple and then blue if the Repugnicans continue their present tactics of demonizing these people.

The Constitution didn't talk about protecting minorities other than in the shear numbers of state votes. Seems you're mixing the over-proportionality of a Wyoming, yet then ask whose protecting the small states or urban areas. That's very confusing.

Cheers...

[9119495]

14. I'm in Iowa. No shit.

And though my state-mates on this board want to kill me everytime I say it, we simply should not be first in choosing a president. Nor should New Hampshire. I think in the 2000 census, those two states were the whitest. SC doesn't exactly have a good track record supporting minorities. Thus, I don't think we can get a major party nominee who is non-white in the current system.

My idea for the selection process:

Have the states that were closest in vote margin in the previous election go first. Since ID always votes one way and is in effect a one party state, they would go last. There would also be less shock to the system as Iowa and NH were close last time. It would vault more representative states like OH forward in the process. There would also be changes each year.

Regarding the Wyoming thing, perhaps I mis-typed. Members of Congress in California have districts with over one million people; many of those areas are chock full of minorities. Thus, hundreds of thousands of blacks and Latinos send one democrat to congress to do their bidding while far fewer white dudes (and women) get the same representation when they send their rep to Washington. They would argue small population states should not be overshadowed by the large ones. I'm saying that ethnic groups in large states are being overshadowed by people in small states.

[IA_Seth]

15. We're watchin you 9119495...

Lol.

Hey, I respect your opinion (in regards to who votes first). I certainly understand the concerns about diversity, and hopefully by adding in another state we will correct some of that. It's hard to see the issue when you grow up in a diverse part of a white state (CR and IC).

Anyway, I did a search for "Iowa" and saw this, and saw your proposal. I don't dislike it, you may have something there! It seems to make sense that we would want to focus on the close states first and for a longer duration.

Hmmmmm.

[9119495]

16. I'm in CR

and while I see us as diverse, we don't exactly have a great track record electing minorities either. Dale Todd was a great parks commissioner (as evidenced by the number and condition of parks before his term compared with the end of it) and he was essentially run out of town by "the TV guy." But then, I also think Lee Clancey had so many problems as a mayor because she was a woman.

Regarding our first in the nation status...I do love it. I'm a political junkie. But while I see the benefits of our state (smart people, low cost campaigns, etc.) I fear we don't get the best candidate and because the process ends after NH, that's it. Wouldn't Illinois give us something better? Wisconsin perhaps? What about New Mexico?

And why is SC third? We're never getting that state back and their democratic voters nail the coffin on every campaign but the front runner.

My plan allows Iowa to be among the first and takes all those meaningless already-decided states to task. Essentially, if they want to matter, they better start listening to both sides.

[IA_Seth]

18. I feel ya...

Dale Todd was a great Parks Commissioner, and I had really hoped to see him on our new City Council. I had the opportunity of working with him on the Selection Committee of the "Fifteen in 5" project, and his reality-based ideas would have done CR some good. I really hope he runs for something again someday.

I see your point about electing minorities. We have 9 people elected (including the mayor) and they are ALL white, 2 women. I believe we had ONE minority candidate, and she lost (Sherry Cherry). Off the top of my head, I think we have all white state reps and senators (with the exception of Swati). That is pretty sad considering our city's make-up.

I thought about your plan more last night and the more I think about it the more I like it. I know it would be bad for Iowa (in the sense of political-pull and economic benefit), but it makes sense to bring the fight to where it's close, and not where it's tradition.

I don't know.

Oh hey, by the way...I hear Clark is coming to CR in May. The info is posted in the Iowa forum if you are intersted.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. The "small state" argument is nonsense and rests on fallacies

People who make that argument are combining the popular vote system and the Electoral College system in their heads.

First, not all voters within a given state have the same opinions. Under the current system, 50.1% of the vote turns a state blue or red, and the other 49.9% might as well have stayed at home, because their votes literally do not count. If you're a Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Massachusetts, you may as well not bother to cast a vote for president.

Second, not all small states have the same concerns. Rhode Island and Wyoming have very little in common, and the same is true of North Dakota and Hawaii.

Second, under direct popular vote system, all votes are equal, and state boundaries are irrelevant. This is what Electoral College proponents forget. Joe Blow in little Vermont and John Doe a mile away across the state boarder in populous New York would have the same electoral power under a direct vote system.

Because state boundaries are irrelevant, candidates will look for votes wherever they can find them, especially in a close race. No candidate can afford to neglect any state. Under the Electoral College system, candidates currently neglect the small states, because they know that they'll get more bang for their campaign buck by concentrating on New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, California and other populous states. How often does Alaska get a candidate visit?

Under the Electoral College system, the race can be decided before the West Coast gets a chance to vote. This depresses turnout in general, especially in state and local races.

Under a direct popular vote, the race can be so close that Alaska and Hawaii literally determine the outcome.

The only reason we have the Electoral College is that the framers of the Constitution didn't believe in universal suffrage. They originally envisioned a set of electors appointed by state legislatures who would cast the presidential votes without any popular vote.

It makes about as much sense as having state governors chosen on the basis of each county having a certain number of electoral votes.

[9119495]

20. Well done.

But you will hear that only big money candidates can get their message out nationally. That is why I think the primary should still be handled state by state (or small groups of states). See my plan how in my other posts this thread.

I feel sorry for Dems in Utah...not only do they know they don't matter, but no one ever comes to see them.

[rinsd]

23. It's a fallacy but your supporting statements are as well.

Going to direct vote is not a guarantee of more attention. Instead it is more likely to simply shift to the most populous regions which in this case would be cities and their surroundings. No more visits to state with populations under 2 million. Why bother when you can concentrate all your media buys in the 25 largest markets.

"the race can be decided before the West Coast gets a chance to vote. This depresses turnout in general, especially in state and local races."

Under special circumstances, yes. But those would be rare considering the West Coast has such a huge share of electoral votes. But that is also true of direct voting.

"This depresses turnout in general, especially in state and local races"

It depresses turnout because the media is allowed to call races and speculate as soon as the polls close and with a 3 hour time difference between East and West this issue is unavoidable unless you restrict reporting till after every poll closes (which means we would have to wait for HI to finish). If one believes their vote doesn't count because of the electoral system, why would one suddenly believe their vote does count when its one amongst millions upon millions. That seems to be a shaky rationale. Most people who say my vote doesn't count aren't acting out of principle but laziness and rationalization.

"Under a direct popular vote, the race can be so close that Alaska and Hawaii literally determine the outcome."

This also happens in the electoral college, think NM in 2000. Think WV and IL in he 1960 election.

"The only reason we have the Electoral College is that the framers of the Constitution didn't believe in universal suffrage"

Exactly, the framers did not believe in direct election of the President or Senate.

"It makes about as much sense as having state governors chosen on the basis of each county having a certain number of electoral votes."

The results would likely be the same so its not the worst idea in the world.

Direct voting makes sense but the reasons you stated for its support are basically irrelevant because the situation would remain unchanged or hinge on a big leap of faith (increased turnout)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. You're still thinking in terms of states

States are as irrelevant in a direct national election as counties are in a statewide election.

A candidate would be foolish to ignore any state in a close race, and the minority party residents of strongly red or strongly blue states would no longer be effectively disenfranchised.

Besides, most states are actually purple, rather than red or blue, and the EC system fails to acknowledge this.

[rinsd]

26. I'm not thinking of states necessarily but population centers

"Besides, most states are actually purple, rather than red or blue, and the EC system fails to acknowledge this."

This is a good argument for direct elections though it can be countered by eliminating the winner take all system of the college in almost all states. I was pointing out that the other things you suggested occur with both direct and the college.

"A candidate would be foolish to ignore any state in a close race,"

I thought we shouldn;t think of states? And do you really think because of a direct election a canidate would spend time in Alaska, Hawaii, South Dakota, Wyoming and the other less populous areas (that hapeen to be states) vs spending time and money is large population areas like SoCal, the Bay Area, Chicago, New York, DC, etc.?

"and the minority party residents of strongly red or strongly blue states would no longer be effectively disenfranchised."

Again, this is a good argument for it. I doubt the turnout increase would be significant as I view the whole "my vote doesn't count" issue to be largely a rationalization for laziness when applied to the general masses. But the point is still valid.

[SoCalDem]

24. THEY DO THAT NOW

Sure they barnstorm into small towns occasionally, but the lion's share of the campaigning goes on "where the money is"..

Campaigns are TV campaigns..and have been for a long time.

If the argument was valid now, they would be spending time going to small towns NOW.. Iowa & NH are always mentioned when this issue comes up. They are an aberration..and are lavished attention because they are the first primaries..they are NOT one bit reperesntative of the national makeup and should not get the attention they do..

[liberalpragmatist]

27. But small states STILL don't get any attention

Small states still only have a small role in determining the winner of the election, and most lean heavily one way or the other. Campaigns completely ignore small states because there aren't that many electoral votes and because they're overwhelmingly tilted to one party or the other.

A national popular vote would in many ways make a small state voter's vote MORE important because their vote would directly count towards the total. And while they probably wouldn't get many visits by a candidate or very many local ad buys, how many local ad buys or visits do they get right now? In a national campaign, they would at least get national ad buys.

[liberalpragmatist]

29. Still not very fair...

... first of all, the EC's central problem - that the popular vote winner can lose the electoral vote and thus the election - is STILL possible. Under this system, it's been shown that Nixon would have won in 1960 and in 2000 Bush would have won by an even bigger margin, such that the state total in Florida would have been irrelevant.

Plus, with gerrymandering, so few districts are competitive, it would narrow the playing field EVEN more. As it is, campaigns come down to less than 10 swing states. Under the district-plan, campaigns would center on 15 to 20 congressional districts.

Now, I see how in theory, a district-based plan with fair district boundaries and no gerrymandering would be somewhat fairer, as it could make the campaign base broader. But it's still a flawed plan because it divides people up by geographic units that don't think as one. I don't like being effectively disenfranchised on the basis of where I live. If I live in a solid district - which even under a fair apportionment system would still account for 50-60% of congressional districts - I'm STILL not going to have a big say in who gets elected.

[HereSince1628]

5. States can choose to apportion their electoral votes. Some do

most don't.

Working to get your state to change it is probably easier than having it done away with.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. They should get rid of the entire electoral college

I've only been half listening to CSPAN while this has been going on, but it sounds like the plan still would keep the electoral college in place, just that states would be required to use their electoral votes for whoever won the popular vote. That's a step in the right direction, but why keep the electoral college around to begin with? Maybe it's just the first step, since the people who devised this new plan knew that they wouldn't be able to abolish the electoral college outright...

And one caller mentioned how it would be unfair that NY would have more say over smaller states -- well, duh. I guess it's better for small states to have a bigger say, which is basically what is happening now? If a state has a huge population, it should have more of a say in politics. These smaller, rural-type states are the ones that are having too large a say in national politics nowadays. These type of people love marginalizing minority groups at the national level, but they are the first to bitch and moan about their rights not to be run by larger states like NY or CA.

[Skidmore]

8. What a lovely gentleman!

It was a treat to listen to him. I had forgotten how politicians used to act before Newt and talking points. Treated both those who agreed and disagreed with him with graciousness.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Birch was such a class act as a senator....He was one of my heroes

when I came of age politically in the late 60's/early '70's. His first wife, Marvella (Evan's mom) was also grade A. She wrote a beautiful book about her struggle with cancer (which later took her life).

I guess thats why Evan has been such a disappointment to me. He came from such top-notch, dedicated, liberal people that I really don't understand his middle-of-the-road voting record.

[Armstead]

17. He was a liberal legand in his day

His son is a pale imitation.

Unfortunately the contrast between father and son symbolizes the larger degeneration of politics and the demise of liberalism.

[hopein08]

22. Kids usually go against the political grain of their parents...

at least somewhat.

So perhaps we should be happy that Evan didn't turn out Republican.

[liberalpragmatist]

30. To be fair, Birch Bayh couldn't have won in today's Indiana

As it was, he was often endangered in the Indiana of the '70s. The state was STILL very Republican and conservative, but Democratic and liberal dominance over the national as a whole made it possible to elect liberals like Birch Bayh and Vance Hartke. I guess people figured if Washington was controlled by liberal Democrats, it made sense to elected a liberal Democrat.

In a political climate where at the national level Republicans are favored, Evan's voting record is about as liberal as you're going to get from Indiana. As it is, Bayh's moving left in order to position himself for a presidential run. If he gets the nomination and is elected (not very likely given how little enthusiasm there seems to be for him), he would probably be a more progressive president than a senator. Look at Gore, who was basically right-of-center as a Senator and became more left-of-center as VP and then as a presidential candidate (and then MUCH more to the left after 2000).

[WI_DEM]

21. Birch was much more liberal than his son in the Senate

and was elected three times to the Senate in Indiana, losing in 1980 during the Reagan Landslide narrowly to J. Danforth Quayle--or Bush, Jr.

[radio4progressives]

31. I posted the article on this yesterday... (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2477630