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.
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.
From the Left 
I’m all for having the popular vote be the one that counts, but I don’t get what the use is in keeping a version the electoral college at all is …
I know a number of people who say they don’t vote for president because of the Electoral College system. The idea that the candidate who gets the least votes can win simply rankles them.
The EC is 200 years old.
Do we travel by horse and buggy? Cure disease with blood leaches? Die by 40? But we still elect our president in an antiquated, little-understood fashion that no longer serves the nation.
I just can’t see the EC going away in my lifetime. I hope it does, but I’m not holding my breath.
The irony about the professor’s proposal is, it would eliminate any chance of a repeat of the Florida Gore v. Bush mess that tore the country apart. If I were a betting man, I would bet Republicans are the most resistant to overhauling the voting system because fair and honest elections are uncharted territory for many of them.
I’ve read that more Americans vote for American Idol than president. Something needs to be done to change the way we elect our president. We can’t seriously believe our democracy will survive when no one votes.
Actually, losing the popular vote while winning the election isn’t all that controversial. It is a mathematical possibility, intentionally made possible by the U.S. Constitution in an effort to protect the “minority rights” of the smaller states. What would be rather controversial, however, would be engineering the reversal of the the constituional outcome of an election through political maneuvering, which appears to be what this is.
Would you support a plan where the Senators from the largest states (New York, Cali, etc) agree to vote with the majority in the population-based House or Representatives? This is virtually the same idea. The only hitch here that I see is that in the latter case, the advantage would unquestionably go to Republicans.
Would you support that? Or would you rightfully argue that such an agreement would undermine the delicate constitutional balance between the protection of minority rights and the popular representation? Would you support the undermining of the election process on the day that the Democrat loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college, reversing the roles? Or would you suddenly see the merit of the electoral college?
Would you really want to completely disenfranchise the vast majority of the country (geographically) from the process? Why?
***”I know a number of people who say they don’t vote for president because of the Electoral College system. The idea that the candidate who gets the least votes can win simply rankles them.”
It sounds like your friends don’t have a very good understanding of republicanism. Our system of government is built upon the idea that we are a nation of states (hence, the “United States of America”), each of which has the right to govern itself so long as it does so within Consitutional guidelines. All decisions on a federal Congressional level are made by delegates of the states.
Similarly, all elections on a federal level are decided by delegates of the states, which in turn typically determine their support of a candidate by a pure popular vote (which is what you seem to be in favor of), but the number of electors from those states is weighted (like the Senate is weighted) to protect the rights of the less populous states.
If a person advocates the abolition of the electoral college, he or she must also necessarily advocate the abolition of the U.S. Senate to be consistent, because it is also reflective of the Constitutional desire to protect minority rights. If minority rights are no longer something to be protected, it makes no sense to simply hand pick part of the government which are designed to protect them and single those parts out for reform.
Hi DaveS,
You had me until you tried to link the Electoral College to the protection of minority rights. The Electoral College came about because at one time, centuries ago, there were few people in the USA and the distances between people was great. But that was then and today we are a nation with 300 million and the technology to create direct elections that are inclusive of all people and no only a select few.
You had me until you tried to link the Electoral College to the protection of minority rights.
Heh… that was in my second sentence. 🙂
That aside, the “distances between people” is a imsunderstanding of the electoral college. That isn’t the rationale behind the EC. If distance were the issue the EC wouldn’t solve anything. In fact, if distance were the issue the EC would further complicate matters–it is more difficult for an entire slate of electors to travel to the capital than for a single person bearing the popular results from his or her state.
The EC is a result of the emphasis that was placed on representative democracy by the founders. All government business is conducted by representative of the people, selected by the people. This includes the election of national representatives (President and Vice President). This decision was made due to the logistical impossibility of administering a “pure” democracy… perhaps that is where the “distance” misperception originates.
The EC wasn’t singled out, though, for the representative treatment. The entire government is set up this way.
All I know is I don’t like the idea that a vote for candidate “A” results in electing candidate “B.” The presidential election needs to work the exact way the election for governor or senator works — the one with the most votes wins. Period.
While we’re at it, get rid of black box voting machines too. Paper ballots only.
=The presidential election needs to work the exact way the election for governor or senator works — the one with the most votes wins.
Well, not to nitpick, but that is how it works. The one with the most votes from electors wins. There is nothing prohibiting the states from allocating electors by popular vote. The only problem is that such an act will marginalize a state that did that… no candidate would ever visit that state or address the concerns of the citizens of that state. If they are fighting for roughly half of perhaps 4 or 6 electoral votes, why would anyone ever even try? It’s going to come out basically a wash no matter how hard they try.
Abolishing the EC or reallocating electors by population would result in a tiny handful of states receiving all of the intention, while other states would be effectively disenfranchised. There is no reason, whatsoever, to do that. The system we have works, even though it may seem a bit strange.
I agree with the paper ballots. I disagree wholeheartedly with screwing with the Constitution.
Civics 101 seems the order of the day.
But I’m with Manu; one man, one vote and one woman, one vote. Get rid of this turkey called the Electoral College.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if we receive a receipt at the grocery store, at the home improvement center, at the gas station, at a restaurant and even at the airport, why can’t the blackbox voting machines give me a record of where my vote went and to whom? It seems fairly simple. Until I am provided a paper receipt of my vote, I will not be using exercising my God given right to vote.
I have never felt comfortable with the concept that my vote for president is a vote for the other party’s candidate. This is like making a donation to a campaign only to learn the candidate has switched parties. The EC just makes no sense to me.