The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on an ongoing initiative to remove the influence of the Electoral College. The initiative, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, seeks to encourage state legislatures to pass laws requiring that their electors be allocated based on the nationwide popular vote, provided that a sufficient number of other states do the same. If states totaling at least 270 electoral votes (an outright majority of the total available) sign the Compact, it would become active, and this would theoretically guarantee (provided there were no unfaithful electors) that the winner of the popular vote would also win the Electoral College.
The initiative has been passed by four states totaling 50 electoral votes. In five other states totaling 36 electoral votes, there is "live" legislation that has been passed by one of the two state houses but not yet by the other. Finally, there is another tier of seven states, consisting of 112 electoral votes, that have had at least one chamber of their state houses pass the Compact at some point in the past, but not in the current legislative session:
Tier 1: Signed into law (50 electoral votes)
Illinois (21)
New Jersey (15)
Maryland (10)
Hawaii (4)
Tier 2: Passed by one house, currently pending before other house (36 electoral votes)
Washington (11)
Colorado (9)
Oregon (7)
Arkansas (6)
Vermont (3)
Tier 3: Passed by at least one house in past (112 electoral votes)
California (55, vetoed by governor)
Michigan (17, not voted on by senate)
North Carolina (15, not voted on by house)
Massachusetts (12, not sent to governor)
New Mexico (5, not voted on by senate)
Maine (4, not voted on by house)
Rhode Island (4, vetoed by governor)
What's interesting about the list of states is that have taken some action on the Compact is how blue they are. Red states have been very reluctant to move on the bill; concomitantly, the bill has been vetoed by Republican governors in certain blue states like California and Rhode Island. People, obviously, are going to remember 2000 for a very long time, in which Al Gore was screwed by the Electoral College. But throughout most of 2008, our simulations showed that the Democrats, not the Republicans, had a structural advantage in the Electoral College, something which was also apparent in 2004 when John Kerry nearly won the Electoral College in spite of trailing in the national popular vote by 2.5 points.
There are presently a couple of particularly interesting tests for the Compact, including purple Colorado, where the state house has passed the bill and the state senate is deciding whether to do the same, and red Arkansas, which is in a parallel situation.
For reasons that should be apparent, I'm going to take the fifth on whether I think the Compact is a good idea. But its chances of success, at least in the near-term, appear to me to be relatively slim. The idea of the Compact has been around since 2001, but the states that have had even one of their houses approve the bill at any point in time total 198 electoral votes, a fair bit shy of the 270 threshold. In addition, the Compact, if it gained a toehold, would almost certainly become the subject of a Constitutional challenge (.pdf).
What would it take for there to be a real chance of abolishing (or end-arounding, as the Compact seeks to do) the Electoral College? I think it would take two elections in relatively rapid succession in which there's a popular:electoral split, particularly if these two elections are won by candidates of opposite parties. The memories of 2000 should linger for a few more cycles, and so if there's another such occurrence before, say, 2020 or 2024, things could get very interesting.
Until and unless that occurs, however, my guess is that at least one of the two parties will see the Electoral College as being advantageous to them at any given time, as will most or all of the swing states. This will make it difficult for the Compact to garner a majority.
3.30.2009
No Electoral College in 2012?
@ 9:21 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
193 comments
Call me crazy, but I'd bet red states aren't jumping on board because they tend to be, you know, more conservative when it comes to altering long standing laws or traditions.
I think it would just be better to reduce the college to each state getting a number of votes equal to the number of house seats they have (DC being given the same treatement as if they were able to have house seats). Then the electoral votes would be roughly proportional, those that argue for small states rights could be told the minimum of one house rep does disproportionately favor small states, plus i believe the electoral system does isolate the individual circumstances of each state that could unfairly affect the popular vote, ie a natural disaster or some other unforseen event. Unfortunately you'd prolly never get the constitutional amendment through.
The funny thing is that people who favor the electoral vote often say that using the popular vote would allow politicians to simply campaign in the big states and ignore the small states. (I don't completely agree with this, but let's take it as a correct statement, for the purposes of this argument).
They are implying that politicians are currently campaigning in the small states.
No, they are currently campaigning in BATTLEGROUND states, many of whom happen to be small. The small states that skew heavily one direction or the other aren't likely to get much attention.
What would happen if the compact was passed and the popular vote ended up in a Minnesota-like situation? Would we be getting Coleman v. Franken x 50?
Is there some kind of clause that the states will only give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins by >1%?
I'm not averse to implementing this system, or any system that more properly balances the value of a particular citizen's vote with that of the rest of the country.
But when do you certify the election? We had states counting ballots well into January. The compact states can't send in their totals till... when? All national results are final? They make a guess that the election is out of reach? Are we going to have Minnesota-style lawsuits in all fifty states, arguing over individual precinct rules, delaying final certification of a national winner?
I mean, if enterprising folks in a deep red or deep blue state suddenly realize that a few extra votes for their candidate now actually mean something.. the reward for malfeasance is much greater than it was when their state was a foregone conclusion. Do we expect the losing side to graciously accept a result when undoubtedly evidence will arise somewhere indicating they had votes misappropriated?
If the electoral vote is like sausage-making, this would be sausage-making under a microscope.
Can you imagine the howling if KERRY won 2004 after losing by 3 million votes. that would have probably gotten something done.
It seems to me that the republicans will soon be in a position where they math will be against them ever winning again.
Assuming the democrats keep carryng the northest and west and with hisppanics start taking all the southwestern states, there won`t be much left for republicans except the deep south, and the small mountain states. It could get to the point where they could only count on about 100 EV and eventually Texas would probably go blue.
Unless they moderate their views they could be a minor party soon.
(Chris wins for summarization and early submission, I win for reference to sausage.)
Except mine was mildly inaccurate. Washington DC is in the College, so it would be Coleman v. Franken x 51!
> in which Al Gore was screwed by the Electoral College
Given that the EC already affects the vote to a degree I think that "screwed" is a rather harsh way to put it. Though some years give one candidate or another a decided edge coming in, that isn't always R or D leaning.
Now a faithless elector swings the election, that would make a strong case for the term "screwed".
Surely you're wrong that as soon as states with 270 EVs sign on it'll become dispositive. ["and this would theoretically guarantee (provided there were no unfaithful electors) that the winner of the popular vote would also win the Electoral College.]That would be true only if all of those states went to the same candidate. That's not very likely though.
If the Compact were passed, the states would give their electors to the candidate who won the national popular vote, not the state vote. In this situation, if Utah or Oklahoma were to join the Compact, and Obama won the election, the electors from these states would be forced to cast their vote for Obama.
Also, I've often wondered what would happen if a candidate won because of an unfaithful elector from a state whose electors who were required by law to be faithful. The elector would go to jail, but would the underdog candidate win the election?
This may be a good topic for a latter post...
It seems to me that you need far less than 270 electors-worth of states to sign on before the presidential election becomes de facto a popular vote.
You'd only need 270 if EVERY SINGLE non-signatory state voted against the popular vote winner, and that is pretty much impossible. I think 150 electors-worth of states would be enough to realistically accomplish the goal.
Of course, it won't do its job if it's only blue states that sign on. It's rational for big, non-swing states to get on board, because without this, they will only be funding sources. This includes CA and NY, but also Texas. If Texas adopted this, I think that would basically be the end of the electoral college.
While I am neutral about the change, this would make election night quite different. No more big colorful maps, just a running tally of the popular vote and some arbitrary "projected" winner once the computer models decide the gap is too big to close.
Poll: More Now Think Obama Is “Partisan Dem” — And His Approval Rating Is Up!
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/poll-more-now-think-obama-is-partisan-dem-and-his-approval-rating-is-up/
Jeff> No more big colorful maps,
You'd still have the colourful maps, even for the national level. Congress may be the red-headed stepchild of the 3 branches but it still matters. :)
That piece in the wsj was so interesting I almost cacked myself.
Dear .,
Yes, Aqua Teen Hunger Force does represent a new way of thinking for the creators of adult animation. Unlike some previous attempts, ATHF accepts the boundaries of traditional American Saturday morning animation, and yet manages to inject a subversive quality that is all the more powerful for its seemingly normal milieu.
It does not represent the divergency of your other example, South Park, as there is no attempt in that creation to ever actually retain a child's view of the situation. The creators of SP use the animation form for contrast.. "how can those animated children say such outrageous things" repeated ad infinitum.. but AQTH uses animation for emphasis.
It is the difference between smashing a box with a sledgehammer, and causing to gradually expand and explode from the inside with heated gas.
So, although I understand the intent of your posting, cabbages do not make excellent insulation.
Please visit again soon.
In addition, the Compact, if it gained a toehold, would almost certainly become the subject of a Constitutional challenge (.pdf).
Technically incorrect. The law review note discusses whether the Compact would violate the Voting Rights Act, a statute, not a constitutional provision. Thus, it could be subject to a statutory challenge, not a constitutional challenge. Without expressing any opinion as to the merit of such a challenge, I'd note that there is an easy fix--amend the Voting Rights Act. Presumably, if there were enough support among the states to trigger the Compact, it shouldn't be that difficult to get Congress to amend the VRA.
> It is the difference between smashing a box with a sledgehammer, and causing to gradually expand and explode from the inside with heated gas.
I like Gallagher! SMASH GOOD!
Listening to Obama on GM and Chrysler... DAMN, HE'S GOOD.
We need a constitutional amendment banning the electoral college, or at least revising it to larger regions and electors selected based on percentage of votes rather than a winners take all system (like Maine).
I like this Compact idea, as it would probably be easier to get done than a constitutional amendment, but I'm not sure what people are afraid of. The electoral college served its purpose, and that reason no longer exists.
I don't think Obama even came to the pacific northwest after he was nominated. I remember Biden coming, but Obama did not. Did Obama even goto California, the country's most populous state by a large margin and is one of the world's largest economies?
The electoral college is stupid and isn't real democracy. It's fake democracy. It's ridiculous that more people voted for Gore but Bush became president. If we didn't have the electoral college we wouldn't have had the last eight years of crap.
I have trouble seeing this really get through. In all likeihood, a lot of the middle-ground states will sign on, but *generally* I think small states won't, nor will sufficient large states. States at the extremes of the spectrum would both relinquish quite a bit of power in this scenario- particularly those that are 'swing states'
for example, FL and OH, while big states, are swing states that have been close the last several elections. In a popular vote scenario, a state with routinely close popular votes and a whole whack of electoral votes has more power in a system where the electoral college matters. Likewise, small swing states, such as NH, IA, NM, and CO have much more clout under the existing system (non-swing small states would see no change in their status- WY, DE, and VT for example wouldn't see their 'worth' go up or down)
Bottom line, while a lot of states do stand to gain from a change to a national popular vote system, I think too many states will see it as making themselves irrelevant to make a difference to enact it for this to play out. This isn't a party issue (not really anyway) its a state's power issue
Isn't this giving the Republicans a much better shot than they currently have? CA alone doing this opens up a whole can of worms for the dems.
There is no issue about an elector becoming faithless by being "forced" to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. Each candidate puts up a slate of electors which consist of diehards. When you vote on election day, you are actually voting for a slate of electors. In the member states, the slates of electors for the popular vote winner would go and vote. The chance of a faithless elector would be no different than it is right now.
To answer a few of your questions:
This can only happen once 270 electoral votes-worth of states join in because the laws aren't triggered until that happens. Every statute that has been passed includes language to that effect.
At any rate, I'm opposed to electing the President by popular vote. There are far too many opportunities for corruption on either side (hello, Chicago and Kentucky). If one state can swing the election (like Florida), it is much easier to certify that that state is correct than the nation as a whole.
As for Al Gore: It's true that he lost the popular vote, but neither he nor Bush were campaigning for the popular vote in the first place. It's like deciding a football game after the fact based on how many yards were gained by each team. The rules were there; Bush won. Fair and square. Had Obama won the popular vote but not the electoral vote (there was a period in which this would have been quite conceivable), the same principle would apply.
I think people are missing the beauty of NPVIC politically. It is impossible to get 2/3 of the states to pass a constitutional amendment abandoning the electoral college because it is not in the interests of the smaller states, who are over represented in that body. NPVIC circumvents that. It IS in the interests of the larger states to even out representation, and all it needs is the 13 or 14 biggest states (if I remember correctly) to sign on so as to pass the 270 threshold. The smaller states' role is obviated.
I disagree with the legal argument you link to saying that the one man-one vote principle in a national election violates the Voting Rights Act. If anything, the EC dilutes minority voting more, since minorities tend to live in large states.
I think this is the way to go, and I'm slightly more optimistic than Nate. If CA gets a Dem governor who signs the bill, that would be a huge push. Also, it would be helpful, once it has a bit more momentum, if the White House gave this a push.
It's the right thing to do, even if it hurts Democrats. There are so many potential constitutional crises hiding in the EC, it's scary.
Nate: So, this begs the question:
If this compact were in place right now, what would the 2008 election map look like then?
I think this system would be a net-positive for the Democratic Party. Two reasons:
1) Some small states get disproportionate representation under the electoral college; eg WY getting 3 votes,
eg CA population 34m; EV 55
WY population .5m; EV 3
So each EV in WY corresponds to only 166k people; in CA, each EV corresponds to 618k people.
2) From a campaigning standpoint, democratic voters tend to be more concentrated in Urban areas, which makes campaigning more efficient; Obama could just focus on hitting the top 50 metropolitan areas again and again. Conversely, republican strongholds span large swathes of the nation's geography with low population density, and would be horribly inefficient to campaign.
A move to a popular vote would mean that with very few exceptions, no candidate for national office would travel more than about 50 miles from a large body of water.... That is, they'll stick to the highly populated places.
It would be MUCH better to go to the Maine/Nebraska plan, and assign Electoral College votes by congressional district.
Imagine a Republican candidate getting a few ECVs out of California (Orange County, for instance), or that same Republican actually having to campaign in Mississippi, or risk losing 1 or 2 ECVs! Imagine a Democrat spending time in the big square states they've mostly given up for lost, or in states they've considered in the bag.
NO to popular votes, YES to the Maine/Nebraska plan!
The memories of 2000 should linger for a few more cycles, and so if there's another such occurrence before, say, 2020 or 2024, things could get very interesting.
Didn't that already happen? The 1876 election was at least as controversial as 2000, and only twelve years later there was another electoral-popular split. Needless to say, it didn't lead to the EC being abolished.
Yeah, Algore was screwed by the electoral vote. You can't be screwed if you lose by the system we have. Maybe some civics lessons are in order here.
This is a real bad idea because there is no guarantee that a state will abide by the Compact in a contested election. In fact the tendency will be very strong not to abide in the event that your set voted differently then the outcome. It would probably only take one state to jump to throw the whole thing into Kaos and a real disaster. Your setting up the idea that a state can send whatever electors it wants since the constitution is a little murky on this subject. You're opening a can of worms. Drop it!
I would like to see a constitutional amendment that would
1) Keep the Electoral votes but get rid of the actual electors. (just send a certificate to the Supreme Court).
2) Have State proportional allotment of the EV's, NOT winner take all.
3) Have the Supreme court count and administer the result and decide all contestments.
I agree with dlwe.
No to national popular vote, but yes to the Maine/Nebraska proportional allocation plan.
A majority of Democrats, a majority of Republicans, and a majority of Independents support the election of the President by national popular vote. This much is clear.
The biggest challenge to the NPIVC is the difficulty in converting its procedure to a sound byte as evidenced by the erroneous points made in some of the comments above.
One look at Nate's ROI map during the campaign should convince any rational person that the status quo whereby a vote from someone in New Mexico being some 15 or 20 times as valuable as the national average is simply preposterous.
The NPVIC is a brilliant solution and needs your support. Look at how pernicious this system is when, as Nate points out, campaigning in swing states bleeds into Obama's NCAA bracket. We should expect the same effect in the more hidden benefits and penalties of complex legislation whether intentional or not.
One (non-felon voting age) citizen - one vote. Republicans in blue states, Democrats in Red states, Third party candidates and their supporters, anyone in a non-swing state - rejoice!!
I would like to see a constitutional amendment that would
1) Keep the Electoral votes but get rid of the actual electors. (just send a certificate to the Supreme Court).
2) Have State proportional allotment of the EV's, NOT winner take all.
3) Have the Supreme court count and administer the result and decide all contestments.
1) and 2) sound good. I think 3) sounds good too in some ways but I'm guessing that isn't going to fly politically because it would start touching on homogenizing of state election laws. States don't like giving up power to the federal.
@dlwe: How is a EC based on congressional district vote going to motivate politicians to go to more places than the popular vote would?
Let's assume there's three districts in California that might vote Republican. If polls say that one district is likely to vote 70% Republican, it'll still get ignored if you have to win the district.
If instead the election is based on a proportional vote and you could get the vote down to 60% by campaigning there, that might be enough to draw candidates.
With a proportional system, candidates would go where there is strong support (to motivate turnout) or where there are a lot of swing voters.
In a district-based system, candidates would go where there are enough swing voters to push the ratio past 50%.
I don't think the Nebraska model has a chance of ever being in effect nationwide. The reason is that as it is adopted, the states that use it are irrelevant as long as other states keep the winner-take-all model.
Let's say my home state of North Carolina uses it, but Virginia doesn't. Any money spent here is trying to get a maximum of 2 or 3 electoral votes, but any money spent in Virginia would get all of theirs. The campaigns might spend a bit of time here, trying to sneak out a vote or two in a surprise district.. but that's nothing compared to how the would focus on Virginia as one of the remaining states that provides an incredible return.
The more states that adopt the Nebraska-style, the rest have even more reason to remain the divas of the electoral season. Just ask Florida and Michigan about whether they care about the integrity of the process vs. self-aggrandizement.
That's the best part of the National Vote plan.. the states that adopt it can do what they want up until the point where it is large enough to dominate the process. Then pursuing the national vote instantly becomes the only effective strategy for a campaign.. the remaining winer-take-all states don't have enough votes to win, and become important for their population, not their electoral votes.
ASA(American Statistical Association magazine had an interesting article on using a weighted electoral college. For example, if 54.9% of voters chose candidate 1, 44.1% of voters chose candidate 2 and 1% chose other candidates, then 54.9% of electoral votes go to candidate 1(30.2 Electoral votes in california), 44.1% go to candidate 2(24.2 in CA) and the other .6 electoral votes go to the other candidates. It only works if ALL states do it, not a handful. This would also mean that candidates would want to campaign in all states, not just the battleground states. Neither candidate visited IL in the 2004 election.
Red states aren't on board because it would lead to historic losses for them in otherwise close elections.
Think about how succesfully Obama saturated swing states with GOTV activity. As it turned out, urban districts are the most successful places to hunt for new Democratic votes - people who would not vote unless you knocked on their doors or shoved a clipboard and voter registration form in their faces - and swing state urban districts were crawling with Obama Campaign, SEIU and ACORN canvassers registering voters.
Democrats found all the unregistered young people and people of color in places like Las Vegas, Denver, Arlington and Miami, which helped Obama win a landslide election and helped Dems dominate the house and senate.
Factor in a national popular vote, and you don't just have to stick to swing states.
How much of an "untapped" market lies in Brooklyn, New York? How much of an "untapped" market lies in the city of Chicago? How much of an "untapped" market for unregistered Democratic voters lives in Los Angeles?
Or in red states - how much of an "untapped market" is there in Dallas and Houston?
Turn the election into a popular vote contest, and suddenly millions of reluctant voters (who say they aren't voting because they already know who will win their state) understand why they should vote. Suddenly a lot of Democratic operatives have a market to reach out to.
I can see why conservatives don't want that happening.
I think the way to improve the Electoral College is to change the way we apportion seats in the House, and then institute proportional allocation of electoral votes in every state.
-- Have the House repeal the fixed 435-seat total through federal law and opt for a system that would determine its seat total and apportionment by dividing every state's population by that of the least populous state after each Census. This would mean equal representation for every person in every state, both in the House and the Electoral College. Then,
-- Pass a constitutional amendment requiring states to allocate their electoral votes proportionally among canadidates who earn a high enough percentage of the vote so as to earn one electoral vote in that state. Now every vote in every state will have an impact on deciding the election, encouraging conservatives in places like California and liberals in places like Texas to vote, increasing voter turnout. Not only that, but it would accomplish a more accurate reflection of the wishes of the electorate while at the same time keeping intact the founding fathers' intent to have the States elect the President.
Of course, I know this will never happen. It isn't impractical, it's actually rather simple, but the political process would never allow it. Just my two cents as to what the best solution would be.
Breaking News . . . .
Biden's daughter caught doing coke on tape!!!
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282009/news/nationalnews/friend_of_bidens_daughter_shopping_tape__161772.htm?&page=0
Shades of Michael Phelps!
Too bad Larry Sinclair did not a video camera with him when he had his drug-crazed escapade with Barack Obama. We might have been spared all of this nonsense (like government backed auto warranties!)
Nate's post includes one very slippery statistic: the odds of the National Popular Vote winning nationally based one where it has passed legislative chambers so far.
Back in Feb. 2006 when the National Popular Vote plan was introduced at a news conference with folks like Sen. Birch Bayh, Congressman John Anderson and now-Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, only one state eve nhad a bill (Illinois). So at that point, Nate could have cunched his numbers and concluded, "Hmm, 49 states don't even have legislation, so statically it is IMPOSSIBLE for this legislation to ever pass."
That would have been about as savvy an observation as suggesting that National Popular Vote faces an uphill battle right now because states "only" representing 198 electoral votes have passed the proposal in at least on legislative chamber.
Ridiculous. Nothing this big is going to be easy, but this exciting effort remains young. Each year it's picking up new states and gathering momentum. Going for it is that the goal of a national popular vote has the backing of more than 70% of voters in state after state where's it's been polled (see nationalpopularvote.com). And it's taking on a way of electing presidents that is absolutely indefensible if you believe in key principles of representative democracy like one person, one vote and majority rule.
Nate, if you want to do some productive number crunching on this, check out voter turnout trends in different categories of states. For instance, just why did turnout in Virginia rise from 29th in the nation to 12th in 2008? Was it because of a rise in civic virtue in Virginians or was it that suddenly the campaigns acted as if Virginians mattered?
On Michael's recent post about proportional allocation, it's not nearly as fair as a national popular vote system. Proportional allocation of electoral votes would mean that for many states, voting would be irrelevant as there would be no practical chance to affect your candidate's vote share enough to give them another electoral vote. (For instance, it might take a statewide increase of 8% to get one more electoral vote, and that's just not going to happen based on campaign activity.)
One-person, one-vote is my kind of proportion.
What you haven't noted, Nate, is that if it passes the states that it might and a few more similar ones to reach 270, it will be a huge disadvantage to Democrats. It will divide up all the votes in the blue states, but not the red states, since the blue states are the ones passing the bill. And the requirement is not that all states approve it, just that 270 electoral votes' worth do so. In other words, Dems could give up nearly half their electoral votes, while Reps give up very few. Certainly if this were the case you'd see a bunch of quick repeals of the bill.
Seems that a big part of the problem with this compact is the requirement that you get 270 EV worth of states on board before it becomes active.
Yet all that is really necessary for the thing to work as intended is for 2 big states to be involved -- one blue, one red. e.g. if California and Texas, or NY and Texas both agreed to this then it would be basically impossible for a candidate to win the EC without winning the popular vote.
It seems to me like this setup would be in the interests of big non-swing states such as CA, NY, and TX. As it is now, they don't get any attention whatsoever in the general election, but in a national popular vote scenario they would be heavily targeted. So why don't they get together and cut a deal along these lines?
The idea of allocating EVs by congressional district is terrible because: 1. it's inherently unstable since it reduces the electoral power of any state that adopts it, and 2. congressional districts are typically heavily gerrymandered os the whole election would be likely to come down to a small handful of individual districts, with the winner of the national popular vote being quite likely to lose the EC vote.
As electoral maps show, Obama won a very narrow victory, essentially a parocial candidate of the Eastern establishment, urbanites and the West Coast wackos.
The EC betters assures a candidate must appeal across all geographic strata and cannot get away with appealing to a narrow segment, no matter how numerous.
Such was the genius of the founding father's . . . .
. . . and such is the genious of Joe Biden's daughter!
Caught doing coke on tape!!!
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282009/news/nationalnews/friend_of_bidens_daughter_shopping_tape__161772.htm?&page=0
There's been a lot of discussion about whether the 'red' states will sign on as well as the 'blue'. What intrigues me is whether the 'battleground' states would be willing to get involved. As things stand now, only 10-15 states even matter and the other 35might as well not bother counting their votes (since they're 'safe' from the beginning).
Isn't it advantageous for states such as NH, NM, IA & NV to hang on to the status quo? After all, those little states matter a whole lot more than than big states like CA, NY, TX or IL.
This is what America is all about, isn't it? Giving a voice to the little guy and ignoring what the bigger, more important guys have to say.
Lawmakers who vote for laws that they know are unconstitutional (as this one is) are guilty of malfeasance and should be removed from office.
Want to get rid of the Electoral College? Fine. Pass a Constitutional Amendment and get it voted on by 3/4s of the states' legislatures -- that's how it is done.
These guys -- and the ones who voted for a 90% tax on the bailout bonus recipients (also a totally unconstitutional law) deserve to go!
a more fundamental problem with the idea is: in a close election, there are no provisions for states to recount their vote if the state total isn't within a certain percentage. just because the popular vote is separated by 500 votes doesn't trigger a recount in Georgia where candidate x won by 20 percent.
Beyond that, if a state refuses to go along with the idea, and their state law forbids the recount, then you have all sorts of issues cropping up because then the party just behind can argue that they would have won had not state x recounted their ballots.
That uncertainty would be lethal in any close election.
The Electoral College is, like the Second and Fourth Amendments, a relic of a bygone age that serves no useful purpose in the present.
There is an unfortunate tendency to cling to the past in this country. If someone wants to add veracity to an idea, they try to make it sound as old as they can. Tradition replaces common sense in a country headed toward ossification and senescence.
Everything should be re-evaluated periodically to determine if the ideas of our past are still relevant in the present-or if they will hinder our future happiness. In an era when everyone got around on a horse drawn carriage and it took months to reach DC, popular vote elections were cumbersome and logistically difficult to manage. Imagine having to transport the ballot boxes on horseback from Downeast Maine to DC during thw wintertime along unpaved dirt paths-or, a little later after California was admitted to the Union, from LA via pony express. Imagine how many ballots would have been lost during that time, and how hard it would have been to communicate the results in the era before the telegraph. This is why the Founders gave us the EC-they simply did not live in an era when ballot counts could be transmitted from coast to coast instantly, like they can now-or where paper ballots could be loaded onto a plane and flown to DC. There's no way they could have imagined the technological advances that now allow us to circumvent the impracticalities that prevented direct democracy in the past.
For us to cling to the Electoral College out of tradition misses the point of the EC altogether. It is no longer needed, and in the context of the modern world, it actually does more harm than good-it inhibits the people's capacity to choose their own government, which after all is the very basis for democracy itself.
I guess that the race for the popular vote would relocate the campaigns into the cities? Campaign strategists would be trying to maximize the campaign event/number of people-ratio. Small states might lose some of their importance, but not if these smaller states have a very concentrated population, like Nevada/Las Vegas or Nebraska/Omaha or Utah/Salt Lake City. On the other hand, bigger states with a very evenly divided population might not be that valuable (Connecticut? New Jersey? North Carolina?).
As a consequence, the political parties, well... the Republicans.... would have to adapt to an urban populace.
It would be brilliant for Texas and CA (or NY) to come together on this. Both states could carry huge electoral weight under a different system.
John K, you need to learn a bit about the Constitution. It's pretty plain to see that states can determine their Electors however they choose. And since this plan isn't to eliminate the Electoral College, but legislation that defines how states will allocate their Electors, this seems to be pretty clearly constitutional.
Also found to be constitutional many times: retroactive taxation. So you're wrong there, too.
@John K
""
Lawmakers who vote for laws that they know are unconstitutional (as this one is) are guilty of malfeasance and should be removed from office.
""
John, your premise (I feel) is correct: If lawmakers vote for laws they know are unconstitutional, they are guilty of malfeasance. However, I'm not sure the examples you give (the compact or the targeted income taxes) are unconstitutional. In fact, the compact has a legal scholar agreeing that it is constitutional (but would violate current federal statutes).
Statler,
I am shocked that you consider the Fourth Amendment which protections the invioloacy of our persons and our property from government searches and seizures as the relic of a bygone age. I won't even comment on your dismissal of the people's right to own guns.
How sad it is that the left is so willing to throw away freedom so cavalierly.
It must be that you enjoy body cavity searches and wish you had more, not fewer, nightsticks shoved up yer ass against your will!
Power to Abner Louima!
Don't mess with the people's freedom, bud!
@Troy,
As it stands right now you get 'battleground states' -- Ohio, Florida, Missouri, etc. They get LOTS of political play. By drilling down to the congressional district, areas that are currently ignored will become appealing targets for Republican pickups in a Democratic state or Democratic pickups in a Republican state.
And remember, this is a zero-sum game, so each individual flip changes the outcome by *TWO* ECVs, which makes every CD count even more!
You're right in that the true blue and fiery red 'safe'/'predictable' congressional districts won't get any more action than they do now -- but overall the electoral playing field WILL be expanded geographically.
On the other hand, if you go to a strictly popular vote, only the political playground will also change -- to include just the popular/populous places!
Darlene
This is a terrible idea. First because it gives a huge increase in influence to states that don't participate, and second because many of those that are choosing not to participate have lower voter turnout than those that are participating. That makes this system more likely rather than less likely to result in the election of someone who gets a minority of the popular vote.
The goal of a popularly elected president is a good one. This method would achieve the opposite.
My only concern is that problems in any precinct can throw the whole country into chaos. Imagine the 2000 squeaker, only instead of just Florida recounting and not recounting and re-recounting some/all/more than all of its ballots and their ballots' charming idiosyncrasies, the whole nation has to go through that because every vote can change the election. That would be an absolute disaster!
What's wrong with the Fourth ammendment?
@ John
This is a terrible idea. First because it gives a huge increase in influence to states that don't participate, and second because many of those that are choosing not to participate have lower voter turnout than those that are participating. That makes this system more likely rather than less likely to result in the election of someone who gets a minority of the popular vote.
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.Please give an example of how the Compact,if adopted, can cause a minority vote president.
John,I fear you don't understand the Compact in the least.
There seems to be a common perception that the EC unfairly helps the small states.
I just collected the data from the 2008 elections, used the 2008 estimated populations, and the 2008 EC votes per state. I then calculated the number of electoral votes per individual vote cast.
The top ten 'states' in terms of voting power (EV/Votes cast) are
10. West Virginia
9. Delaware
8. South Dakota
7. Rhode Island
6. Hawaii
5. Alaska
4. Vermont
3. North Dakota
2. District of Columbia
1. Wyoming
The US average is 4.10 ev per million votes cast. For Wyoming, the number is 11.78 ev per million votes cast. The state worst off is Florida, at 3.22. [Oregon is hurting at 3.83.]
As for ev per capita in the state, the results are similar:
10. Montana
9. Hawaii
8. Delaware
7. South Dakota
6. Rhode Island
5. Alaska
4. North Dakota
3. Vermont
2. District of Columbia (5.07)
1. Wyoming (5.63)
Ths US average is 1.75 ev per million citizens. The worst state is Texas at 1.40 ev per million, closely followed by Florida (1.47) and California(1.50). Oregon is at 1.85 ev per million.
Just FYI, y'all.
I think some posters are confused about exactly what the Compact says. Nates says that "their electors be allocated based on the nationwide popular vote". Assuming a fictional state with 100 electoral votes (to make the math simple) and the popular vote splits 53-47, this could be interpreted two ways:
1. The nationwide winner gets 100 electors, the nationwide loser gets 0.
2. The nationwide winner gets 53 electors, the nationwide loser gets 47 electors.
I haven't read the laws, but if the writers had any intelligence, they went with option 1.
Option 2 is a plausible interpretation, especially since there's so much talk about proportionality, but option 1 is the only one that makes sense here. The Compact states then give the national winner 270+ votes, and the electors from the non-Compact states give at most 268, and the popular vote winner becomes President.
Oh look... A name-squatting troll.
How cute, 10421229959457711138.
I guess some people are missing the part about the agreement not happening until voted for by a collection of states that represent a majority of electoral votes, then at that point immediately being the law in all those states.
The moment the rule takes effect, the President will be elected by a majority of the national popular vote. Any state not adopting the compact is irrelevant from an electoral standpoint, except for their contribution to the popular vote.
This is where it might (might!) be swimming in troubled waters constitutionally.. if a few large states implement it, and hit the 270 trigger, they in truth are setting the method of election for President for the entire nation. I find it hard to argue that a violation of equal protection has occurred when you are 'making' the system work equally for each voter. But some smaller states may view it as an infringement on their status in an electoral system that was obviously set up to overstate the importance of small states. Attempting to get around that framework without an amendment could raise the hackles of some of the jurists, especially if they view through politically-tinged glasses of a reddish nature.
Why stop at this reform.
Lets use the election vote for 10 years as an average to replace the census and then use that data to determine the number of house seats per state.
So if Minnesota for example has on average 15 % of the national population that votes they get 15% of the house seats.
It would reward those states that participate in the process, motivate house members to get out the vote and further the democratic process. For those states where people stay home they lose representation in the House.
You know, I should correct my statement before anyone else does.. a plurality of the national popular vote, not a majority.
A better thing would be to get states to divide up their electoral votes based on THEIR respective instate results.
This is the only thing that would make it through as constitutional change. Why? Because the small states would retain their extra power (2 Sens + reps) and would thus be a part of any 3/4 of the states required to pass an amendment. Any attempt to eliminate the EC will not fly because of all the small states with extra electoral power will not cede that power. Why would they give that up?
WS:
All the constitution says about the awarding of electors is that each state shall appoint electors in a manner directed by the legislature. The non-signatory sates are still doing that, but they just no longer matter. It would be a fun argument to watch as it wound its way through the courts, but you'd really have to strech out to read that in such a way that deprived one state (a signatory) of that right at the expense of another state (a non-signatory).
Of course, 10421229959457711138.
They'll belive you. They can't go back in threads and look up my number or anything like that...
This is easily the best way to make the Electoral College irrelavent short of a Constitutional Amendment and it's hard to believe that abolishing the Electoral College is ever going to seem a good idea to even two-thirds of the states.
The winner of the popular vote gets their slates in all the states which are party to the Compact regardless of who wins the state vote.
My question, as always, to those who would argue constitutionally, is: Just exactly what do you think in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct means?
My question, as always, to those who would argue constitutionally, is: Just exactly what do you think in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct means?
It's a thin limb, but stranger things have happened.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/all-your-base-are-belong-to-her.html#comments
There's me. With this number. Seven months ago. You may go now.
I found a very nice summary of the constitutionality issue at:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0221.htm
As I mentioned, the problems with this bill are not in the method of selection of electors for a state.. but instead in the fact that states are unilaterally setting a election process based on a mutual agreement that does not include every state, and was not approved by Congress.
The relevant portion of the Constitution is..
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution reads: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power. ”
Quoted from the text at my link..
"States have an interest in and exclusive authority to appoint their electors as they see fit. While the non-compacting sister states would still appoint electors, opponents argue that the Interstate Compact makes that appointment meaningless. The outcome of the Electoral College would be determined by an arranged collective agreement among compacting states, regardless of non-compacting states' action. Once states constituting a majority of the Electoral College have compacted to allocate their votes as a group, non-compacting states' electoral votes are politically ineffective."
I don't know that there is in fact a constitutional issue if this compact comes into force.
"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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2
This would just be the case of those states setting the manner of appointment as being the slate of electors for the candidate who wins the national popular vote, and thus within the plenary power of each of those states to so direct. The 'compact' is just a trigger for the state to change the manner of appointment of its electors and thus I don't believe it would violate the provisions Wayward Son cites (which are generally interpreted to give primacy to the Federal Government in the setting of foreign policy and treaties.
WS-
Isn't that section usually taken to refer to formal written agreements between states? Things like water treaties? Wouldn't you have to prove that something akin to a treaty had been formed? There would probably be some (ha!)question as to whether this is an "agreement" between states, or simply many states doing the same thing.
The electoral college reflects the representation in Congress; a state gets two votes (corresponding to it's Senate representation) plus one vote per Congressional District (corresponding to it's congressional representation).
The founder's purpose in that representation was explicitly to give small population states an edge over large population states, the exact same reasoning behind equal representation for all states in the Senate.
I am in a populous state and a Democrat to boot; I have the most to gain from dissolving the electoral college, but I still think this is a good idea; and end-running the system is a bad idea. I believe in super-majority rule, but not simple majority rule or mob rule. Small states should have a voice, even if they are predominately Republican.
I think Nate might consider whether controlling for population has anything to do with this support; the less population a state has, the more the electoral college helps them, regardless of their political affinity. Hawaii would be the obvious exception that provides leverage for separating the effects of Democrat affilliation and small state affiliation. For some small states, the EC doubles their effective voice.
Wayward Son—
Sister State Interest will be, in my view, the most meritorious constitutional challenge should this go into effect. It's just not nearly meritorious enough, in my opinion, to overcome the legislative perogative of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2.
It's totally constitutional. The Constitution says that the state legislatures appoint electors. There are no oversight provisions. In this case, the state legislatures would vote to pick electors pledged to the popular-vote winners.
Granted it has been passed by 4 States Illinois (21)New Jersey (15)
Maryland (10)Hawaii (4). On the other hand, bills to repeal the compact are pending in Maryland and New Jersey. There is even some talk out of Hawaii that they may well introduce a bill to repeal the compact as well. I honestly don't see this going anywhere in the near or long term future.
Lots of bills are "pending". Call me when they're on the floor.
Completely stupid idea. Whileit might work in a two-way race, what happens in a 3 candidate race? Candidate A gets 48% of the electors, Candidate B gets 40% and candidate C gets 11%. Now, between when the electors are apportioned and when they actually vote, candidate C could instruct his electors to vote for candidate B, thus thwarting the will of the people. There is no constitutional requirement for electors to vote for their candidate, and this would represent a return to back-room deals and power brokers such as we haven't seen in ages.
@Statler
For us to cling to the Electoral College out of tradition misses the point of the EC altogether. It is no longer needed, and in the context of the modern world, it actually does more harm than good
I agree. One consistent thing I've seen in these discussions is that defenders of the EC invariably talk about the wisdom of the Founders in creating this system. In fact, the EC functions very differently from how the Founders envisioned, and the country itself has changed from the conditions that first inspired the EC. That in itself doesn't prove that the EC is wrong--conceivably, a defender might argue that the EC has benefits the Founders didn't anticipate. But defenders rarely seem to take that line of argument. Instead, they try to pretend like nothing has changed.
Thomas Jefferson referred to Virginia as his "country." The term United States itself was treated as a plural until around the Civil War. In short, the states were regarded as much more independent entities than they are today. That's not to suggest we should just scrap our entire federalist system and become a single nation-state. But unquestionably the states are much weaker than they were at the beginning of the Republic, and we're not going back to that original condition anytime soon.
The most important practical consequence of the EC today is not the electoral-popular splits, which have only occurred three times (two of which were controversial), but the suppression of third parties. Take the 1992 election. Perot received 19% of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote. He had actually been leading in the popular vote according to some polls early in the race. What would have happened if he had maintained that lead into November? My guess is that it would have caused the race to be thrown into Congress, which would then have probably gone for one of the major-party contenders (Bush or Clinton).
My message to defenders of the EC is, if you like the two-party system, then by all means defend the EC. If you don't, then please spare us your sanctimony about the Founders' "foresight." The Founders neither anticipated nor approved of the two-party system we're locked into today.
Completely stupid idea. Whileit might work in a two-way race, what happens in a 3 candidate race? Candidate A gets 48% of the electors, Candidate B gets 40% and candidate C gets 11%. Now, between when the electors are apportioned and when they actually vote, candidate C could instruct his electors to vote for candidate B, thus thwarting the will of the people. There is no constitutional requirement for electors to vote for their candidate, and this would represent a return to back-room deals and power brokers such as we haven't seen in ages.
How is this different than the current situation of three or more canditates splitting the EC in such a way that no candidate earns 270? Furthermore, if the electors are assigned by the state with this law on the books to the candidate winning the most votes, the 48% candidate would still recive a winning number of Electors from those states. It doesn't matter what candidates B and C do.
At least in the early going, Republicans would be absolutely crushed in popular vote elections if this happened, right? Given the higher rate of suffrage in red states, there's much, much more room to stretch the margins in blue states. It's also easier to get out the vote in blue states b/c of high population density. It'd drift back to 50/50 as national GOP candidates shifted their platforms to win, but it wouldn't be pretty at first.
Suppose states with 271 electoral votes, mostly blue, signed on for this and the other states, mostly red, said "naaah, we never agreed to it and it hasn't gone through the normal amendment process, so we're keeping winner-take-all. But you guys can do it and, in fact, if you DON'T, Republicans in your states will sue to force you to honor it."
Then a Democrat wins by about the same numbers Obama posted last year but of the 340-some electoral votes he would ordinarily get, he only gets 180-some while the Republican gets 160-some plus the McCain 190-some and wins.
In point of fact, the blue states voting for this seem to have found a way to guarantee that a Democrat will NEVER get elected again. Perhaps now you understand why the red states aren't supporting it.
Dumbest idea I ever heard of.
Pete, you're a fucking retard.
Lawyer Peddling Alleged Biden Daughter Cocaine Tape Withdraws Under Fire
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/ashley-biden-cocaine-tape_n_180703.html
Besides, even if she had snorted coke at a party, whether it was on tape or not, it's none of anybody's business.
Besides, even if she had snorted coke at a party, whether it was on tape or not, it's none of anybody's business.
Seeing as how it's illegal and engaging in criminal activity, it is somebody's business.
If it's not authentic and the dude peddling it is a sham and con-artist, then cut his nuts off...but if it's true and accurate, then we need to know and it is our business.
@Kylopod:
First, I am not a great fan of the two-party system. Second, I am not sure that the EC necessarily supports the two-party system. It seems as though our two-party system is an artifact of American tradition and the winner-take-all rules in the states for apportioning EVs (NE and ME excluded).
The EC, in fact, encourages regional and moderate candidates more than a two-party system.
Example: I (or George Wallace) run for president and garner 13.5% of the vote. If I spread that out nationally, I get no EVs. If I concentrate those votes in the South (or West or Midwest or what have you), I will pick many EVs (perhaps 46), perhaps enough to take a three-way race or at least be a power broker in the House when the election gets thrown there (unless one party is in disarray).
Example 2: I run between the Democrats and Republicans in the general election and (somehow) convince enough Americans to vote for me that no one takes a majority in the EC, I would have the best chance of being the President, as neither 'extreme' party would want the other to win; they would throw their EVs to me before the EVs are cast in December.
The Number One Hindrance to third party votes is the conviction by the electorate that there really are only two 'real' parties.
The Number Two Hindrance is that regional candidates are not seen, by the electorate, as being relevant or able to win.
PorridgeGun is full of it. Another extremist prick.
By the way, power broking is what happened in 1876.
Anyone who is advocating the Maine/Nebraska system has no clue what they're talking about.
It has one fatal flaw - congressional districts can be gerrymandered.
Suppose states with 271 electoral votes, mostly blue, signed on for this and the other states, mostly red, said "naaah, we never agreed to it and it hasn't gone through the normal amendment process, so we're keeping winner-take-all. But you guys can do it and, in fact, if you DON'T, Republicans in your states will sue to force you to honor it."
Then a Democrat wins by about the same numbers Obama posted last year but of the 340-some electoral votes he would ordinarily get, he only gets 180-some while the Republican gets 160-some plus the McCain 190-some and wins.
In point of fact, the blue states voting for this seem to have found a way to guarantee that a Democrat will NEVER get elected again. Perhaps now you understand why the red states aren't supporting it.
Does anyone else understand what he's saying?
I think he missed the part where it only matters once 270+ EV of states have signed on. Or is he talking about 3rd party candidates?
What is the POINT of having an electoral college then? Why not just abolish the electorate and give the people the direct vote?
That Huff Post link doesn't exonerate Biden's daughter from snorting coke. It merely says the lawyere backed down because of criticism.
By your very own link, they insinuate the tape to be authentic. This will get play in the MSM. You can bet your bottom dollar. Biden will have to resign. At worst, he and his family receive public scorn and humiliation. We can only hope he gets at least that much and more.
I'd love to see that big smug grin turn to a frown and him be publicly humiliated.
Also:
The electoral college was designed to protect us from idiots like Bush. It ended up giving us one.
Time to scrap it.
I've just dealt another hard blow to PorridgeGun. I keep calling him out, yet he keeps on running and hiding. What a joke! Were it so easy to bitch-slap all of the loudmouthed extremists back into their little caves...
PorridgeGun = ExtremistTroll
The comment made by a supposed 'Mike in Maryland' at 2:32 PM (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/colorado-becomes-front-line-in-battle.html#comment-7831423590274133085) was made by an impostor.
Checking the page source, it is a new registration, with a blogger ID of http://www.blogger.com/profile/10778397292862371992 by someone who is afraid of allowing anyone to see any information on their blogger ID.
MY blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Mike in Maryland
Mike in MD-
I don't get why they do that. It's so obvious. Must be bored kids.
I miss He. That guy had class.
PorridgeGun,
What, prithee, is the impetus behind your phallic infatuation?
I mean, it's very rare for someone to have a handle that is directly translated (from the urbandictionary vernacular, that is) ErectPenis.
Do you really want people to take you seriously?
The big problem with a "National Popular Vote" is that it is currently a media construct. It's 50 seperate elections with 50 different sets of rules. There is no set criteria for who is on each state's ballot (Neveda has None of the Above on every election), there is no set criteria for who can vote (Vermont lets felons vote), there is no set voting procedure (Oregon is all mail in ballots), there is no set voting time (some states have early voting), there is no set registration time (some states you can register at the polls), etc. The media can ignore these things when adding up the states to serve up a total - but those details have to be addressed to use the number as an actual election result. That can't be done with this approach.
If something like this were to pass I would ask my state to consider counting each ballot as 1,000,000 votes. Probably wouldn't stick but why wouldn't each state try to game the system?
Between PorridgeGun being a typical radical loon and Mike having to defend his honor, this thread has pretty much jumped the shark. No need sticking around if intelligent discourse has left the building.
(let me try that again)
Those who think we should keep the Electoral College because of its beneficial distortion in favor of smaller states seem to be overlooking the much larger -- and entirely negative -- distortions caused by the "battleground state" phenomenon.
A voter swayed in Florida or Iowa is ten thousand times more valuable to a candidate than a voter swayed in Utah, and this fact distorts politics even in the non-election years. Our policy towards Cuba is governed entirely by Florida's tiny Cuban-American population. Agricultural subsidies are dictated by a handful of Midwestern farmers. I'm sure the examples could go on and on.
So, yes, it's time to dump the Electoral College. I may be naive, but I think California could do it singlehandedly. No need to match up with a big red state like Texas; just bite the bullet and declare that, starting in 2012, their Electors will cast their ballots for whoever wins the national vote.
What would be the result? There are three possible scenarios in any given election. If California voters break the same direction as the national vote, then it makes no difference. If they vote against the nation (presumably voting Democratic while the rest of the country votes Republican), then either their votes decide the election, or they don't.
Now, there is no election in recent history where California actually made the difference. They always either voted with the winner, or voted with a loser who got landslided (landslode?). But in any reasonably close election, the opportunity to steal California (or the necessity of defending it) would have to weigh heavy on the minds of the campaign managers.
Why should California do it? Because it only makes them more relevant. Right now it's a pretty solid lock for the Democrats, only going Republican during landslides. But if they say they'll go with the popular vote winner, suddenly there's a reason for a Republican to stump the state. In 2008, every tenth vote was cast by a Californian, including five million Republican votes.
If California went this route, I don't think it would be alone for long. Any state that felt it was being taken for granted could hop on the bandwagon, and get more attention in the general election.
Mason,
Another impostor post by the fake 'Mike in Maryland' at 6:47 PM (http://www.blogger.com/profile/10778397292862371992)
BTW imposter, my shoe size is not size 12.
Whatever - that was exactly my first thought. "What popular vote?" Apparantly, though, the popular vote totals would be taken from each state's Certificate of Ascertainment, which the states have to submit to the federal government in November and December. This doesn't eliminate the problem of different electoral laws, registration requirements, etc., however.
An interesting side-effect of this compact would be the creation of massive incentives for the states to ease registration requirements and prevent vote-suppression efforts.
I'm a supporter of the status quo or go with the idea of splitting the electoral votes by congressional district and 2 to the winner of the states (senates seats).
Why aren't people taking about fraud? I do NOT want voter fraud in some deep-red (or deep-blue) state to be able to tip an election. At least the current way, fraud only helps in places where both parties have a significant presence.
If we want to improve national elections, eliminate winner-take-all and allocate electoral votes by congressional districts.
@slasher14 : The states would not be splitting their electoral votes down the middle; they'd be giving them all to one candidate.
What you're thinking is more like the crap the Republicans tried to pull in California, when they demanded that the state unilaterally go to a per-district system. That was indeed the stupidest idea ever.
Smoking Aces said...
I've just dealt another hard blow to PorridgeGun. I keep calling him out, yet he keeps on running and hiding. What a joke! Were it so easy to bitch-slap all of the loudmouthed extremists back into their little caves...
LOL, well if isn't the pot calling the kettle a pot.
You've got a solid meal of crow still waiting for you. On the second page of comments. You'll have to navigate there yourself via the Post Comment link.
Don't you think you should take the time to choke that down before running off your mouth again?
Coward.
No, Dwight, you're still a POS liar. You said I argued "intelligent design."
You jumped in and stole some bullshit lines in a discussion I had with SnW and twisted that to try and make me look like a complete mook. You couldn't be more wrong.
If I was arguing for intelligent design, I'd be saying that I could "prove" he existed scientifically. I never said that. In fact, I'll say right now I can't "prove" that. I know that makes you just swell with egotistical pride, you assbag.
But you lied in saying that I argued that. I didn't. A thousand times, I didn't. Have I ever pointed out that there might be evidence suggesting a Higher Power? Yeah, definitely. But I readily admit it can't be proven.
Just like life emerging from non-life matter can not and has not been proven. Wanna give that a try? Since you're such a brilliant piece of work.
I've been involved with science for over 20 years and have seen nothing that even remotely answers how intelligent life came into being, be it from lower life forms or for non-living matter. That theory - macroevolution - is a failure. Atheism is a failure. I admit there's a lot of faith required to understand the full monty of Creation and an Almighty, but you can't convince me with science - because it doesn't exist!!! - that life is an accident or prove how it happened absent a Author and/or Creator.
You are the coward.
Don't you think you should take the time to choke that down before running off your mouth again?
I'll give you one chance to say it to my face. If you refuse, you are the true coward.
Since the main purpose of dispensing with the electoral college would be to give a greater sense of enfranchisement to every voter, I think the remedy should be simple. The above method adds another layer of complexity that voters could still argue over in the aftermath. So, to me, it is not an improvement. The simplest solution, as I see it, is for every state to apportion its electoral votes to reflect the popular vote in that state. It is the current winner-take-all apportionment used by most states that is the source of the problem, after all. A proportional divvying up of the votes would restore each voter's voice in the presidential election.
You said I argued "intelligent design."
You dimwit. Do you think Madoff asked people "Hey, do you want to invest in this Ponzi scheme?" A turd by any other name stinks as bad. The perpetrators of the con keep changing the name to try outrun their past humiliation and court decisions.
> If I was arguing for intelligent design, I'd be saying that I could "prove" he existed scientifically.
No, you'd be arguing that there was evidence that a Higher Power created the flora and fauna on earth rather than it having evolved. Which is EXACTLY what you claimed there was.
> Just like life emerging from non-life matter can not and has not been proven. Wanna give that a try? Since you're such a brilliant piece of work.
You didn't even watch this video, did you? I'm just guessing that you haven't otherwise you wouldn't be running through the blatantly classic and patently fraudulent talking points.
I've been involved with science for over 20 years and have seen nothing that even remotely answers how intelligent life came into being, be it from lower life forms or for non-living matter. That theory - macroevolution - is a failure.
Performing "experiments" on your self by seeing how much gas you can huff from a dirty gym sock before you pass out doesn't count as involvement in science.
And yes, I do expect that stubbornly sticking your head firmly up your ass would make it hard to notice the huge pile of evidence for evolution. Rube.
So, again, time for you to suck it up and apologize.
Coward.
Hey, dipshit, all I'm asking is that you provide one shred of evidence that life emerged from non-living matter. Just one. The video doesn't cover that. "Intermediate forms" can attempt to bridge monkeys to humans and amphibians to reptiles to birds, etc. but it doesn't explain how a non-living amalgam of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. transformed or evolved, if you will, into something living.
Deny Him all you want, God exists. I don't think He likes being referred to as a "turd."
You owe me an apology. But I don't expect one. I just want you to shut your mouth.
I'm waiting on the proof....oops, wrong word, evidence that life could have emerged from non-living substances. Just one shred.
Hint: It. Doesn't. Exist.
Good luck wallowing in your own filth trying to find something, though.
You called me out on evolution (versus creation), now I'm calling you out on abiogenesis. Where's the evidence?
Where?
Where?
Coward.
If I see the words "Miller" or "Urey" in your response, I'll know you are a registered retard.
Those who claim that the EC gives small states greater power ignore the fact that electoral votes are *not* proportional to electoral power. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_Power_Index. The simplest way to think of it: if a single state had more than half the electoral votes it would have 100% of the voting power. Even if other states were highly malapportioned (i.e. had far more EVs per person) it still wouldn't make a difference. In the current US Electoral College, obviously the effect isn't strong as this but bigger states still have more power (all other things being equal, so a big swing state has disproportionate power compared to a small swing state).
LOL, sticking to the game plan I see? Trying to run away from your own words. Nope, you aren't going use obfuscation to squirm out of your responsibilities you little worm.
Let's hear you say it: "I was full of shit claiming there is evidence of creation by a Higher Power rather than evolution. I was full of shit calling you a liar. Sorry about that."
Wow, I didn't realize there were people so blatantly and willfully ignorant in the world. I actually pity you. I'm still waiting on evidence of abiogenesis. It ought to be really simple. Real simple. Real. Simple.
Come on, asshat, you can do it. You are completely inept.
Reasons to Believe in God
I want to pick up two observations which I think give us good reason to think there is a God. First, the existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God. Second, the existence of objective moral values is better explained by the existence of God.
A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
I will begin by laying out the argument:
1. There are things which come into existence.
Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.
There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.
Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first cause always existed.
Let us look at each of the steps in the argument:
Premise 1. "There are things which come into existence."
Many things have come into existence. This article is coming into existence as I write it. You came into existence and so did I. This premise is not uncontroversial.
Premise 2. "Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else."
It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that causes itself to come into existence has to exist before it exists. This is impossible. Perhaps something can come into existence from Nothing without any cause whatsoever. Can a thing just pop into existence with absolutely no cause? This also does not seem reasonable.
I have three children. If I walk into the dining room and see a picture of Pinky and the Brain which is drawn on the wall in Permanent Magic Marker I will ask "Where did this picture come from?" My daughter Elizabeth (who is almost five) might say "It came from nothing, Dad. Nothing caused it. It just popped there. I think it is quite strange -- don't you?" Will I accept this? No! Things do not come into existence from Nothing without cause. So, we have good reason to think that premise two is true. Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.
Premise 3. "There cannot be an infinite series of past causes."
Is the series of past causes infinite? Can the universe have an infinite past? The answer is that it cannot. First, there are philosophical reasons to think the past cannot be infinite. Second, there are scientific reasons which support this view.
Philosophical Reasons:
Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.
The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.
Scientific Reasons:
I will not develop these. Rather, I will simply point them out.
Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a beginning, but it supports this claim.
The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the universe had a beginning but it also supports this claim.
We can see that we have good philosophical and Scientific reasons to reject the idea that the Universe has always existed.
About the Universe, there are only three alternatives:
1. The universe has always existed. It has an infinite past.
The universe was popped into existence from nothing with absolutely no cause.
The universe was caused to exist by something outside it.
We have strong reason to reject the first two alternatives.
Alternative Three is the most reasonable. There was a first cause. This cause existed eternally. It initiated the big bang and created the universe. Now what can we know about this cause? Why think the cause is God? I will briefly sketch a few implications.
First, the first cause is not a part of the space-time physical universe because it caused the space time universe to begin. Therefore it is outside of space and time. It is not physical. Second, it has a great deal of power. Third, it is a personal agent. This means it is not an inert force but it must have aspects of person hood; namely, that it wills. How do we know this? This is because it is the best answer to the question of why the Big Bang happened when it did. Why not sooner? Why not later? All of the conditions for producing the Big Bang existed from eternity. The only kind of cause we know of that can initiate an effect when all of the conditions are already present is the will of a personal agent.
I have not argued that it is logically impossible that the universe popped into existence from nothing without cause. I have argued that it is more reasonable to hold that it has a cause and that this cause is a non-physical personal agent -- God.
So it seems that the first argument is fairly strong. The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.
People experience a sense of morality that leads them to hold strongly that certain things are right or wrong for all people in all cultures. For example, it is wrong to torture another person just for fun. It is wrong for me today. It is wrong for a citizen of the Philippines and it was wrong for someone living in 500 BC. Our moral sense provides strong reason to believe in a personal God.
It will help clarify what I am saying if we put it into the form of an argument.
If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
There are moral values which are objective.
Therefore, God exists.
Before I discuss this argument, I must make it clear that I am not claiming that one must believe in God in order to be moral. I am not claiming that statistically those who believe in God are more moral than those who do not. I am also not claiming that our knowledge of morality depends upon God. This argument is to the effect that objective moral values themselves are foreign to a universe without God. They do not fit.
Defending Premise 1. "If there is no God, there are no objective moral values."
I have to admit that this claim is quite controversial and many philosophers disagree with me. I think, however, that objective moral values are not sufficiently explained in a universe without God. Many have agreed with this claim. For example, Dostoevski had Ivan Karamazov claim, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Sartre wrote of Dostoevski's statement, "That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to." [see his essay Existentialism] John Mackie -- probably the best philosophical atheist of the twentieth century recognizes this: "[Objective moral values] constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them. If, then, there are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them [The Miracle of Theism, pp 115-116.]
Mackie recognizes that these objective values do not fit in the universe if there is no God. His answer, since he rejects God, is to claim that there are no objective moral values. His book on ethics is appropriately titled Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. I agree with Dostoevski, Sartre and Mackie. If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
Defending Premise 2. "There are objective moral values."
We know there are objective moral values. By this I mean that the content of morality is not determined by the individual, or by culture. Rather some things are objectively wrong. Other things are objectively obligatory. Actions such as rape, racist discrimination and torturing an innocent baby to death for no reason are really wrong. Furthermore, It is wrong for me to do these no matter when I live and no matter from what culture I come.
Now many people believe that morality is not objective. This view comes in three basic varieties.
1. The individual determines morality.
If the individual determines morality, then if I believe it is morally permissible to steal your stereo and beat up your girlfriend, it is permissible for me to do it. But it is not permissible for me to beat up your girlfriend. Therefore, the individual does not determine morality.
2. Society determines morality.
If I lived in a completely racist society, would racism be right for me? Not at all. When an American university student protests against South Africa's policy of apartheid, he is assuming that morality is not determined by society. It is transcendent of cultures. All of our greatest heroes have been men and women who have stood up to society's wrongs and appealed to a morality that is transcendent to society in order to demand change. If society determines morality, it is always morally wrong to criticize society. There is no morality outside of society which can form the basis of a moral critique.
3. Morality has survival value.
Some people claim that the reason we have this moral sense is that it helped the human race survive. Those individuals with moral sense grouped together for mutual protection and these did better than those without the moral sense. This is a kind of prehistoric social contract theory of morality. The problem with this is that we do not need morality to survive today. In fact, if you and I know that morality has no objective validity and the rest of our culture still thinks it is valid, we can take advantage of this to get the most we can. There is no moral reason to refrain from rape, robbery and murder.
These inadequate objections show that our sense is that there is a morality that is trans-personal, trans-cultural and trans-temporal The existence of a personal God is the best explanation for this. It is not up to the individual or the culture whether it is permissible to rape simply for fun. Any individual who believes it is morally permissible to rape for fun has a false belief. Any culture whose moral guidelines include the claim that it is permissible to rape for fun has simply got it wrong.
If it is true that Hitler was morally wrong, it is true that there are objective moral truths which are trans-cultural. If it is true that it was wrong for Romans to leave baby girls to die on the trash heaps -- simply because they were girls, then morality is not determined by culture. If it is true that Martin Luther King was a moral hero because he criticized his own culture by appealing to objective morality, then it is true that morality is not determined by culture.
Now, It is true that Hitler was wrong. It is true that the Romans were wrong. It is true that Martin Luther King was right -- heroically right. So, we know there are objective moral truths. But objective morality makes no sense in the Universe if there is no God. Objective moral values point to the existence of a moral being who created the universe. His moral character is the standard for objective right and wrong.
Summary
I have briefly presented two arguments for the existence of God. These show that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists than that He does not exist.
A. The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God.
B. The Existence of Objective Moral Values is Better Explained by the Existence of God.
So we see that some of the things we observe about the natural world ground a strong inference to the claim that God does exist. This gives us reason to consider with renewed openness the possibility that God has entered the space-time universe and revealed Himself through the person and life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.
I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, however, provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, he must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until He does this, we can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.
@Nichlemn said:
""
bigger states still have more power (all other things being equal, so a big swing state has disproportionate power compared to a small swing state).
""
True, but we are talking about the individual voter, no? In larger states, the individual voter has a lower 'power' than in smaller states.
In other words, a million votes in California would result in 4.06 electoral votes, whereas in Kentucky, those same million votes would result in 4.58 electoral votes.
Incidentally, the four Constitutional relics I would like to see re-examined are the Electoral College, DC's lack of representation, the Second and Third Ammendments. I misspoke earlier and mentioned the Fourth, when I had ment to type the Third Ammendment.
All four of these relics are examples of what were good legislation when they were drafted, but now serve no purpose at all. The Electoral College: Good when direct popular vote was problematic due the only means of communication/transportation was horseback, there were no paved roads, and it could take weeks or even months to get from point A to point B, thereby rendering monitoring of the polling places damn near impossible.
DC originally wasn't intended to be anyone's sole permanent residence. I guess they thought of it as the 18th Century version of an office park at the time they dreamt it up. Well, now it is a sole place of permanent residence for half a million people. It's not an office park anymore.
The Second Amendment: useful back when bears were a legitimate concern for most Americans, and I don't mean the Richard Hatch variety. Originally intended to be a bulwark against foreign invasion, when we had borders with Spanish, British and French colonies and a weak central government with an even weaker Army. Now, the two countries that border us invade us only for jobs and to get away from cold as fuck winters. The Army is stronger than any military force has ever been in history. In 1776, that rifle was the only thing that kept the country from recapitulating tot he British. Now, the British are happy with the 25 DVD set Obama gave to Gordon Brown, so the rifle isn't going to help any.
The Third Amendment. Believe it or not, nobody has ever used the Third Amendment and won in a court case. Ever. It made one brief appearance on the SCOTUS stage, and got laughed out of court.
Now, in the case of the last relic, it's more humorous than harmful. In the case of the one before that, little kids shoot up schools. In the case of the next one back, half a million Americans are taxed but not represented-isn't that something we fought the revolution over?
And int he central point of this whole thread, the first on my list, it's pointless, confusing, anti-democratic, even wasteful to a degree. A direct popular vote would be a) cheaper b) more democratic c) serve a purpose and d) everyone knows how it works.
I find it ironic that people who argue that a majority of people need to agree on things like civil rights before we'll protect anyone will be the same folks that reject the idea that the popular majority can elect their own leaders. If your argument on the former point is that the majority sets the rules, why can't the majority elect their leaders?
Can people take this discussion about God, evolution, etc. elsewhere? What has it got to do with the Electoral College? (Other than that the EC wasn't intelligently designed, and I'd agree.)
@Ole Forsberg
You're practically admitting the case when you attribute the two-party system partly to the winner-take-all rules in most states. Those rules come directly from how the EC has functioned through almost its entire history, and still does with the exception of two states.
If you look at every election after 1860 with a third-party candidate of any significance, it is clear that the EC all but renders that candidate's chances nil.
The George Wallace example is a non-starter, based on a hypothetical scenario (a brokered deal in the House) that I don't think was ever really likely to occur, even if the race had been thrown into Congress.
The House, as part of the two-party establishment, supports the established parties and established candidates. That's what I was alluding to in bringing up the 1992 election. Of course, we could reduce that factor with proportional representation in Congress, but I digress....
Smoking Aces said...
""
blah, blah, blah
""
See the rest of his post at
http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml
Please, at least forgo plagiarism.
@Kylopod
""
You're practically admitting the case when you attribute the two-party system partly to the winner-take-all rules in most states
""
No practically about it, I am fully admitting it (unless someone provides evidence to the contrary).
""
Those rules come directly from how the EC has functioned through almost its entire history, and still does with the exception of two states.
""
These rules, however, are a function of how both Congress and the individual states make the rules.
If you want to argue based on history, I agree with you. If you want to argue based on the Constitution, let's argue (but the Constitution is rather vague in many important areas, which allow future generations to deal with new issues).
""
If you look at every election after 1860 with a third-party candidate of any significance, it is clear that the EC all but renders that candidate's chances nil.
""
It's not the EC, but the rules of Congress and the states. NE and ME (ironically the 'Massachusetts Plan') offer one alternative. The Compact offers another. South Carolina offers a third (until they decided to follow the rest of the country and have electors elected). There are many possible options. Each can be tailor-made to emphasize the particular culture of the state.
My mistake: The Wallace example was not intended to show what may have happened if the race had gone to the House. It was intended to show that regional candidates fare better int he EC than national candidates (all things being equal). Sorry about the inclarity.
""
The House, as part of the two-party establishment, supports the established parties and established candidates.
""
Your comment is not a digression. It is very important. The current tradition of two parties is a positive feedback loop. [That's why I completely dismiss any talk by others about the Republicans disintegrating and being replaced.] Thus, we (as voters) feel that there are only two 'real' parties.
I contend, however, that this is not an issue of the EC, but of the winner-take-all election system we have. Take a look at Britain; they do not have an EC, but they have a winner-=take-all system. They have significantly fewer political parties in their Parliament than do other European states with a non-winner-take-all system (but with an otherwise similar Parliamentary system).
Ole Forsberg,
Hey, I'm trying to let it be. But dipshit Dwight keeps thinking it necessary to "call me out."
Yes, I copied/pasted. But my point was to highlight the last paragraph to make a point to my good buddy Dimwight. It's that:
I have not claimed to prove with mathematical certainty that God exists. I have, however, provided good reasons to think that He does. If someone wishes to argue successfully that God does not exist. He must first, provide an answer for each of my arguments and second, he must offer arguments that God does not exist. Until He does this, we can conclude that we have good reason to claim that God does exist.
@Smoking Aces:
The major problem is that issues of G-d are (from what I have seen) completely untestable.
To forestall any objections, issues of ALL 'fundamental issues', such as G-d, the meaning of life, the origin of life, the origin of the Universe, etc., cannot be answered with science. That is why we need something other than science in our lives.
Science, as we currently understand its ontology, can only answer questions dealing with what we experience (or can tangibly experience). Those things that have answers based on our opinions (without a specific empirical answer), are beyond the ken of science (admittedly so).
Thus, science never argues that G-d does not exist (it cannot even formulate the language to deal with such a being). Scientists do not argue that G-d does not exist. Science (and proper scientists) argue that they cannot tell if G-d does (or does not) exist.
Ok, while I'm at it:
"Mathematical certainty" is not achievable outside mathematics and philosophy.
Thus, science never argues that G-d does not exist (it cannot even formulate the language to deal with such a being).
Dwight thinks he can argue that point with science. He's shouting me down for insinuating there might be evidence of a Higher Power so I'm merely asking him for evidence of abiogenesis.
I'm content to let it go, but he insists on stoking the flames.
This move is a very bad idea. Look at the states that have already gone along with the idea--Illionois, New Jersey and Hawaii, all of which are consistently and heavily Democratic.
This is an end-run alright, but it's the GOP end-running the process by gaming it.
Unless ALL states do this simultaneously, it will be a big disadvantage to Democrats.
Write your state representatives, tell them no National Popular Vote law unless all states are subject to it.
Mark my words, folks, the GOP is salivating over the prospect of California's electors being divided up, while Texas's aren't.
@Smoking Aces:
The problem (I've found) with blogg entries is that I'm not thinking in absolute scientific "watch what I write" terms.
Just as Dwight should give you a break for what you accidentally write, so should you to him.
(Not directed to you, SA; I'm on my soapbox here:) Political discourse in the Country is too much "gotcha" journalism. Someone writes something (on a blogg) or says something, and they are never allowed to modify or grow from that statement. It also has to do with the rampant hypocrisy in this Country.
Bertrand Russell once wrote (close, but I'll paraphrase) that if he believed in 20 year what he believed now, it would be a waste of 20 years. We seem to believe that changing our minds is a sign of weakness.
There is a reason the one of the rules of the Constitutional Convention was that nothing would be published about the inner speeches until everyone was dead. Growth (= change) is very difficult when you are on record for something.
Hey Smoking Aces, I challenge you to a knife fight at the Golden Gate Bridge, this Wednesday at noon.
If you refuse you are a coward and I will beat you up through the internet, you coward.
Also, let the record show that Jesus was actually a caveman monkey eunuch.
Just as Dwight should give you a break for what you accidentally write, so should you to him.
I'm willing to do that as I acknowledge some of what I said was likely misrepresented and some of it taken out of context. But he's being delusional if he doesn't realize he's got many (or more) of the same holes in his argument if he's trying to position himself squarely in the opposite corner to me in that particular argument.
He's got a personal beef with me, though, so he needs to let go of that.
I'll be there. I don't need a knife.
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.
James Madison, Federalist 55
I'd settle for a Deus Ex Machina at this point. God knows this little testosterone fest is BS.
Thanks to loner for the original post.
Ole Forsberg said...
Thus, science never argues that G-d does not exist (it cannot even formulate the language to deal with such a being).
Smoking Aces said...
Dwight thinks he can argue that point with science.
Umm, not I'm pointing out that YOU claimed there was evidence of a Higher Power vs evolution.
I'm not even talking about the existance of G-d! Of course that all gets confused because either you are confused or you are intentionally confounding the discussion.
He's shouting me down for insinuating there might be evidence of a Higher Power so I'm merely asking him for evidence of abiogenesis.
No, I'm shouting you down for:
1) claiming you've never tried peddling intellectually bankrupt crap as "evidence"
2) claiming nobody ever successfully calls you on it (or that that could successfully call you on it I guess, giving your penis swinging huff about it?)
3) you called me a liar and now refuse to apologize when I show that I am NOT
4) sucking the intellengce out of the room whenever you open your mouth
I'm content to let it go, but he insists on stoking the flames.
Of course you'll "let it go". Because by now you know damn well you are flat out beat by any measure other than being more stubborn. You aren't that stunned that you don't realize this by now, are you? But of course you don't really let it go, you just mentally chalk it up as another 'win', in your mind further testimony to your your cerebral prowess and just how damn right you are all the time.
Sorry, I'm not going to let you worm out of it. Homey don't play that game.
@Hu Chi:
“There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”
N. Machiavelli
Why do we point to old, dead, white guys for our philosophy of government? Do they have a monopoly on Truth? Are we allowed to abrogate our duty to think simply because they uttered a lyrical phrase that says what we want to say?
Is there not fundamental value in democracy that transcends a (common) desire for Dea ex Machina? Is this not the libertarian dream (all pots on their own bottom)?
Pragmatus—
Under this plan electors are not "divided up." The winner of the national popular vote becomes President of the United States because in states with 270 or more electoral votes the legislatures of those states have directed that their electoral votes (all of them) shall be cast for the winner of the national popular vote.
@Pragmatus:
You misunderstand the nature of the proposal: states which agree to the "national popular vote" compact will give ALL their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Once states controlling 270 or more electoral votes agree to the compact, the winner of the electoral vote will get 270+ electoral votes, thus winning the election.
No state will be dividing its electoral vote under this proposal.
'm willing to do that as I acknowledge some of what I said was likely misrepresented and some of it taken out of context.
Well that's a small step closer....except it reeks of bullshit. It certainly isn't the apology you owe. What do you think, that this is just the interent and you don't need to be responsible for launching off baseless accusations of "liar".
How about you go back to the thread (3/10 date I think) and read it? I sure haven't seen from you an explaination of the context that is saying something other than what I'm asserting (I suspect because there isn't a credible explaination .... because I understand exactly what you were intending to say).
But he's being delusional if he doesn't realize he's got many (or more) of the same holes in his argument if he's trying to position himself squarely in the opposite corner to me in that particular argument.
You don't even know what the argument is, or at least are trying to pretend you don't. I understand you trying to move
He's got a personal beef with me, though, so he needs to let go of that.
It goes no deeper than the illogical crap you try to pass off and the fact and reason, and that you won't suck it up and take responsibility for what you say. Not just on this subject. I'm talking generally now.
Fergedaboutit! Anything implemented with state laws is subject to coming unravelled when the chips are down. In fact, it's guaranteed.
@ Statler
Since this is already, by far, the most hopelessly deranged comment thread that I've seen on this site, I'll go ahead and post an off-topic reply to this:
"The Third Amendment. Believe it or not, nobody has ever used the Third Amendment and won in a court case. Ever. It made one brief appearance on the SCOTUS stage, and got laughed out of court."
That's a bit misleading. Although the Engblom v Carey plaintiffs lost on remand, the appeals court held in their favor on the Third Amendment issues. And SCOTUS cited it in Griswold as a specific guarantee which helps to outline the zone of privacy rights established in the Bill of Rights; only a tangential mention but hardly laughing it out of court.
More to the point, I don't see how a lack of documented violations of a particular right makes the right any less worthy of protection. I might not think it urgent to add it at this point, but it's not like it costs anything to keep it. It's sort of nice to have, actually. The lack of caselaw renders it a sort of museum exhibit: "what a Constitutional protection might look like before it's gutted."
@ Mason:
Completely stupid idea. Whileit might work in a two-way race, what happens in a 3 candidate race? Candidate A gets 48% of the electors, Candidate B gets 40% and candidate C gets 11%. Now, between when the electors are apportioned and when they actually vote, candidate C could instruct his electors to vote for candidate B, thus thwarting the will of the people. There is no constitutional requirement for electors to vote for their candidate, and this would represent a return to back-room deals and power brokers such as we haven't seen in ages.
How is this different than the current situation of three or more canditates splitting the EC in such a way that no candidate earns 270? Furthermore, if the electors are assigned by the state with this law on the books to the candidate winning the most votes, the 48% candidate would still recive a winning number of Electors from those states. It doesn't matter what candidates B and C do.
Here's how it's different:
"Winner-take-all" states, through the electoral college, magnify small victories. That sounds like a bad distortion, but it's actually beneficial.
Guys like Lincoln, Wilson, and Clinton won EC majorities, without pop-vote majorities, due to the "winner-take-all" EC structure. That structure tends to have two salutary effects:
1. It lends the cred of a majority to the winning candidate; and
b. It tends to crowd out minor-party candidates.
To explain Point B: if your party doesn't have a chance to get any electoral votes, you won't attract much money or attention; you won't be a viable candidate.
Now, if we awarded the presidency to the candidate with a plurality of the popular vote, third parties would spring up all over. If we had, like, six parties, someone could be president with 20-25% of the vote.
S/he could be a radical, or some petty regional nut that the rest of the country couldn't stand (think Sarah Palin, if she were from Texas). Three quarters of the country, or more, voted against her--and she's president?
No, you need a majority. And to get a majority, you need the Electoral College. Sorry, dudes and dudettes; that's just the way it is.
Off topic but, Cassano is is going down.
SnW-
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you might have been suffering from a little bit of off-by-one error in your enumeration of archaic constitutional provisions.
Pragmatus
You make a good point. It's all or nothing with a scheme like this.
I do think that the EC is no longer relevant, and should be replaced by something more small d democratic (the result of which is also likely to be more big D, IMHO). Using the congressional district method works OK, especially if the total number of cd's is raised, which might be a good idea, too.
There's no getting around issues involving fraud (Ohio, Florida) and GOTV differences among states. All parties will try to game any new system, but the principle of democratizing one of the fundamental elements of this democracy is unassailable.
While we're at reform, could someone please come up with a way to make presidential elections less of an east coast phenomenon? The time difference tends to make the west coast irrelevant and to open the door for last-minute chicanery in a close election.
@ Hu Chi:
While we're at reform, could someone please come up with a way to make presidential elections less of an east coast phenomenon? The time difference tends to make the west coast irrelevant and to open the door for last-minute chicanery in a close election.
Sure. Polls close at midnight in the Eastern time zone, and at 9 in the Pacific time zone. All the returns start coming in at the same time.
No, you need a majority. And to get a majority, you need the Electoral College. Sorry, dudes and dudettes; that's just the way it is.
You don't need a majority to be president. In the last five elections, three have been "plurality presidents". While you're probably right that you could have smaller regional parties running for and winning the presidency, I don't think that the Texan Sarah Palin or Barney Frank winning would occur any time soon. Even if it did, it would be the system we had wrought.
Frankly, the problem that is more worrisome if this passed would be the loss of compartmentalization of any fraud/failures/ineptitude in running elections. We'd no longer be running 51 elections at the same time, but rather one big election.
A lot of the commenters above are basically plain stupid.
1. This argument that candidates will only campaign in the cities is absurd. First, candidates campaign everywhere within a state as it stands now. By your logic, only cities in a state would see campaigning. Second, all a losing candidate needs to do is proclaim on national TV that they are the candidate of rural areas and they can get those votes. A national vote doesn't make rural votes go poof.
2. The Compact only activates when 270 EVs are under it.
3. Electors aren't forced to vote. When you vote for Obama or whoever, you are actually voting for a slate of loyalists who will vote for Obama without a doubt.
4. It takes 3/4 of the states (38) to pass a Constitutional amendment.
I'm sure there are other false things I missed, but I have no intention of reading 160+ comments to criticize them.
My personal opinion? I was against the Electoral College until 2008. It magnified Obama's victory to 66%. It gave him a very clear mandate that HE won. 53% doesn't do that as well. Also, the EC allows for election night drama. We all are on the edge of our seats desperately waiting for the next polls to close and Wolff Blitzer to step up to the magic wall.
Even though the EC does have these benefits, I actually do think it may be best to abolish it and let the popular vote rule. The EC was/is a good idea, but it has been so distorted and corrupted (extreme gerrymandering, if you will). The original intent was that you'd elect someone, who with 537 other people would elect the President. You were not meant to have a say in who becomes president.
DC originally wasn't intended to be anyone's sole permanent residence. I guess they thought of it as the 18th Century version of an office park at the time they dreamt it up. Well, now it is a sole place of permanent residence for half a million people. It's not an office park anymore.
Funny thing about this is that when they formed the DC, they incorporated the pre-existing towns of Georgetown, MD and Alexandria, VA into the district. They were both rather bustling rival port towns.
Sorry -- in my earlier post I misunderstood the proposal. I apologize to everyone except those who pointed this out abusivly.
Ole
We're commenting a post that involves the constitution, so it seemed OK to bring Madison up.
I see this blog not specifically as a place where free speech is unfettered, but rather as a place where issues at least vaguely relevant to the original post are discussed in a civil manner. Of course, Nate has total freedom to shut down the site altogether if it gets too obnoxious. He's the God that controls the Machine.
By your Machiavelli analogy, war is 100% preventable in this context. The plug gets pulled and everybody disappears--no world, no war.
It's possible that you brought up Machiavelli to illustrate your point that lots of dead white guys were wrong. No argument there...
As to all pots on their own bottoms, the principle is OK, but, like libertarianism, it's lacking a concept that gives it balance: we're all in this together and we should play nice.
Your comment aside (it's fine), this is probably the dumbest thread on this site ever. SA, who says the site has jumped the shark, is doing his best to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quix,
I ahve to say, that's the only defense for having Third Amendment protections elevated to the stature of the Bill of Rights I've ever seen in print. I hope it's the last one, too.
OKay, I suppose it's nice to know that a soldier can't come crashing into my dorm room and demand that I'm taking the sofa tonight while he gets the bed. Since I don't have a sofa, I'd have to share a twin bed with him. If he's cute this is no problem, but what if he's an ugly smelly bastard? Oh, well... I guess I'll just close my eyes and tell myself I'm doing him for my country.....
The Third Amendment is just surreal to me. I mean, the number 3 slot is a pretty big deal. Just two behind the first Amendment and right before the Illegal Search and Seizure Amendment. It even beats the I plead the Fifth,( or is it the I drank the fifth? I can't remember) Amendment. That some pride of place there. For something that got a brief mention by the Supremes and lost the one and only time I was actually used in a court case-because come on, how many times is a GI likely to show up and demand that you beat it so he can take over your apartment? Now, if you want to put that in the CJS, or maybe even make it part of the UCMJ, alright, I could see that. But Number 3? For that? Why not rewrite the Second Amendment to say you have a right to a free phone call after you get locked up? At least that actually happens to people.
Back to the real point of this somewhat convoluted thread (how exactly did this turn into an Intelligent Design debate?), the EC is a similar artifact that resulted from conditions present at the time of the Revolution. Much like Big Number Three there, that shit was a real concern back then-British troops did kick people out of their homes so soldiers could sleep there. It's never happened since then, but at the time it was a problem. So too with the EC-this was the era of the horse drawn cart, unpaved roads, and when a text message was something you handed to an underage boy and told him to race across the Great Plains on a pony and try not to get shot or robbed alongt he way. BTW, if you need evidence that some traditions are worth getting rid of when the technology gets so we don't need it anymore, I'm glad as a former underage boy that I never had to do that shit. The one time I even got close to a horse it kicked me. On top of that, just because I'm young doesn't make me arrow-proof. Talk about child labor! I'm quite happy that you all can send a text message on your cellphone now and I don't have to get anywhere near one of those things.
Listen, the Founders were pretty smart people, and they gave us alot of really good things. But they were men of their times. There's no way they could have envisioned the internet, airplanes-hell, even a 1970 Gremlin with a missing bumper would have blown their minds. There's no way you can expect them to have forseen the realities of the modern age. Some of what they came up with was philosophical in nature, and can therefore exist independent of the environment it was drawn up in, like Freedom of Speech and Free Cable (isn't that in there somewhere? I could swear I read that specifically), and some of it was pragmatic for that era. Some of it was flat wrong-like that whole slavery shit, which I am rather glad we kicked to the curb.
Listen, you want to know what America,s national religion is? It's not Christianity, like alot of people would like you to believe. It's the future. Our nation was founded on the idea that tomorrow can be better than yesterday was, the idea that you could try an idea out, lose your shirt, dust yourself off and get back up and have another go at it, until eventually you get it right. We,re supposed to learn from our errors. And the errors of others, like the Founders, who were just as human as you or me. Some of them even moreso. Franklin for instance-for an old bastard, the man got around. Got himself on the hundred dollar bill, not because he was a great President or anything-he never rose above Postmaster General-but the man knew how to post his mail, i,ll tell you that. Even in his old age, rain, sleet, snow or dread of night could not keep his cock from it's sacred duty. Licked more than just stamps, I tell you. Fuck Don Juan. Did Don Juan make it to the face of the largest denomination of any currency? No, but a fat bald guy fucked his way right to the top. In another 200 years, the face on the hundred will be Madonna's. Course, by then a hundred bucks will only be worth about 50 cents, kinda like her last album :(
Speaking of ancient relics, the Second Amendment is way past its prime too. When they wrote that, they had in mind a tool you used to defend your property from a foreign army as well as secure dinner for the following evening. try dragging a rifle into a grocery store and you'll get a very different response than the Founders did when they went shopping for dinner. And foreign armies? Last time a land based invasion of the US took place was WW2 on a small Aleutian Island,a nd before that it was the War of 1812 (no, I do not consider the CSA a legitimate country). Granted, Glenn Beck would have you believe the barbarian hordes are at the gate ready to take over-remember, this is why you never drop acid and watch Red Dawn over and over again, it'll seriously fuck with your head.
The religious instinct to do exactly what your told and never question it like some drone-the people lime MiM that will even attack their own kind for standing up and declaring "I am human" because they think that's too radical are an example of this- that desire to have all the difficult questions answered for you, to not have to think, to become a machine, that's fucking nuts.
You know, i see the words fascist and communist thrown around alot on this site-sometimes when describing the same person even. The thing that brings you closest to totalitarianism, either on the right or the left, is the instinct to hand your brain to someone else and follow orders blindly. That slavish devotion to 200 year old ideas, to claim that they cannot be questioned or reviewed, and to claim that we must follow them to the letter, even when doing so violates its spirit is what gives rise to totalitarianism. Yes, the EC is very old. That doesn't mean it is perfect. Its not like our development as a people froze in 1776, and we cannot grow any further.
This is not the 18th Century.
As I'm reading these comments, it appears many people are misunderstanding the allocation mechanism in the compact. To clarify, when 270 electoral votes worth of states sign onto the compact, they collectively vote ALL their votes for the national winner; thus making non-signatories irrelevant. They would not split their votes in any way.
@Hu Chi said
I wouldn't say this thread has jumped the shark more than any other, but your point is well taken in this respect.
Yes, my point that old, dead, white guys substitute for critical thinking in this day and age (and, I suspect, most ages) was the point I was trying to make. I apologize for hitting you over the head with it. Madison was more apropos than Machiavelli.
My full point was merely *tangential* to yours (and may not apply to you at all, sorry). This nation prides itself on being a Christian nation (I've taught enough freshman PoliSci classes in enough areas of the country to make this generalization). Yet, we seem to forget the fundamental purpose of what Christ said to us. We focus on Paul without paying heed to the red letters.
I've discovered, the redder the state, the less red their bible.
And so many of them use old, dead, white, guys to support their claims; not Christ.
Again, I thoroughly apologize Hu. This was more a post out of general frustration than what you said (which *was* apropos as Madison said it).
Candidates to campaign in all 50 states? Isn't that what Nixon did in '60?
This might be a bit off topic, but as long as we're talking about abolishing voting methods that make no sense in favor of more logical ones. . .has anyone ever considered doing away with the plurality vote altogether and adopting the Borda count?
Ole
No apology needed.
"I've discovered, the redder the state, the less red their bible."
Absolutely. I forgot who said that religions are organized to subvert the values of their founders, but you can certainly see it in some christian corners. Probably a dead anglo...
Actually, I prefer dead yellow guys. They used fewer words.
@Statler:
You've written many things lately that were worthy of He or Mule Rider. (Not a compliment, sorry.)
This posting makes up for all of it.
I may not agree with all you say, but you make *logical* points that are as good as I can give wrt the Second Amendment. What you proffer is the reason the "old, dead, white guy" argument often fails.
I hope, however, that you (and everyone listening) realize that our Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution that provided a framework, not a straitjacket.
@Ole Forsberg
I agree that winner-take-all contributes to the suppression of third parties. My point is that winner-take-all is itself an artifact of the EC. You could get rid of it without getting rid of EC, but it's still a concept that only makes sense in our system when we're talking about the EC. A direct national popular vote would automatically mean there's no winner-take-all, because each voter would then have equal say.
The suppression of third parties is a fairly obvious aspect of our system if you compare ours to that of other countries with direct national vote for chief executive and proportional representation in the legislature. (My reference to the latter issue was what I meant when I said that I digress.)
@Matt
No, you need a majority. And to get a majority, you need the Electoral College.
Not if you have a runoff election.
Ole Forsberg
HE was a straight up parody troll. At the beginning you almost thought he was real...
@Kylopod
Oh god. Runoff elections for the Presidency.
I think I have the vapors!
Matt
Your suggestion about having polls close at the same time on the coasts is reasonable, but unless they open at the same time (say 7 Pacific, 10 Eastern) it would make it more convenient to vote where the polls were open longer.
I guess Hawaii gets screwed no matter what.
Oregon's vote by mail system works well, but we still have voting day to walk the ballots in.
The nation (including Hawaii) would be well served by making Tuesday a holiday, announcing the votes on Wednesday (and by banning exit polls altogether), but the media wouldn't stand for it.
Going back to the original question, winner take all sucks. If the vote has to be delegated to someone, I'd go with congressional districts, forget senatorial districts, and do the Nebraska/Maine vote split.
Statler's right on several counts. The college needs fixing and this is a good time to fix things.
Who said "I have more knowledge than the Electoral College?" (Was it the same person who said "You're not only classy, you're Haile Selassie"?)
@Kylopod said...
""
My point is that winner-take-all is itself an artifact of the EC. You could get rid of it without getting rid of EC, but it's still a concept that only makes sense in our system when we're talking about the EC.
""
Yet, the British Parliament is winner-take-all at the district level without the EC and still has a two (almost)-party system. (If I remember correctly, they have three electorally relevant parties with a minor fourth, the SNP*).
""
A direct national popular vote would automatically mean there's no winner-take-all, because each voter would then have equal say.
""
A direct national election would mean an ultimate "winner-take-all." And, that is one of the strengths of the EC: A second-place finish will get you several states, which is significant; you have the mandate from a portion of our nation. Let us not underestimate the power of a mandate.
It seems as though we are fighting for a PR system in this Country. If so, thank you; I will be employed as a political analyst until I retire. =)
* Apologies to Sean Connery.
@ Ole Forsberg
that is one of the strengths of the EC: A second-place finish will get you several states, which is significant; you have the mandate from a portion of our nation. Let us not underestimate the power of a mandate.
Mandate? The loser's mandate? Like the mandates that Al Gore and John Kerry got?
I won't underestimate them In fact it's impossible to underestimate them!
The defense of the EC as it now exists makes me wonder about the viewpoints of those defenders on other aspects of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
Remember, the Founding Fathers were the people who actually wrote the Constitution, and they included:
- Requirements that slaves (aka persons of at least some African ancestry) were to be counted as 3/5 of a person, and were prohibited the right to vote.
- Didn't blink an eye to the requirement in all the states that to vote, you had to own real estate, and in some, of more than a nominal value.
- Didn't blink an eye to the requirement in all the states that to vote, you had to have a "Y" chromosome (stated in terms that you had to be of the male gender to vote).
- Didn't allow native Americans to have any rights - property, voting, or any other right.
We have seen all of the above, except the EC, thrown out or done away with - some by legislation, some by Constitutional Amendment.
If the system set up by the Founding Fathers was so perfect (something that even they would say was totally incorrect), should we go back to slavery? A person must be male to vote? A person had to own real estate in order to vote? No one who was not European could vote?
Oh, and in regard to the Founding Fathers belief that they hadn't created the perfect system? If they had created a perfect system, why did they enshrine in the Constitution a method to amend it (Article V.)?
If you are going to argue that the EC CAN NOT be changed because it was put in by the Founding Fathers, then don't even bring up the Second Amendment (it was added by 'amendment', ratified on December 15, 1791). That date is three years and almost six months after the Constitution itself was ratified (June 21, 1788), and almost three years after the Constitution actually went into effect (March 4, 1789, when the First Congress first met).
Mike in Maryland - link to my blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
tigercrazyman said...
On the other hand, bills to repeal the compact are pending in Maryland and New Jersey.
Let's see:
In Maryland, it was HB 472, which was assigned to the House Ways and Means Committee, where, on March 26, it received an unfavorable report by Ways and Means.
In New Jersey, I searched on the key word 'election', 'electoral', 'President', 'Presidential', and finally found a bill using the key word 'elector' - S778.
So, what does S778 propose? To change the New Jersey method of selecting Electoral College Electors to the method used in Maine and Nebraska - the final line of the bill states "The provisions of this bill are similar to current statutory law in Maine and Nebraska."
S778 was introduced on January 24, 2008, sponsored by:
Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr., referred to the Senate State Government Committee, and apparently no further action has been taken.
The introduction of a bill is one thing. Prospects for passage are completely different.
@ Mike in Maryland:
The defense of the EC as it now exists makes me wonder about the viewpoints of those defenders on other aspects of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
...and then you give some examples of aspects of the constitution that were wrongheaded and which have been repealed by constitutional amendment.
Butt it's a classic "straw man" argument, since I don't believe that anyone was arguing that the Electoral College was a good idea simply because it was the system put into place by our revered Founding Fathers. I certainly wasn't.
I gave a raison d'etre for the EC: that it tends to produce a clear winner, and it keeps third, fourth, and fifth parties on the fringes.
That's a good thing. It works in contrast to such countries as Israel, which have third parties which are so strong (in a parliamentary system) that the major parties can't form a government without including them. The reason that that's bad is that the minority parties tend to have disproportionate power in forming a government: the major party needs them, so they get to call the tune.
@Mason:
You don't need a majority to be president. In the last five elections, three have been "plurality presidents". While you're probably right that you could have smaller regional parties running for and winning the presidency, I don't think that the Texan Sarah Palin or Barney Frank winning would occur any time soon. Even if it did, it would be the system we had wrought.
I think it's clear that, when I spoke of "needing a majority," I was speaking of an EV majority. If you don't understand why I think that isn't circular logic, reread my post above.
Your last comment quoted above is bizarre. "Even if (we had a fringe government, not representative of the people), it would be the system we had wrought."
Well...why in Murdoch's Private Earth would you want to create such a system?
wv: reeded: I hope Obama's agenda isn't reeded into mush by the majority leader.
@ Hu Chi:
Your suggestion about having polls close at the same time on the coasts is reasonable, but unless they open at the same time (say 7 Pacific, 10 Eastern) it would make it more convenient to vote where the polls were open longer.
I guess Hawaii gets screwed no matter what.
...The nation (including Hawaii) would be well served by making Tuesday a holiday, announcing the votes on Wednesday (and by banning exit polls altogether), but the media wouldn't stand for it.
Your first point (that if all the polls close at the same time, they should open at the same time) is correct. I kinda figured that it went without saying.
I agree that election day should be a national holiday.
I think the Idea of needing a plurality of factions not just a plurality of votes makes sense to me. However, I do think the current system is: 1) improperly balanced; and 2) easier to cheat.
Part of the problem is a simple plurality would often require hundreds of thousands or millions of votes to change. However with the EC thousands of votes in the 'right place' might swing the same election.
I think the vote plurality might be under-valued too much in our current system. It might be interesting to run some simulations and see who would have won with 1) Simple plurality, 2) EC based on house alone, 3) EC based on senate in past elections and why.
It probably doesn't help their cause that the US Constitution says: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress... enter into any agreement or compact with another state."
I think it's clear that, when I spoke of "needing a majority," I was speaking of an EV majority. If you don't understand why I think that isn't circular logic, reread my post above.
In fact, it is not. You said "majority", not "popular" or "electoral" majority. You'll pardon my confusion, as in the immediately preceding sentence you were speaking of popular vote derived mandates. You then proceeded to say that for a "majority" you need the electoral college. I would consider it a tautology that for an EV majority you need the electoral college. The more arguable statement is that an EV majority guarentees a PV mandate.
Your original argument is much more cohesive than this modifacation. The electoral college has the effect of freezing out marginal parties. This is a certainty that no one will dispute. For some, like yourself, this is a good thing. Others, like me, are not so sure that instutionalizing a process to keep the crazies out is worth maintaining a system that can lead to minority-, not plurality-elected presidents.
It probably doesn't help their cause that the US Constitution says: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress... enter into any agreement or compact with another state."
There is no agreement between states.
One other thing, Matt:
In your example of a 25% plurality president, you are ignoring the fact that there will probably be substantial idealogical overlap between the various parties. Thus, while the electoral "madate" would be limited, popular support for the goals espoused by the winner could be more widespread. The choice becomes less of a choice between the lesser of two evils and more a choice of who you want to lead.
(And no, I'm not realted to Ralph Nader.)
A truly baaaad idea. As many have said a) it's clearly unconstitutional
b) it's clearly a logistical nightmare
c) it's the end of federalism, obviously, a sorta big part of the constitution........
d) if it comes close to passing, even given all the above, lots of states will revote and rescend their previous vote, ala' the ERA.
And Nate misses the point: whether or not you like the electoral college has little to do with which party you belong to and EVERYTHING to do with whether you believe federalism is a good thing.
An analogy:
1) You have something like P2P file sharing, only with the law. California agrees to do something if New York does the same.
2) You have something more like what Napster was back in 2000- each state agrees to do something, does not matter if others do the same or not. California will do ot even if New York says no.
Very different things. The first, illegal. The second, perfectly legal.
This compact falls into the latter category.
loner and polls_apart..
Jeez, how did I misread this so terribly? You're right, I was wrong about the plan--but it is ditzy and flies in the face of the requirements in the Constitution.
Pragmatus—
As stated previously, it doesn't fly in the face of any Constitutional requirements. Should this ever happen, the challenge with the most chance of getting a hearing will almost undoubtedly come from one of the states that is not a party to the Compact and will be centered on Article I, Section 10, Clause 3. My view is that the plain language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 will trump an expanded interpretation of the last Article I clause where it concerns Sister State Interest. The courts may, of course, see things differently.
Nate is claiming that the compact has been around since 2001. That is misleading. Back in 2001, the compact was merely an idea being explored in law journals. Nate is inflating the compact's real age and falsely suggesting that it is lethargic. All of the progress for NPVIC has happened since April 2007. Statehouses representing a full 198 of the 270 EV needed (73.3%) passed the bill within the last year or had already enacted it into law. Each passage has had positive feedback.
Look at the historical maps on Wikipedia and you can see exponential growth in activity surrounding the compact.
NPVIC is on the warpath. It has well-organized and financed support. It has popular support (even among Republicans). Finally, since candidates rely on the support of local leaders for presidential campaigns, the compact has the support of every cynical, safe-state politician who wants to boost their relevance in a national contests. If the compact doesn't make it by 2012, it will by 2016.
@coolstar
it's the end of federalism, obviously, a sorta big part of the constitution
No it isn't. There's a lot more to federalism than simply the selection of a president.
@Ole Forsberg
Yet, the British Parliament is winner-take-all at the district level without the EC and still has a two (almost)-party system.
Notice that I said "in our system." My point was that winner-take-all in our system is an artifact of the EC. If we get rid of winner-take-all, that will be, like the 12th amendment, yet one more measure we take to shave off aspects of the original electoral system.
A direct national election would mean an ultimate "winner-take-all."
Any election could be defined as "winner-take-all" by some standard. The Nebraska-Maine plan is winner-take-all at the level of districts. But in our conversation, winner-take-all refers only to methods that artificially distort or inflate the votes of individuals.
And, that is one of the strengths of the EC: A second-place finish will get you several states, which is significant; you have the mandate from a portion of our nation. Let us not underestimate the power of a mandate.
That's a fair point. But it all depends on how much the public considers the EC margins to be real. At the beginning of the Republic, when the states were much stronger than they are today and when the popular vote wasn't even comprehensively counted, the electoral margins mattered to people. Today, it's not so clear. At the end of 1992, Bob Dole got on TV and said that he represents the 57% of voters who didn't vote for Clinton. In spite of the fact that Clinton achieved a blowout in the EC, he was perceived as an accidental president with a weak mandate. Most Americans probably look at Obama's victory as the 53%-46% it actually is, and not the 68% he got in the EC. Indeed, what's curious is how rarely people use percentages when talking about the electoral votes. Instead, they talk in terms of arbitrary boundaries like 300 or 400, often not even considering the ever-changing total.
Iowa has also passed in in one house. Just FYI.
I am surprised that there is only one reference on this page to http://www.nationalpopularvote.com.
At this site, there are answers that dispel all these myths:
# 1 Myths about the Constitution
# 2 Myths about Small States
# 3 Myths about Recounts
# 4 Myths about Faithless Electors
# 5 Myth that "Wrong Winner" Elections Are Rare
# 6 Myths about Proliferation of Candidates
# 7 Myths about Public's Desire for "State Identity"
# 8 Myths about Big States and Big Cities
# 9 Myths about Post-Election Changes in the Rules
# 10 Myths about Campaign Spending
# 11 Myths about Federalism
# 12 Myth about "a Republic versus a Democracy"
# 13 Myths about "Mob Rule"
# 14 Myth about an Incoming President's "Mandate"
# 15 Myths about Congressional Consent
# 16 Myths about the District of Columbia
# 17 Myths about the 14th Amendment
# 18 Myths about the Voting Rights Act
# 19 Myths about Administrative or Fiscal Impact
# 20 Myths about Congressional or Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes
I hope this interstate compact dies a quick death. It's bad news for the country, bad news for democracy.
First: we are a republic not a democracy. The representative nature of the electoral college is not bad just because the president is elected indirectly.
The EC emphasizes the federal nature of the US. We elect the President of the United States, not the President of 300 Million Americans. Ending the EC will weaken the role of the states.
The EC isolates process problems. In a direct election (either formally, or through this compact), most states have decisive winners. In 2000, we only needed to worry about Florida (and possibly New Mexico). In a direct election, a national recount would have been required.
The faithless elector is a bogey man. The system works.
Correction: I meant to say in the Electoral College, most states have decisive winners. A direct election will hide this, and as I note, increase the likelihood of a national recount.
Approved in Washington State April 28, 2009. 11 More Electorial votes.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment