The St. Petersburg Times blog The Buzz reports that Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) is reviving his long-time crusade to abolish the Electoral College, which was fanned to a high flame after Al Gore's loss in 2000:
But the group National Popular Vote points out that there's widespread support for abolishing the Electoral College. 22 legislative chambers have passed bills endorsing the move, including the Arkansas House and North Carolina Senate, both in 2007. Over 1,200 state legislators have sponsored or supported such bills.
Most important, they say, is a Washington Post poll showing 72% of the public supports a popular vote instead of the Electoral College -- with strong support even in small states that would lose clout.
As the Congress was ratifying the results of the Electoral College today, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was filing legislation to abolish it.The Buzz notes that "Prospects for the measure, which would need ratification of two-thirds of the U.S. states, are dim."
Scratching a long-time itch, Nelson filed a bill seeking a constitutional amendment to do away with the college, which chooses the U.S. president based on vote tallies within individual states [...]
It's only been a few times in our history, most recently in the 2000 election, that the candidate who lost the popular vote won the Electoral College and became president, but that shouldn't be allowed to happen again," Nelson said. "We need to honor the concept of one person, one vote."
But the group National Popular Vote points out that there's widespread support for abolishing the Electoral College. 22 legislative chambers have passed bills endorsing the move, including the Arkansas House and North Carolina Senate, both in 2007. Over 1,200 state legislators have sponsored or supported such bills.
Most important, they say, is a Washington Post poll showing 72% of the public supports a popular vote instead of the Electoral College -- with strong support even in small states that would lose clout.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
January 8, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
January 8, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply
Only a couple of problems:
- every voter is not equal, states enfranchise different voters, provide different hurdles
- voting integrity varies, now stealing Republican or Democratic votes in every state counts toward the mythical national popular vote count
For Dems, the question to contemplate is: If we had the National Popular Vote in 2000, who would have had the most votes tallied on election night?
January 9, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply
I think the electoral college is an institution that is no longer needed. I also believe that all campaigns should be publicly financed. Lobbying should become illegal if it involves any type of financial incentives. Our founding fathers would be sickened by todays process. Besides them, we the people need to retake our government and depose the ruling class.
January 11, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply
Constitutional Ammendment guaranteeing the RIGHT TO VOTE. Republicans are totally opposed to this and it would boost Democratic turnout. Remember this? It was first revealed by Justice Per Curiam on the Supreme Court, writing in Bush versus Gore: the Constitution does not guarantee the RIGHT TO VOTE. And then all the commentators agreed saying: the Consitution indeed does not have a RIGHT TO VOTE.
January 11, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply