amendment to abolish the electoral college

[theworldiswatching]

I recently reviewed H. J. RES. 8., "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States." If you want to read the details you'll have to go to thomas.loc.gov and look it up.

I've heard good arguments on both sides of the electoral college debate and I can't make up my mind as to whether to be against or for it. Considering how almost every other voting system in our lives uses the majority rules philosophy (school elections for example), I consider it a deviation from normalcy to have such an archaic system in place for the election of the most important person in the U.S. government.
Please let me know what your opinion is on the electoral college and whether you support this bill?

[Hippo_Tron]

1. We need to get rid of Diebold first

The electoral college, believe it or not, is somewhat of a safeguard from rigged voting machines.

[theworldiswatching]

2. rigged voting machines

What if the voting machines weren't rigged?

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Then the electoral college should absolutely go

It only continues to exist because candidates want to campaign in only a few states.

[theworldiswatching]

6. First Diebold, then Katherine Harris

Or is it the other way around: First Katherine Harris goes, then Diebold.

[For PaisAn]

4. Question

How is it somewhat of a safeguard from rigged voting machines?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Diebold machines have to change the votes little by little

If a heavily democratic county were going 60% for Bush, then you can sure as hell bet that Diebold would be going under extensive audits. By getting rid of the electoral college, you expand the influence of their voting machines from not just the swing states, but into every part of the country. They can literally just change a few votes on every single voting machine and swing a close election to the Republicans and nobody would ever notice because the changes are so small. The electoral college would require them to do this within the confines of one or two states, which is much harder becuase there's fewer voting machines that you can rig.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. True

I think we have to get rid of ALL voting machines and make it to where we can never use another voting machine ever again in our history in voting for anything dealing with elections. It just doesn't help with anything.

[Dookus]

7. We SHOULD get rid of the electoral college

but we never will. Never ever ever in a million years. It only takes 13 small states to nix the idea, and there's no way those states would ever give up the extra power the E.C. gives them.

[liberalpragmatist]

10. I wouldn't say never - in 1969 it would have passed

The electoral college was nearly abolished in the late 1960s after George Wallace's segregationist campaign. Additionally between 1948 and 1968 there were 3 close races that could have swung either way in the EC.

An amendment to abolish the electoral college passed the House that year by an overwhelming margin - something like 350 votes in favor. It looked likely to pass the Senate and a poll of state legislatures revealed that it would pass the necessary number of state legislatures.

Where it died was in the Senate, where Deep-South Dixiecrats opposed it. In fact, Tennessee's Howard Baker supported the amendment. However, although it had majority support and early on in the debate looked like it would pass, the Southern Dixiecrats were able to filibuster it.

My point though is that in 1969, the small states were persuaded to support abolishing the EC bc they were shown by political scientists that they actually get less out of it right now than they would under a national popular vote scheme. Most small states are overwhelmingly one-party which reduces any incentive for states or in some cases entire regions (RE: the great plains, the deep south) to even be contested.

Read this: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/10/17/peculiar_institution/

According to the Constitution, each state casts a number of electoral votes equivalent to the size of its delegation in the House of Representatives (which is proportional to the state's population) plus two (for its two Senators). This system gives disproportionate weight to voters in small states: In 2000, forexample, South Dakota had one electoral vote for every 230,000 people, while each of New York's electoral votes represented more than 500,000. Whatever the merits of the arguments for and against the Electoral College, it was assumed that the small states would defend this numerical advantage and block any constitutional amendment instituting a national popular election. Only fuzzy-minded idealists would want to tilt against that windmill.

What was not discussed in the aftermath of the 2000 election was the little-known fact that the United States came very close to abolishing the Electoral College in the late 1960s. A constitutional amendment calling for direct popular election of the president was backed by the American Bar Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters, and a host of other un-fuzzy-minded pillars of civil society. On Sept. 18, 1969, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a huge bipartisan vote of 338 to 70. President Nixon endorsed it, and prospects for passage in the Senate seemed reasonably good. A poll of state legislatures indicated that the amendment would likely be approved by the requisite three-quarters of the states.

The effort ultimately failed -- but not because of concerted opposition from the small states. In fact, many political leaders from small states supported the amendment. What blocked the reform movement was a more troublesome cleavage -- one involving race and the political power of the South.

[theworldiswatching]

12. That's a good article

Thank you for actually providing some material. This was a good read. Some more good info:

"Senators Bayh, Baker, and others spoke eloquently about the shortcomings of the Electoral College and the virtues of popular election. But they were greeted by a prolonged filibuster led by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, another opponent of civil rights and the Voting Rights Act. For several weeks, Ervin, Thurmond, and their allies took the floor to criticize the measure, arguing that it would undercut states' rights, harm the small states, destroy the two-party system, and encourage splinter parties, fraud, and intrusive national voting requirements. They also stalled relentlessly, even reading into the record the name of every prime minister of France since 1800, as evidence that direct elections produced instability."

Well, at least it wasn't the phone book they read.

[OneBlueSky]

8. won't happen . . .

there are more small states (population-wise) than large . . . and it's in their best interest to keep the EC, since it increases their influence in presidential elections . . . and since it's the states that have to approve the amendment, there's close to zero chance it will go anywhere . . .

[American Tragedy]

18. I don't see how it's in their best interest at all

If votes were counted toward a grand total, all candidates would at least be motivated to tour the larger cities of virtually every state. As it is, many states are completely disregarded in presidential politics. Tens of millions of citizens' votes are effectively eliminated.

How many times did either candidate visit or focus specifically upon the interests of the following "small states":

Alaska
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode island
South dakota
Utah
Vermont
Wyoming

[theworldiswatching]

9. Marketing campaign

What if we grease the palms of the senators from the small states to support this amendment?

[Dookus]

11. That only gets it through the senate

presuming it were possible to even do so.

The state legislatures themselves have to approve it. It's never gonna happen.

[nebraska007]

14. Winner take all, not the EC itself is the problem

The Electoral College gives us the benefit of holding 50 seperate elections. So, if say... Florida... needs a recount, it is confined to Florida. Imagine the craziness of the lawsuits of a nationwide recount.

But, I do favor that the individual states would move toward a proportional allocation of their electoral votes. Unfortunately this won't happen as no state wants to be the first to try it. No solidly "Red" or "Blue" state would. Do you think we want to give up California and they want to give up Texas? And no swing state is going to try it since the same arguements used in Colorado will come up, mainly they are likely to be split just a little over 50-50 and so it makes the contest unimportant to the candidates. Barring all dozen or so contestable states magically doing this at the same time, it won't happen.

[Yupster]

16. Two states already

apportion their electoral votes by congressional districy tather than winner takes all -- Maine and Nebraska.

[American Tragedy]

17. Why couldn't you hold 50 separate elections without the electoral college?

You could still do it. Instead of announcing the electoral tally, just announce that there were, say, 400000 votes for Kerry and 10 votes for Bush in Vermont, etc.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi theworldiswatching!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[KuTava]

19. Eliminating the Electoral College means instead of one '04 OH,

or one '00 FL, we have 50 states that have to be watched closely for fraud in every election. We don't have the resources to watch them all. It's bad enough having to only look at one or two states. Eliminating the Electoral College means we'll have no chance of overcoming vote fraud.