FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

Won't happen. Small population states need to have representation in the executive branch. By changing the electoral college, candidates would simply court the populous states and ignore those less populated.

EVERY VOTE EQUAL BOOK - READ FREE
McGintrix, perhaps if you read the reform proposal before expressing an opinion, you might learn that it is not a Constitutional Amendment. ---BBB

Download or read the book free:
http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

- BIBLIOGRAPHIES
- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
- FOREWORD BY JOHN B. ANDERSON
- FOREWORD BY BIRCH BAYH
- FOREWORD BY JOHN BUCHANAN
- FOREWORD BY TOM CAMPBELL

- CHAPTER 1
Introduction
- CHAPTER 2
How the Electoral College Works
- CHAPTER 3
Three Previously Proposed Federal Constitutional Amendments
- CHAPTER 4
Two Previously Proposed Approaches for State-Level Action
- CHAPTER 5
Background on Interstate Compacts
- CHAPTER 6
The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
- CHAPTER 7
Strategy for Enacting the Proposed Interstate Compact
- CHAPTER 8
Legal Issues Concerning the Proposed Interstate Compact
- CHAPTER 9
Administrative Issues Concerning the Proposed Interstate Compact
- CHAPTER 10
Epilogue

- APPENDIX
- BIBLIOGRAPHY

- INDEX
- TITLE PAGE

EVERY VOTE EQUAL ADVISORY BOARD:

- Hon. John B. Anderson (R)
- Hon. Birch Bayh (D)
- Hon. John Buchanan (R)
- Hon. Tom Campbell (D)
- Hon. David Durenberger (D)
- Hon Jake Garn (R)

I don't want to download a book just to read a proposal that will go nowhere, but I'd guess that if the proposed plan would implement something like direct election by popular vote, then that was probably first proposed around the time of the constitutional convention. Birch Bayh held senate hearings on electoral college reform back in the 1970s -- no doubt that's why he is on the advisory board for this group -- and it's a certainty that this proposal (or something similar) was floated then as one of the alternatives to the electoral college. As the ancient Romans used to say, "sub sole nihil novi est."

Any state is free to do this as they see fit right now. People in the states can make the necessary changes if they wish. Small-population states would be foolish to agree to this, however - it makes their votes count for nothing, zip, zilch, nada. Although there are differences among people within each state, those differences are not as great as among different states. For instance, while there is a small difference between Eastern Wyoming people and Western Wyoming people, it is not as great as the difference between New York people and Wyoming people. The population of New York is such that it would overwhelm the Wyoming vote. The electoral college gives small population states a tad more power than they would otherwise have, for the same exact reason the House is population-based and the Senate is not - It creates a balance between population-majority rights and state's rights.

As a resident of one of the most populous (And growing.) states in the Union, I heartily endorse this proposal (Along with Representatives of some of the larger states.)

I mean, the candidates can spend so much more time courting MY states votes and promising my state all those nice road projects and other 'pork barrel' items...

Why should I care if a Presidential candidate ever visits Rhode Island, Wyoming, the Dakotas or any of the other 'nobody' states... I mean the election is going to be determined by California, Texas, Illinois, New York and we here in the Sunshine State. That sounds fair enough, doesn't it?

I mean WE know whats best for the country and since we have the largest population base, we should be the ones to decide everything for the rest of the 45 states because we have the biggest population.

Sounds fair ... or does it ?

Perhaps the FAIR thing to do is apportion the decision between the states based upon a combination of the representative population AND perhaps add in a couple of votes based upon their 'All states are equally represented' Senate. That would make it so the smaller states have a little more say in electing a president and couldn't be ignored or neglected...

We could call these decision makers... say ... electors....
And perhaps we could get them together to decide the President based upon the way their state votes... we could call it ... a college...

Hmm elector .... college .... Electoral College .... nahhhhh it'll never work.

I agree. Electoral college is retarded. If I'm in a state that almost ALWAYS votes a certain way, such as Oregon for the Democrats, then my vote for a Republican candidate is useless. It doesn't really count. The Democrat will get the electoral votes in Oregon no matter what. The smaller population states shouldn't worry. This isn't about STATES getting equal say in deciding the president but rather about every PERSON getting an equal say. The STATE shouldnt choose the President, the people should.

This proposal has to be absolute WORST suggestion for guting the Electoral College I've ever seen.

"Guting?"

Fishin', how does one "gute" something?

The purpose of the electoral college has been clearly stated here--and it was a necessary compromise to convince the small states (ironically, in 1787, lead by New York and New Jersey) to sign on to the document being proposed for a constitution.

Some of our constitution protects us from minoritarian tyranny--some of it protects us from majoritarian tyrrany. The electoral college is, in my never humble opinion, the greatest shield against majoritarian tyrrany in the document. I despise the idiot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and all that he stands for--most of which he cannot articulate. Which does not for a moment alter my belief that the electoral college continues to be a bulwark against majoritarian tyrrany.

2 sites for electing presidents by national popular vote
Two additional sites for electing presidents by national popular vote:

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=773

and

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/

BBB

I wonder whether the Founding Fathers envisioned that there would be such a huge disparity in representation vis-a-vis population growth. It makes no sense, for instance, that Alaska gets the same 2 Senate votes as California.

Rox


That's why we have a bi-cameral congress. Two votes for each state in the Senate. In the house, seats are establish based on state population.

It works well and is equible

It's the winner-take-all electoral college voting system that is undemocratic.

If I am a Democrat (or other third party supporter, why should I bother to vote if I live in a "red" state and don't want to elect a Republican. My vote doesn't count under the current system. It is changed from a Democrat to Republican vote. That is a theft of my vote.

BBB

That's a rather naive point of view. The constitution was ratified by thirteen separate colonies which were effectively, thirteen separate states in the previous sense of the word--i.e., virtually (if not actually) independent countries. When George Washington and Nathaniel Greene said "my country," they referred to Virginia and Rhode Island, respectively. The point of the Senate and of the Electoral College was to insulate the "small states" (in terms of population) from the overbearing power of simple representation by population. The old Continental Congress had had equal representation for each state, but states like Virginia and Pennsylvania did not intend to pay the costs of the nation (based on their larger populations--the two combined equalled the population of all the other states, saving only Massachusetts), while eleven other states exercised the power of spending the money. The only plan for a constitution brought complete to Philadelphia--the Virginia Plan--envisioned a representation based on population and a plural executive.

The Virginia plan was unacceptable to the "small states," lead by New York and New Jersey. To prevent being submerged in the power of the populous states, the Electoral College was designed to provide a single executive officer controlling the day-tio-day operation of the government, while protecting the small states from mere population dominance. Money bills were to originate in the proportionately elected House to acknowledge the greater revenue provided by more populous states, while a Senate with equal representation was specifically charged with issues of sovereignty (the appointment of executive officers--a crucial issue of sovereignty and historically, both before and after our revolution, a significant area of contention with monarchs in European governments; and the ratification of treaties with foreign potentates and governments).

Altogether, it was a very canny set of compromises to provide real solutions to real problems. I personally consider that both the Senate and the Electoral College continue to assure that no minority is submerged in the will of a particular majority.

I hope more Democrats feel that way and will not vote.

Ignoring the typical idiotic McG sneer--my remarks were addressed to Rox--not Aunt Bee. I do consider Aunt Bee's point of view naive, as well, though, in that it ignores the inordinate power which California, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York and Florida would weild without the Electoral College; and, failing to vote even if one cannot effect the outcome of the Presidential election is still an abdication of one's responsibilities as a voter.

Setanta
Setanta, I was disappointed that your history did not include the efforts of the Slave States to support and maintain the Electoral College as a device to protect and maintain their slave ownership rights.

It would also be helpful to revisit the conditions at the time the electoral college was established. Only property owning white males could vote.

Is it naive to want more than the elite to have the vote---and have it count?

BBB

It is naive to contend that the purpose of the Electoral College is to enshrine white male elitiism. When women and non-whites have the vote, the Electoral College protects them from majoritarian tyrrany in exactly the same manner.

You are full of poop if you contend that the Electoral Collge protected the institution of slavery. The three-fifths compromise had that effect, which is why the slave-holding states were always so eager to expand American territory, and to bring in more slave states. The Electoral Collge had nothing to do with it, and, in fact, was a compromise advanced to appease non-slave states at a time when the majority of white people in the country lived in slave-holding states. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia had more population than the other states, despite Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and largely because of Maryland and Virginia. It was only after the Northwest Ordinance states began to fill up with non-slave-owning settlers int he 1790's and the early 1800's that slave states began to frantically look for more territory to maintain their political balance, and that rested upon the three fifths compromise.

I understand that you don't like the Electoral College, buy you shouldn't make things up.

Setanta, question here: what does protecting the small states from population dominance (a valid point) have to do with the "winner-takes-all" concept?

You'll need to make more clear what your question intends, OE, in that i have not made any reference to any "winner takes all concept."

Well, I've always been seriously puzzled by the American system...

I just don't quite understand the need to protect the small states from population dominance - unless you have a system where the winner gets all the votes from that state.

So, while I can follow the argument that the small states should have some protection from the 'heavily populated' states - would that really be necessary if you had a proportional system?