Constitution - Electoral College: An L.A. Times editorial
+ An Opposing View
There're fools then there're California fools. The herd is restless.Or, "A Progressive's Manual on 'How to disenfranchise Southeast California.'" California "Unintended Consequences" -- rfh (Thank you P.F.)
Los Angeles Times Editorial, article source:
The Constitution's two-tiered system for electing presidents is outdated. Eight states have joined a movement to direct their members of the electoral college to vote for the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. California should join the list.There're fools then there're California fools.
The herd is restless.
Or, "A Progressive's Manual on
'How to disenfranchise Southeast California.'"
California "Unintended Consequences" -- rfh (Thank you P.F.)Though it is rare, the occasional American presidential election goes to the loser of the popular vote, an outcome that undermines basic notions of fairness and democracy and is an artifact of the nation's ancient electoral system. Advocates of a popular vote system have persuaded both houses of the California Legislature to adopt a measure that would lend California's support to that idea. Gov. Jerry Brown should sign it.
In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the framers created a two-tiered system for electing presidents. States were allowed to set rules for selecting electors, and those electors then cast ballots for president. That reflected the framers' generally wary view of direct democracy — senators were originally chosen by state legislatures; women and slaves, of course, were denied the vote entirely — but in the years since, Americans have broadened the franchise and become more comfortable with direct popular participation. Still, vestiges of that original elitism remain, most notably in the perseverance of the electoral college.
Moving from a state-by-state system of electing presidents to choosing them by popular vote does not appreciably favor one party or the other. Yes, the most recent example of a president winning the office while losing the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2000. But had John Kerry carried a mere 60,000 additional votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have become president while losing the popular contest by more than 3 million. The reason, then, to award the presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes is not to advantage Republicans or Democrats but to seat the candidates favored by the most voters.
To bring about this change, the California bill — like others across the country — would require the state to award its electors to whichever candidate wins the most votes nationally (rather than throwing them behind the one who wins the most votes in the state). Because the system would go into effect only when enough states agree to participate that they control a majority of electoral votes, that would guarantee the presidency to the winner of the popular vote. So far, eight states with 77 electoral votes — out of 270 needed to win — have signed on. California would add 55.
Americans today elect representatives at all levels of public life by popular vote, with the exception of the most important office of all. This plan would end that anomaly. It deserves to become law.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
| . | Dangers of a Direct Election - 1 by JAMES R WHITSON < james@presidentelect.org > posted November 11, 2000 http://www.presidentelect.org/art_hyp1.html | |
| ... | . In my recent article An Open Letter To All Americans Concerned About The Electora College  I warned not to be alarmed by those who don't consider the dangers of direct election. In an email I received about that article, someone stated that the fact that I thought there were dangers to a direct election was "frankly beyond contempt". Since this person emailed me and did exactly what I warned about, apparently I didn't make my point well enough. So I'm going to write a few brief hypotheticals that I hope will illustrate these dangers better than I could state them. This is not a proof that the Electoral College is best, but only an example to show that a direct election is not without faults.Right now, the popular vote difference between Gore and Bush is about 200,000. In 1960 , the difference between Kennedy and Nixon was about 120,000. So, obviously close races are possible. Let's imagine a hypothetical race between Canadidate A and Candidate B. Mr. A wins every state and DC, except Massachusetts. He wins these states by fairly small margins. In fact his total lead in his 49 states and DC in only 500,000 votes. In Massachusetts, Mr. B wins by 1,000,000 votes. Here is what the electoral map would look like: Who is the President Elect? In a direct election, Candidate B wins. His popular vote would be 500,000 votes more than Candidate A. In the Electoral College, Candidate A wins 526-12. The major argument direct election proponants use is that the Electoral College isn't fair. Is it fair for a candidate to only get a majority of the votes in one state, and still become President of all fifty? | |
| Dangers of a Direct Election - 2 by JAMES R WHITSON < james@presidentelect.org > posted November 14, 2000 at http://www.presidentelect.org/art_hyp2.html | |
| ... | . In my recent article An Open Letter To All Americans Concerned About The Electora College I warned not to be alarmed by those who don't consider the dangers of direct election. In an email I received about that article, someone stated that the fact that I thought there were dangers to a direct election was "frankly beyond contempt". Since this person emailed me and did exactly what I warned about, apparently I didn't make my point well enough. So I'm going to write a few brief hypotheticals that I hope will illustrate these dangers better than I could state them. This is not a proof that the Electoral College is best, but only an example to show that a direct election is not without faults.The total combined population of the 15 states of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming is about 15.5 million. The total combined population of New York City NY, Los Angeles CA, Chicago IL, and Houston TX is about 15.5 million. The smallest of these states, Rhode Island, is about 1,045 square miles in area. The combined area of these four cities is about 1,610 square miles.  In a direct election, these four cities would have about the same electoral clout of these 15 states. I'm not saying area and square miles should be factored in, but the people of a single state have wide and varied needs and issues because of their geography. In a direct election people in large cities will be given preferential treatment by the candidates because it will be less expensive and more efficient for them to spend their time there rather than travel throughout an entire state. The major argument direct election proponants use is that the Electoral College isn't fair. Is it fair for a candidate to ignore the needs and issues of several states over those of a single city simply because it's easier on them to do so? |
Source: http://www.presidentelect.org/law.html
| |||
