Skip to comments.The Few Decide For The Many (Huge BusinessWeek report calling for abolition of Electoral College)
Posted on 06/03/2004 8:00:39 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
Demography, as the saying goes, may be destiny. But an archaic system of representation that includes a winner-take-all selection of electors and eschews proportionate representation at the local level is denying a voice to political minorities. Are you perchance one of the 2.4 million hardy Democrats living in Texas? You might as well hang up your political spurs. Since the Reagan era, Texas has become solidly Republican. Or perhaps you're a GOPer in New York or California, home to a combined 8.5 million members of the Grand Old Party. Tough luck, pal.
Today, the Electoral College still benefits smaller states by giving each of them two bonus votes in the Presidential balloting. Because most of these states are becoming increasingly Republican, that hands the GOP a built-in edge of 10 to 12 electoral votes -- more than the margin of victory in 2000.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Here are the other stories that make up the full "Special Report on Democracy In America":
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
Does Your Vote Matter?
Is an election crisis looming this year? It's a distinct possibility, since little has changed since 2000. The good news: The process can be revitalized
No Way To Pick A Nominee
Kerry was selected in 29 days -- by states with just 22% of the population
Why Florida Can Happen Again
In 2000, up to 2 million votes were lost because of confusing ballots or malfunctioning machines
How To Fix A Rigged System
In 2002, 98.2% of House incumbents, raising an average of $900,000 apiece, were reelected
Online Extra: McCain: The FEC Is a "Total Disgrace"
The Republican senator says campaign-finance reform has progressed some, but the election watchdog is shunning some of its duties
I haven't subscribed to Business Week since they endorsed Clinton in 1992.
The Electoral College must stand. The reason the Founding Fathers wanted it is still the same reason we need it today. Just take a look at California and see where the dems live and then see where the republicans live. This is fair representation. I only wish the Senators were still elected by each state's legislatures and not the popular vote. The Founding Fathers were amazing and brilliant men. They also knew the what evils lie in the hearts of those who want to be powerful.
Only a left wing demagogue would equate slavery and sufferage with the electoral college.
Thirty years ago Business Week cared about business. No more. Now it's just another whining left wing rag. Go to hell or go to France. Your choice, Busybody Week.
I wouldn't sweat it.
I believe a super majority is needed for Congress to amend the constitution, and that ain't gonna happen.
Why "HUGE"? Think Business Week is that influential?
The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, realized that 99% of people are abysmally stupid, and that's why we have an Electoral College, thank God.
and did we forget .... Lawyers.
Tyranny of the many is still tyranny.
Can you say Florida X 51?
A National recount is a sure recipe for revolution...
For sure, if effenkerry were to make it; or eventually Hillary; our electoral college would be gone by executive order.
We have an electoral college because we are the United " States" of America not the United People of America
That way, the federal government in Washington can refine their plans to fool all of the people all of the time.
Why don't we do away with the whole system.
"F" - Business "Weak". Just a Bunch of lefties.
With a straight popular vote, all we would get is somebody promising New Yorkers and Californians and rust belters that the rest of the country will be taxed, enslaved, whatever to serve their needs. The populous states then go 95% or so for such programs and the states that go the other way by the same margin don't get beat and rolled.
By the article's logic, the Senate should be done away with, as well, since small states are over represented there.
BTW, who said that "unfiltered democracy" is NOT akin to mob rule?
The president is the president of the COUNTRY, not of 50.0001% of the people. As such he must show that he has support in more than one region.
The mag's stand still allows for the possibility of someone winning the popular vote with well under 50%, and hence still isn't truly the choice of the whole people. (Lincoln got under 40% in a four way race ... war breaks out among the states!)
By the way, I live in one of those big states (Illinois), and I know that Kerry will likely carry it. I will still vote for the other offices, and can vote Constitution Party for Prez knowing it won't help Kerry. Keep the Electoral College! We need the Montanans, Utahites, and Alabamans to save the Californias, New Yorks and Illinoises from themselves.
The scheme is a recipe for meltdown in a really tight election. That is the bad news. The good news is that it will never happen. The small states won't vote for it, for starters. And it "fixes" a system that is not broken. As I said, it is practically near impossible for a candidate to win the electoral vote, while losing the popular vote by say by more than 51.5 to 48.5 of the major party vote, and even that is a stretch.
In such a scenario, the number of posts at FR would however increase, for better or worse.
And there you have it.
US Presidential election consists of 50 separate state elections for the office - winner of the most states (weighted by population) wins the office. Without the Electoral College, California, Texas, New York, and Florida basically choose the President. If that's the case, why would the smaller states want to remain in the Union?
These calls for the abolition of the Electoral College are just more of the same arrogant people who think that they are smarter than men who formed our system of government.
Couldn't agree more with the "What does this have to do with business?" sentiment.
BusinessWeek is so bad, I wouldn't use it to train a puppy, let alone rely on its reporting as a basis for making decisions.
They should change the name to DemocratWeak.
Damn, you stole my lines. You should be banned for doing that.
Didn't read the entire article. Do they know that it's up to each state to decide how to allocate their electoral vote? I vaguely recall one NW state that splits their votes proportionately or by Congressional district.
"Only a left wing demagogue would equate slavery and sufferage with the electoral college."
They always bring up that same tired crap every time a conservative resists changing something that works.
Since the last Presidential election was certified with only 0.52% difference in the popular vote, we would have required a NATIONAL recount in EVERY county to determine who won. Yeah. That would have been peaceful.
Let the major cities forever decide the direction of this nation? I don't think so. Bush Country spoke and showed how much difference of opinion there is in "flyover country".
Anarchists like chaos. They don't agree with our constitutional form of government.
Maine and Nebraska give one electoral vote to a candidate who wins a CD. The balance go to the state winner. Thus in Maine, there is one electoral vote per CD, and two for the state winner. In Nebraska, two for the state winner, and one for each CD. Bush came close to nabbing one of the Maine CD's. This system adopted nationwide, would reduce the potential chaos by a whole bunch, but still it has the potential of multiple jurisdictional litigation.
It takes a 2/3's majority to pass a constitutional amendment in Congress. However, it takes ratification by 3/4 of the states before it becomes law. There is no way 3/4 of the states will vote to surrender the power the electoral college gives them. The big ones like NY, CA, IL, OH, PA, and MI might along with some of the hard core leftist states but beyond that, most would not.
Business Week Letters To The Editor
Not only that, but a supermajority of the state legislatures must also ratify it. The later is true even if the amendment is proposed by a Constitutional Convention, the alternative method specified by the Constitution. The Con-Con itself must also be called by a super majority of the state legisaltures. (2/3 majority in both cases). Like you said, that ain't gonna happen.
If every Repub could/would cancel - if only for a short time even - their subscriptions to NYT's; Business Week and other Lib mags.; their lib newspapers; and stopped writing the check to their liberal alma mater; would it help?
I don't know; probably not; but might make a big enough statement to shake them a bit.
Seems like it could at least make a threatening statement. Wish everyone could/would do their part and stop paying for the Left's efforts to refashion America to their image.
We could call it 'write off a Lib' week . . .or month. . .a year - or forever.
Or just call it America's Liberal weight loss program. Where every anti-Leftists goal is to 'drop ten liberals' in ten days or less.
This knee jerk supremacy issue makes for poor government, not sound government. It is precisely the diverse varieties of electoral usages of representational selection that gives our government sound strength, not weakness.
Read what was said when it was created in Federalist 68
If the United States elected its President by simple nationwide popular vote, the nation wouldn't survive ten years.
The leech majorities would enslave and impoversh the working minorities to the utter ruination of all.
The dominance of Iowa and New Hampshire -- two small and not-terribly-representative throwbacks to Norman Rockwell America -- distorts the entire race, forcing contenders to shape issues designed to catch fire with the locals.
One county is the same as any other at that point. Federal judges are mandating to states what the laws must be.
The United STATES is not long for this world.
No, I mean it's a huge special section within that issue. Not just one little column.
One elector from DC withheld abstained in 2000; an elector from Washington voted for Ronald Reagan in 1976; and an elector from Virginia voted for Libertarian John Hospers in 1972. That shouldn't happen. We're playing with fire. Ditch the electors, but keep the electoral votes.
The founding fathers were right. Pure Democracy is the rule of the mob.
Contrary to Business Week, I'll recommend the other direction. Restrict sufferage to those over 25 and honorably discharged veterans. Remove popular election of Senators - we don't need two Houses of Representatives.
Ya, the electors are a dangerous anachronism, and should be bounced. I agree. We seem to agree on a lot. :)
Instead you will see a flood of negative editorials and news articles that Bush will be prohibited from answering.
Stephen B. Shepard
McGraw-Hill Building · 1221 Avenue of the Americas · 39th Floor · New York, NY 10020
So what the author is saying is, that as long as the Electorial College worked in favor of electing DemonRATS, it was a-okay, but now that it seems to favor Republicans-it has outlived it's usefullness. Well that's just too damn bad, isn't it?
The World Series is decided by who wins the most games, not who gets the most runs in the whole series.
With that said the Electoral system (if not a college of people) must stand.
Business Week is in the same liberal dumpster as Time and Newsweak, et al. It's a fading print publication that struggles by with cheap college-newspaper hires and has-been hacks. No surprise that it's an anti-capitalism, anti-America publication. Democrats run the place.
Business Week will endorse Kerry.
Kent: "But sir, everybody knows the Electoral College works..."
White: "I DON'T CARE Kent! Use a strawman! Play on people's fears! Bring up Florida! Now you make the EC look like yesterday's dishes or you're fired!"
I just endorsed that - three times. I asked the extra two to be deleted, but the mods are on holiday or something. Maybe it is time for flame war. I know you and I are up to it. :)
They also didn't trust regular white landowners to make the "right" decisions, which is why they allow the electoral voters to switch if the "wrong" candidate is voted for. However, that is quite the rare occurence.
"Finally, the College was a sop to Southerners, who were given credit for each slave at the rate of three-fifths of a free voter, magnifying the power of white property owners in Dixie."
Setting aside all else, isn't this factually in error? Wasn't in fact the 3/5 rule a method to REDUCE the representation by not counting slaves the same as freemen?