Posted on 01/23/2008 9:06:37 AM PST by K-oneTexas
| The Electoral College v. The Popular Vote | |
| by Dr. Vincent G. Gioia January 23, 2008 |
|
|
Since the 2000 presidential election, there have been calls for changing the way the president is elected because though George Bush received the majority of Electoral College votes, Al Gore received a larger number of votes nationwide. Democrats in particular have been very vocal about this and many on the left still harbor feelings that the George Bush ‘stole’ the election despite the fact his win was entirely in accordance with the Constitution.
The Electoral College is a device that founders of our country settled upon to create our republican form of government. Strictly speaking, we do not have a ‘democracy’ where matters are decided by the collective individual votes of those authorized to vote, we have a representative democracy where the people’s voice is theoretically expressed through elected representatives. However, the country’s founders recognized a problem would occur unless states with large populations were somehow balanced with respect to smaller states; otherwise, larger states would dominate national elections. It was therefore necessary to include provisions in the Constitution to give a reasonable voice to those living in less populated states.
Attaining more balanced representation in government and in national elections was achieved by establish one branch of the legislature representing population on an equal basis (the House of Representatives) and another branch giving equal representation to all states by having the same number of elected representatives regardless of state size (the Senate).
To achieve a more balanced ability to affect the outcome of national elections for president and vice president by lessening, somewhat, the dominance of states with large population, and the concept of an Electoral College was chosen. The Electoral College actually elects the chief executive but the composition of the Electoral College reflects the vote of the citizens in each state in a reasonable manner. Under the Electoral College system ‘Electors’ are selected in accordance with the presidential outcome of the public vote in each state. The number of Electors provided to each state corresponds to the number of representatives and senators each state is allotted in the House of Representatives by the population of the state, and the two senators of each state. In this way, each state influences the outcome of the presidential election by the size of their population, but not overwhelmingly so. The allocation of representatives is readjusted every ten years following a national census.
Article II of the constitution directs that the number of electors correspond exactly with the numbers in the Congress (100 electors representing the Senate and 435 additional electors representing the House). Following enactment of the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia receives the same number of electors as the least populous State (3 electors). Therefore, currently there are a total of 538 presidential electors distributed among the States according to the total number of U. S. Senators and U. S. Representatives in each State (e.g., California has 54 electors, Texas 32, Iowa 7, Wisconsin 11, etc.). A candidate for president must obtain an absolute majority of the electoral votes — 270 — in order to attain the presidency.
Under the Electoral College system, the smaller states receive a slightly greater voice, proportionally speaking. For example, California is the largest state and its 33 million inhabitants have 54 electors, each of whom represents 614,000 inhabitants. However, Wyoming is the smallest State and its less than one-half million inhabitants are represented by 3 electors — one for every 160,000 inhabitants. This therefore gives Wyoming slightly more proportional strength.
Therefore, on the one hand, the Electoral College tends somewhat to over-represent voters in smaller States; and no matter how small a state is, because it is guaranteed at least 3 electors. However, the combined number of electors in the eight smallest States (Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, and Rhode Island) produces the same number of electors as the single State of Florida even though Florida has a population more than three times greater than those eight smaller States combined.
Yet, on the other hand, if a candidate wins California and its 54 electoral votes, that candidate is one-fifth of the way to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Therefore, while California accounts for only 11% of the nation’s population it can provide 20% of the electoral votes needed to obtain the presidency. The Electoral College system therefore preserves a balance between population centers and between diverse State and regional interests, incorporating elements both of popular and of state representation in its operation.
However, each state is permitted to determine the manner the state’s Electors who will actually vote for the election of the president and vice president are chosen. It is because of this state right, some people advocate changes in the manner of selecting the country’s highest officers. Rather than have Electors of a state reflecting the outcome of the vote for president and vice president in that state by a general state election on a ‘winner take all’ basis, a state may choose some other manner of allocating the Electors from that state who will meet together in the ‘Electoral College’ to actually elect the president and vice president.
Currently, the popular vote in each State directs the electors of that State how to cast their vote for President. In most States, whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that State wins all of that State’s electors; but since the manner of choosing a State’s electors is left by the Constitution to each State, different States have different rules. For example, in Maine and Nebraska, the winner does not take all; rather, the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district wins the electoral vote from that congressional district, and the candidate who wins the entire state receives the state’s two remaining electoral votes.
Various groups, (mainly liberals) claim that the Electoral College system is unfair to voters and want the Electoral College replaced a popular vote system. They basically argue that under the current ‘winner take all’ practices of most states, individual votes become meaningless because each state gets a certain number of electoral votes and the popular vote is not taken into account.
On the other hand, without the Electoral College, candidates would spend less time trying to win the votes of many individuals in smaller states. As Curtis Gans, from the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, points out:
"The idea of getting rid of the Electoral College...would be profoundly dangerous, particularly in the present way that we conduct our campaigns. Essentially what this would mean is that the totality of our campaigns would be a television advertising, tarmac kind of campaign. You would be handing the American presidential campaign to whatever media adviser could out slick the other. Different States in different regions have important interests to which the candidate should be subjected and to which the candidates should be required to speak...[D]irect elections would insure that all monetary resources would be poured into [televised political] advertising. There would be virtually no incentive to try to mobilize constituencies, organize specific interests, or devote any resources to such things as voter registration and education...What we would have is a political system that combines the worst of network television with the worst of the modern campaign".
I believe without the Electoral College system candidates would logically spend their campaign courting voters in the most populous urban areas such as Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Washington, DC, Miami, Seattle, etc., rather than visiting cities in more rural areas. Furthermore, since larger urban areas tend to be more liberal than the rest of the nation, the result would be presidential campaigns would cater predominately to liberal interests and liberals would have more power to select the winners of presidential elections.
Under the electoral college system, it is possible that a candidate can win the presidency by carrying a majority of only the 11 most densely populated States (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina and either Georgia or Virginia). However, under a system of direct elections, this number could be reduced to even fewer States, particularly if they happened to be the largest states and could deliver overwhelming margins of victory, (such as Washington, DC, did for Gore by the lopsided 86 to 9 percent margin). In fact, the margin of victory in a State would become more important than simply winning the State and thus could easily cause a candidate not to visit a close state but rather to spend time in a state in which he or she is already popular, merely to drive up the margin of the vote and add more to the candidates national total.
Therefore, contrary to what others may believe, the Electoral College system ensures a fairer outcome and, rather than preventing the counting of each individual’s vote, it actually enhances the opportunity for the votes of many more individuals to be courted without unfairly benefiting liberals who count on large margins of victory in large urban areas.
|
|
| Dr. Vincent Gioia is a retired attorney, formerly VP and General Council, Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., now Allegheny Teledyne. He is also a horticulturist and also a former President of the American Rose Society and the World Federation of Rose Societies. His articles have appeared in many engineering and horticultural publications. He maintains a website at www.vincentgioia.com | |
The free world would be in the hands of Yankees and Lakers fans.
It still is...they own and house the media circus.
And they would impose their rule on “flyover country” by force and fiat. How long do you think that would last?
A very good analysis.
Getting rid of the Electoral College is a liberal theme, for the obvious reasons pointed out in this essay.
we have a representative democracy...
"And to the republic for which is stands." Apparently, the doc just can't say that we are a republic. And he needs a proofreader.
We'll get to see post-election more than likely. The "compact" by states to avoid the electoral college and award the electors to the person who wins the popular vote is still on track. I believe N.J. is the last state to sign on. Until it's challenged, it may be unconstitutional, but it's still grinding away eating the Constitution.
Theoretically, it could be longer to find out who won the election than it was in 2000 in the event that a challenge to this has to make its way through the courts to the SC.
They already impose their rule...and it is by force in my opinion. It's deception by media, a much more difficult stunt to pull off but at least they can say they didn't actually shoot anyone.
Nikita Kruschev’s Commie edict, “We will take you over without firing a shot.”
At least we wouldn’t have to listen to rhetoric over Iowa or new Hampshire any more.
Well when you figure how they ‘act’ by not going to certain states because there aren’t enough delegates to worry about, just proves why something along the lines of the Electoral College is needed. I think that at the minimum the votes ought to go to the winner of the popular vote in that state. I believe that now the electorates are appointed and there is a chance they could go along with the ruling party in the state, not the voters.
But I also believe it should take 50+% of the vote to be seated. That way if 5 people get on the ballot, you have a run off between the 2 biggest vote getters....
I agree with you - far too many people think we live in a democracy, which the popular “vote” tends to encourage. We should abolish the popular vote, not the electoral college.
http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Politics/the_Republic.htm
The sentence before the one you quote, he does call it a republican form of government.
It is too bad we do not see similar thinking in our urging of “democracy” upon Islamic dominated nations. The mindless application of pure democracy heads building countries into the very disasters our founders feared were inevitable unless the question of tyrannizing by mindless mobs of an intolerant majority was dealt with. We seem to have abandoned this kind of thinking and fail to point it out to the Sharia law nuts.
Let’s just get rig of politicians altogether and decide every issue by popular vote.
When I hear people call the Electoral College “antiquated”, I have to shake my head. The Electoral College was miraculous, hundreds of years advanced for it’s time. Even today many students of government have a hard time understanding how it works and why it works. It is the most advanced form of a balancing mechanism that has ever been created in the history of governance.
January 13, 2008
Why Real Change is Hard (or Impossible)
You’ve heard a lot about party elites, the establishment and so on, but is it
true? Does Clinton/Romney actually have a secret advantage by being the pick of
the elite party establishment? Can the political machines of each party push
their pick over the top? You bet (although it’s not a super-secret, just not
well-known), and it’s easier than you think – here’s one way the establishment
picks can come out on top, even if voters reject them.
Before we reveal the secret about the political party elites, suppose you’ve
been studying the candidates and issues, trying to make an informed selection
and thinking your vote counts. Au contraire, mon ami – perhaps you’ve never
heard of a superdelegate. If not, it’s because the political parties don’t
really want you to know this as it’s one way they use their influence to pick
the establishment candidate and minimize the voters intent.
One of the problems confronting the voter is just figuring out what a candidate
believes. For the establishment picks of Clinton/Romney, she has a much easier
time as her positions are well-known. But Romney is known as a flip-flopper, as
the Washington Post notices:
Romney suddenly unveiled a new campaign message, arguing on the stump and in
television ads that he was the candidate of “change” who was best able to fix
what he called a “broken” Washington.
But the abrupt shift in tone and substance — a huge poster with a “to-do” list
of Washington reforms suddenly began appearing at rallies in New Hampshire —
reinforced one of the most damaging narratives about Romney’s candidacy: that
he has no firm political convictions and will say anything to get elected.
It even prompted his rivals to openly mock him during Saturday’s debate on
ABC. Chided by Romney for unfairly characterizing his positions, Huckabee shot
back, “Which one?” Romney’s face contorted into a grimace on national
television. Later, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said sarcastically: “We disagree
on a lot of issues, but I agree you are the candidate of change.”
When you’re the establishment pick, it’s an anything goes mode. The only thing
that matters is winning; consistency and integrity don’t. That’s one reason why
Romney is in trouble – nobody can figure out exactly what he believes. He’s
pro-choice, and pro-life. He supports planned parenthood, but he doesn’t. He
sees … oh nevermind.
Hillary is in a different bind. Her positions are well-known (she’s a leftist),
but most people don’t find her “likable”, and really don’t want to relive the
Clinton years again – travelgate, filegate, chinagate, stained dress, Lincoln
bedroom and so on. Her problem is she’s got too much baggage, and she’s got to
get people to forget it. Her win came about by crying on-camera to appear more
human. Crying? There’s no crying in politics!
So those are the establishment picks – one person believes the job is hers by
fiat, the other will say anything to get elected. But do they have a secret
advantage? You bet. Something you may not know about; it’s not really a secret,
just not well-known.
Let’s take a look at the primary system – each party has different rules, but
for our purposes they’re similar. As anyone knows, it takes a majority of
delegates to win nomination, but the error comes from assuming a majority of
votes equals a majority of delegates. That isn’t so, and it’s how the party
establishment gives a boost to whomever they want, minimizing voters’ choices.
Democrats have 4,049 total delegates, of which 796 (about 20%) are
“superdelegates” – the rest (3,253) are won in state primaries. The Republicans
have 2,380 total delegates, 463 (also about 20%) are “unpledged” while the rest
(1,917) are won in primaries.
TotalNeeded to WinSuperdelegatesAvailable for Primaries
Democrats4,0492,0257963,253
Republicans2,3801,1914631,917
Simply doing the math means for Democrats it takes 2,025 to win, while
Republicans need 1,191. For simplicity, we’ll look at the Democrat side (the
Republicans are similar, just the numbers change). For the Democrat race, a
candidate needs 2,025 delegates. To simplify it let’s just have two candidates,
and call them “A” and “B”. During the primary, A wins a majority of delegates in
state contests (he’s the people’s pick) but B is close (and the choice of the
elite establishment). You think the person who gets the most votes wins the
nomination? Think again.
Here’s the breakdown (for the moment we’ll ignore the population of each state
and assume it’s equal. It won’t really affect the point and it makes analysis
easier).
Candidate “A” = 40% of vote or 1,301 delegates.
Candidate “B” = 60% of vote or 1,952 delegates
B is close, but not quite to, the majority of delegates needed, even though he
won by over 20% of the vote. In party primaries, majority of votes doesn’t mean
winning; here’s where the party leadership slight-of-hand comes into play. Look
at the superdelegates, which number 796 and are not chosen by primary voters. At
the convention, they support candidate “A”, with the final results:
Candidate “A” = 40% of vote but 2,097 delegates.
Candidate “B” = 60% of vote but 1,952 delegates.
Candidate “A” wins the nomination with only 40% of the vote! If he (or she)
knows they’re the party elites pick, all they have to do is stay close during
the state primaries, and the private delegates swing the convention to their
favor even though the majority of citizens want someone else.
Looking at it another way, if a Republican candidate needs 1,191 delegates to
win, up to 40% (463/1191) of the delegates required to win could NOT be chosen
by voters, but by party elites. This is why being the establishment pick is so
important and yields a huge advantage. For this election, it’s Clinton/Romney.
They don’t need to win the primaries, just be close and the “Superdelegates”
(Democrats) or “unpledged delegates” (Republican) win the day.
So, who are the “Superdelegates” (Democrats) or “unpledged delegates”
(Republican), and how are they chosen?
CNN says Democrat “Superdelegates are usually Democratic members of Congress,
governors, national committee members or party leaders” while Republican
unpledged delegates “automatically become delegates by virtue of their status as
either a party chair or a national party committee person”.
Here’s the wiki entry (Wiki’s are not always the best source, and the page may
have changed, so beware).
Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the
United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or
caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.
Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the
nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands
of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to accord
some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party
before the election year.
As of the 2008 nominating cycle, the Republican Party does not have
superdelegates. It does, however, have 463 unpledged delegates, 123 of whom
are Republican National Committee members.
While researching this story, we found one newspaper article about it:
Long before the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic candidates began rounding up
“superdelegates.” The superdelegates are Democratic governors, members of
Congress and members of the Democratic National Committee. Former Democratic
presidents, vice presidents and the mayor of Washington, D.C., are also
superdelegates. There are 796 in all, more than a third of the 2,025 delegates
needed to win the nomination.
Superdelegates are remnants of the period before control of the nominating
process shifted to the voters in primaries and caucuses. They can act as a
brake on an insurgent candidate who wins at the polls but is not supported by
party leaders. Superdelegates are among the least democratic features of the
nominating process — and it’s notable that they are a far bigger factor in the
Democratic Party than in the GOP.
Admittedly these numbers are worst-case (or best-case if you’re one of the
elites) scenarios, but now you know why the system favors the party elites
(Clinton/Romney) so much. Even though Romney isn’t performing well, he has a
huge advantage by being the establishment pick as the voters only account for
80% of the winner, while the political machines and elites get the other 20%. To
overcome the political machine, you need to win a lot more delegates than the
party elites candidate.
Combining this advantage with a huge fundraisng machine (Clinton) or vast
personal fortune (Romney) and you’ve got a sizable advantage to overcome.
Where’s the campaign reform for that?
And as Paul Harvey would say, now you know the rest of the story.
References:
CNN Delegate Overview
Wiki - Superdelegates
Wiki - Republican Primary
Republican Rules
Democrat Rules
Wiki - Republican Convention
Wiki - Democrat Convention
Blog at WordPress.com.
But there are practical reasons as well. Imagine an extremely close race under a popular vote system. The national recount would make Florida 2000 look like a garden party.
Then there's corruption -- unfortunately, a fact of life. Vote-buying or ballot fraud in Chicago might affect the Illinois results, but at least the impact is compartmentalized under the Electoral system; in a national popular vote, fraud anywhere affects the national total, and again, in a close race, you'd be looking at real turmoil.
If it were up to me, I'd make only one change, a modest but important one. I'd get rid of the flesh-and-blood Electors who convene in Washington to cast the "official" ballots, and make the Electoral vote an automatic consequence of each states' popular vote. A couple of times in recent history, a rogue Elector has cast a ballot for other than the winner of the state in question. It hasn't changed a result yet -- at least since the 1876 election -- but why tempt fate?
Yes, but he followed that with "we have a representative democracy".
Republic: A country governed by the elected representatives of its people. (America Heritage dictionary)
Why didn't he just (accurately) say "we have a republic"? It seems to me that 'republic' is a dirty word these days, along with 'righteous' and 'moral' and 'masculine' and ...
Our Founders were quite ingenious. The "flesh-and-blood" electors are the last mechanism for insuring that there is not some taint to the election. Should the majority of electors discover that a corrupt process had been carried out, they may consult their own consciences to decide who shall be President.
Awarding the election to somebody who is a close second was not a big problem to our Founders. There wasn't supposed to be so much power vested in the federal government. It is the power that corrupts the system and the free will of the members of the Electoral College are just one more protection against unreasonable outcomes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.