dr. elsewhere here
Cleverness always catches my attention, especially when it solves a number of problems at once.
Check out this canny plan to rid ourselves of the tyranny of the electoral college, recover the one person/one vote concept (that has never really worked in national elections because of the electoral college), all without a Constitutional amendment.
If I understand it correctly - and it is very simple - state legislatures would vote to join in a pact with other like-billed legislatures, a pact that would bind participants to dedicate ALL their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide.
The plan will prevail as soon as enough states accumulate the necessary half plus one of the 538 votes. So far, Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, and Louisiana all have such bills pending, and the bill passed in California. Support and opposition are both bipartisan. When you know about the history of the concept of the college - to ensure that Southern states with nonvoting slaves and therefore fewer votes would still have "equal" representation - this idea quickly makes sense. Especially when you consider that the US is the only democracy that does not elect its national representation by popular vote.
But an added attraction to this plan is that it would help redistribute campaign attention to the smaller states with fewer electoral votes, whereas now, California, New York, and the rest of the power states enjoy all the focus. This argument also gives the plan some advantage over the idea of electoral votes being cast proportionally to the state's voting trend, unlike the current position of 47 states for winner-take-all.
Think about it. Then take action, if it makes sense to you.
4 comments:
What does this mean?
Choicepoint is the company that did the felon purges in Florida 2000. These purges removed thousands of legal minorityvoters from registration lists. Gore lost without these voters.
VoteTrustUSA is the organization that represents many election integrity groups and supports the Holt Amendment (verified paper ballots) to the Help America Vote Act. They're supposed to be against acts like Choicepoints.
blackboxvoting.org
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1141182287
"If you "discontinued all involvement with voting processes" why is the wife of Choicepoint President Douglas Curling on the board of directors of VoteTrustUSA and why is money from Choicepoint (through Curling to his wife) funding VoteTrustUSA? Has this funding for VoteTrustUSA and other voting rights groups been coming from Mrs. Curling directly, or from their foundation? If the money is from the foundation, has it been disclosed to the affiliates of VoteTrustUSA that according to SEC documents the Curling Foundation is a stockholder of Choicepoint?
I'm trying to discern how having his wife on the board of directors for one of the leading national elections organizations, and funding it, can be construed as "having no involvement in voting processes."
If this is not a conflict of interest, why was Mrs. Curling participating in the VoteTrust "Leaders" communication list under a false name instead of her own? Didn't the participants have the right to know that they were sharing their innermost strategies with the wife of the president of Choicepoint? "
Joseph, Thanks for highlighting this extremely important strategy for reforming our obsolete, indeed, stupid, racist and anti-urban, electoral college system.
I have one disagreement with your analysis, however. Most of the analyses I've read about this strategy argue pursuasively, that this would not benefit small states, but actually benefit big states. Or more precisely, a purely popular vote election makes the votes of the voters of all states completely equal.
In recent elections, candidates do not campaign in states like New York and Massachusetts, which reliably vote Democratic in presidential elections, because it is obvious the Democrat will get all the electoral votes. Even Democratic presidential candidates have no material interest in campaigning in New York, because it doesn't matter whether the candidate gets 50.01 or 99% -- the same number of electoral votes go to the Democrat. Instead, the candidates campaign in swing states, where the votes are more valuable because they could swing a certain number of electoral votes.
A pure popular election, whether in fact or by pact, makes every voter perfectly identical -- whether in Ohio or New York. In practice, however, candidates are likely to focus on concentrated populations and where media is dense -- New York, California and Illinois, for example. And getting 80% of the vote in NY is actually better than getting 51% because all votes count. Get out the vote drives in safe states become more important, which strengthens d(D)emocratic participation (both small d and big D).
A popular vote system would shift the politics of the country to the left because a presidential candidate could win the election based on a larger percentage wins and big turnouts in the reality based, urban, diverse, economically vital bi-coastal and Great Lakes popluations of California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, et al, and basically punt on the vast, largely empty and empty headed precincts of interior Jesusistan.
HamdenRice from DU
actually, anon909 (or hamdenrice), i posted this little piece, and i'm glad you agree it's a nifty idea. as for your concerns, this position is best understood as actually deferring to the popular vote. period. state borders would become utterly meaningless. campaigning would focus on urban areas, which is as it should be because they're more densely populated. the rural areas could not be totally neglected, though, because they still make up a quarter of the general population.
campaigns would have to be approached strategically from an entirely different perspective. the whole insanity of gaming the electoral college would be out the window, where it belongs.
and this just occurred to me as an additional advantage: note that the past two national elections have gotten completely gummed up because of the ability of the repugs to game the system. by taking over the process in a few swing states with ample college votes, they've been able to hold the electoral system hostage. consider what this would mean for strategizing at election time without that concentrated leverage. this is not to say the potential for throwing an election would be eliminated, but it seems like it sure would make it harder.
and earlier anon, thanks for your reference to curling and his wife. i can't tell you what it means, but i'm opting for the interpretation that i'm sure your suspicions suggest.
these folks are completely corrupt, organized crime.
Please read my post here re the Republican party as a criminal enterprise, because I completely agree with you doc. Could not be more obvious to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Let's hope someone starts paying attention.
Post a Comment