Electoral College -Class of 2004

It almost went wrong again

Published on November 6, 2004 By Psikotik In Politics

This IS NOT a rant about the 2000 election. Bush became President and if Dems were in control of Fla. Gore would have - that's politics. Dems wouldn't have been any more "noble" and done anything different than the Republicans did. This is about the fact that the same thing almost happened again.

In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 but lost the electoral vote. (Please let that go my Democratic comrades). This year Bush won by 3.8 million votes and won the electoral college. HOWEVER, if there had been a swing in Ohio of 75,000 votes, ie. Bush lost 75,000 votes to Kerry for a net change of 150,000, then Kerry would have won Ohio and won the electoral college. Even with Bush having won the popular vote by 3.7 million (once adjusted for the theoretical swing in Ohio). Even as a Democrat I would have to say that would have been WRONG and an outrage.

There is a big problem in the system in that right now 8 or so "swing states" elect the President and the rest of us just wait and see what they do. I am a Democrat in a Virginia, which is pretty consistantly a red state so it was pretty much a given it would go to Bush. Just as any Republican in California or New York would have to know their states would go to Kerry. Kerry won 55 electoral votes for California, about 1/5 of what is needed to win the electoral college even with 4.4 million people voting FOR BUSH. Add in New York and you have 2 states with 86 total electoral votes and about 7 million people who voted for Bush. That's a lot of opinions not counting. This can be frustrating and disheartening because in a system where 40 to 42 states aren't even "in play" a lot of peoples voices aren't being heard.

The problem is how to fix the system. First off, we are a representative republic, not a democracy. One man - one vote was never the intention of the founding fathers.On the surface this might seem to be an option, after all, Bush won the popular vote he should be President. There have been several other elections in history besides 2000 where the popular vote differed from the electoral vote, and even times there was a tie and the House decided the election (the possibility of which kept being brought up last week). Link This link shows those elections and the years they happened in.

Smaller and less populated states say that if the electoral college weren't in place, they wouldn't be fairly represented. This is a valid concern, when your state doesn't have the population of Los Angeles County, it is easy to be overlooked or taken for granted.

I propose that we adopt a system similar to what was voted down in Colorado this year where electoral votes are split on the basis of the popular vote. This way every electoral vote would be important, candidates would need to court, appeal to and campaign in every state. Large states would not be a huge "bloc" vote and be able to steamroll other states. If 40% of Californians voted Republican, they would get 22 electoral votes, the Dems 33. This would more reflect the opinions of the state, and the same would apply for Democrats in red states.

Of course this or any other change will never happen because both parties won't consider this something that will get them votes in an election, and that it's too risky to try something this radical to try to fix a system which if not in need of a overhaul, definitely needs a tune-up.

Comments

Nadeon

on Nov 06, 2004

Here, have an "Insightful", and a hearty thankyou for being non-partisan. Perhaps now that Bush can no longer run for re-election he may entertain the idea; but I doubt it. I believe that would take a constitutional amendment. Personally I would like to see 6 year term limits on both houses and the presidency. I don't believe our founding fathers ever intended for political office to be a career either. Call it a gut feeling, but I think that may go a long way in ending some of the devisiveness and polorization the country is now going through (pardon my spelling and syntax, I am recovering from the flu). I would really like to get involved in both your idea and the term limit one. Any suggestions?

messybuu

on Nov 06, 2004

I'm all for an idea like this. I think candidates should receive votes from the counties they win and not just the states they win. For example, in California, the coast supported Kerry, but the middle of California voted for Bush,s o Kerry would receive the EVs from the counties of the coasts, and Bush would receive the EVs from the counties that voted for him, and since Kerry received the majority, he'd receive the extra two EVs. This would also give third parties a better chance to make positive impacts in elections.

NJforever

on Nov 06, 2004

Bravo, Psikotik, for a while I have thought the electoral college outdated and unfair, but I knew no one would go for popular vote deciding. That is an insightful look into the problem and an even more insightful look into a solution. It's a great example of compromise, on which this nation was founded. Have an "Insightful" on me (and forgive me for using the word 3 times)

Psikotik

on Nov 06, 2004

Thanks for the kind words all. Nadeon, I agree with you on term limits 100%, and hope to write on this in the future. Some things about Congress are simply too hard to believe. I'm not sure where one would begin as to actually trying to move these ideas forward. Maybe an internet search for groups that support these ideas. I know I sure couldn't begin a grassroots organization. If I can find anything I'll post it. UPDATE - There are quite a few things if you do a google search for electoral college reform, though many are by Dems still mad over 2000.

stevendedalus

on Nov 07, 2004

If 40% of Californians voted Republican, they would get 22 electoral votes, the Dems 33.

This would really amount to the same as the popular vote. I would suggest that states with a population of less than 5 million be given but one senator vote to their electoral tally.

Psikotik

on Nov 07, 2004

Stevendalus - why should a state with under 5 million lose an electoral vote (by reducing to 1 the senators counted)? This would decrease their importance in the election for no reason other than they don't have a large population. (Plus there are 30 states with populations under 5 million, that's a lot of affected states)
And also my suggestion doesn't amount to the same as a popular vote because the electoral college isn't based solely on population. Electoral votes are calculated by Senators (two) plus Representatives (based on population). Changing the formula would render smaler states/population less important. People would worry more about LA, Philly , other large cites and states and ignore Noth and South Dakota and the likes.

latour999

on Nov 07, 2004

Actually, we have a system similar to this in Canada, (but a lot different

) and it does help out the smaller New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Quebecois, who have literally no mathematical chance of winning (only runs in Quebec). But instead of electing electors, basically they elect MPs (whichever party gets the most wins), the equivalent of a congressman, so the smaller parties have some control over issues in the House, even if they don't win the election.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!