The most obvious way to abolish the EC is through a constitutional amendment which is in general difficult to accomplish and practically impossible in this case because swing states would oppose it tooth and nail.
However there is another way to abolish the EC or at least seriously undermine it: if enough states decide to allot their electoral votes according to the winner of the popular vote. If states totalling 270 EV's do this the EC is in effect abolished regardless of what the other states do. Since non-swing states would benefit from this in terms of more attention from the candidates and since non-swing states easily cover more than 270 EV's, this is by no means impossible.
Even if you don’t get 270 EV’s, the electoral college would be dealt a severe blow if a few big states decide to allocate their EV’s to the popular winner. Let’s say Texas and New York decide to do this it would change the calculations of both candidates. It would be very difficult for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote so candidates would probably a spend a lot more energy trying to win the popular vote. As two large non-swing states both NY and Texas would benefit. And once they went through with this the momentum for other non-swing states to follow would be large.
Should this happen? Could this happen? Non-swing states have a clear incentive to move in this direction and they have the ability as well. I believe a couple of small states have already done this.
It is already happening, as you noted, though in a slightly different manner: the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact stipulates that the agreement only goes into effect once there are enough states signed on to decide the election.
The only way your proposition would change the votes of the states is if the popular vote ran contrary to the opinions of the states’ people. And if a majority of the people in that state elected a certain candidate in the first place, why would they want to change their vote because of the results from other states?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: Say you live in New York and it goes Democratic, while the rest of the country goes Republican, but the Democrats would still win the election as is. Why would you want to change your state’s vote and hand the election to them?
I believe there have been bills in some states that would give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner contingent on an electoral majority of states agreeing to do so. That is, if enough states sign such bills into law, then the election is effectively decided by popular vote, but until that happens the law has no effect and the state’s electoral votes still go to whoever the state’s voters pick.
If states were just to give their votes to the popular vote winner outright (not contingent on what other states do), then they are effectively weakening their voters say in the winner of the election. But this sort of proposal cleverly avoids that problem.
You’re right that a state doesn’t really benefit from simply flipping their vote to match the popular vote. But if you favor a national popular vote in general, then there is some incentive to say “We’ll agree to flip our vote to match the popular vote, if enough of you other states promise to do the same thing to ensure the popular vote winner always wins the election.” That’s how the aforementioned “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” works.
If only one state does it doesn’t make sense at a purely partisan level. That is why I gave Texas and NY in my example. I meant some kind of agreement where they both do it together.
Since they have roughly equal EV’s it doesn’t advantage either party significantly.The scenario you sketch is about as likely as the opposite where the Democrat wins the popular vote and then takes Texas to win the EV. The benefit for both NY and Texas is that the popular vote becomes more important and candidates will pay both states more attention.
The other way to go about it would be the above mentioned compact though that wouldn’t have any impact until enough states signed on. My proposal allows for an incremental movement where the popular vote becomes more and more important as each state signs on.
Actually it is a great example. If TX and NY would agree to this thing, the loser of the popular vote would never win again. If a DEM squeaked by (Gore in 2000), but lost the EC, then TX’s GOP votes would flip to him and put him over the top.
Likewise if a GOP candidate squeaked by then NY’s DEM electors would flip to him. It would only take these two states…
Every time this gets mentioned I don’t quite know what to say. The EC is not a bad thing. Not in any way. Other than for people who just can’t seem to wrap their head around the idea that if someone wins the EC but still loses the popular vote its doesn’t mean a damn thing!
Why do you think that the Electoral College is good in every way? I think at the very least, everyone can agree that it has both positive and negative aspects.
The system would break down the first time the popular vote was close enough to permit reasonable doubt as to which candidate had really won it. That would require a national recount – which states that had not signed on to the deal (and that had clear-cut outcomes determining their own electoral votes) would have no reason to conduct. For example, if you told the Secretary of State of Oklahoma (which we’ll assume doesn’t sign up for the deal) that the state needs to pay for a recount, he’ll tell you that they already know that the state went Republican, that that’s all he needs to know, and that you can go engage in pinko pervert liberal activities with yourself.
Actually, it would probably break down the other way. I’m not accusing any state of being corrupt, but for this hypothetical, let’s just say they are.
We have a close national popular vote, and your AG from Oklahoma is more than happy to have a recount. In fact, look, here are 25,000 GOP ballots that we misplaced. Very sorry, please add these to the national total.
Then in Mass. they find a hundred thousand DEM ballots previously uncounted.
Even signatories to the pact think the national vote was a result of “fraud” so they refuse to allocate their votes accordingly.
You have minions of lawyers across all 50 states with dueling slates of electors submitting votes to Congress in January. A much better system?
Because the main idea is that it gives individual states more influence in a presidential election than they might have otherwise. If we just went by popular vote candidates would only ever campaign in large metropolitan areas and would only have to appeal to a much lower common denominator in terms of issues.
The EC means that rather than campaigning for and winning a single election you have to campaign and win a majority of 50 small (i.e. statewide) elections. Its a much, much better system.
This is so self-evident to me that anytime I hear someone say we need to get rid of it I can’t help but think its only because they don’t grasp the concept (and/or because they voted for Gore!)
If the US is primarily urban, then why shouldn’t the candidates campaign primarily in the cities? And if the US isn’t primarily urban, then why would it work to campaign primarily in the cities? And even if it were somehow the case that most of the country weren’t urban but urban campaigning still decided the election, how would that be any worse than the current situation, where most of the country isn’t swing states but swing states still decide the nation?
Is the popular vote an accurate representation of the will of the people?
If you live in a state that votes heavily for one party or the other you would be less inclined to vote for the losing party. I can see problems where some states have a much lower turnout than others.
Also, how does this work with more than two candidates. Some strange results may occur with a candidate coming second in every state but winning the overall popular vote.
This is easily resolved by requiring a clear margin of victory. If the leading candidate fails to cross that hurdle, the states aren’t required to assign their electoral votes to him (and someday her). No recounts, no problem.
This is a more knotty problem. I’d say it would be better to go with the plan I came up with in the forum back in 2000 where the Congress passes a law requiring that the FEC certify the winner of the popular vote. Then states assigning their electoral votes in this manner would all do so uniformly and there is a single institution to take to court if necessary.
Assuming that the voters realise that it is a country-wide vote rather than a bunch of state-wide votes, why wouldn’t they act based on the country-wide support instead of state-wide support?
You have it backwards. Between a candidate who has the greatest support from the people they are to represent, and the candidate who has the most electoral votes thanks to unintentional Gerrymandering, the “strange result” is when the second man wins, not the first.
Well, I do like watching the states turn colors on Election Night…
I am at a loss to understand how the millions of Americans of New York, or Texas, or California have more influence in the presidential election. The only way to give one set of people more influence in an election is to confiscate it from another set of voters.
This is a common misconception of EC supporters. If every vote counts everywhere then politicians have an incentive to seek votes everywhere. It is the EC which encourages politicians to be selective. As it is the campaign occurs almost exclusively within the swing states.
Not quite. Under the Electoral College you have to win a majority of electoral votes and not a majority of states. A candidate could lead in just 11 states and still win, provided they were the 11 most populous states.
It seems it’s time to reexamine your misconceptions.
I’d be perfectly ok if my state decided to assign its electoral votes according to how the people of my state voted. I would not be happy if my state decided to cast its electoral votes according to how people in Texas, California, Mississippi, and Wyoming voted. (Gotta give Wyoming some love)
Odesio
No one is suggesting that the choice be left only to those states. The people in your state wouldn’t be disenfranchised. Your votes would still count. America’s president would be chosen by all Americans. The only thing you have to lose by moving to a popular vote is an unfair advantage over your fellow Americans.
How is that a problem? The system only comes into play if there is a clear winner. If it’s less than the required margin then there is no clear winner and states default to the next step in choosing electors.
