It is thought impossible to move to a popular vote here in America because of the difficulty in amending our Constitution. It would require approval from 67 Senators and 38 states. That thinking is wrong because none of that is necessary. No die hard stand by the square states will be able to stop this. There will be no need to consult Congress at all and it can be accomplished by as few as 11 states.
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina are the most populous states. They are home to more than half of the American people and between them have a majority of the electoral votes. If they, or some other collection of states or the District of Columbia that controls at least 271 electoral votes, all vote for a single candidate then that person will win. Period. So all we need do is convince enough of the “bigger” states to give their electoral votes not to the person who gets the most votes in their state but by the one who wins the most votes in the entire nation.
We can have a de facto popular vote because no amount of “small” state stonewalling can maintain their unfair electoral advantage.
Debate on my epiphany or anything else electoral is welcome.
2sense: I can’t say for sure, but I’d guess that your scheme, in ingenius as it is, would violate the constitutions of some of the states. And besides, your assumption is that all these big states vote for the same candidate. (Also, are you sure NC is more populous than, say Virginia or some other states?)
Who’s the ‘we’ that’s going to do the “convincing”? Is it the folks whose preferred candidate stands to win by such shenanigans? What about the people in the states in question? Shall ‘we’ ignore their vote?
If the vote count in one state (Florida 2000) was so questionable that multiple re-counts were in order, how would the accuracy of a national vote ever be established? And by the way, just how is it we’re so damn sure the national count in 2000 was so accurate but the Florida count was so inaccurate?
I can’t speak for any other state but here in Pennsylvania our presidential election is governed by statute rather than by our constitution. It is my assumption that it is the same in most states. If I’m wrong then those state constitutions would need to be changed for my plan to work. And yes, the plan is for the “big” states all to give thier electoral votes to a single candidate, the winner of the popular vote.
As for Virginia, according to the Census that state has almost a million fewer people than North Carolina and only thirteen electoral votes to NC’s fifteen.
“We” are those who believe in democracy and equality. “We” are those who don’t believe that some Americans deserve more say in who governs our nation than others. In short “we” are the good guys. And “we” aren’t suggesting that anyone’s vote be ignored. Instead “we” think that everyone’s should be counted and the candidate with the most votes should win, even if that isn’t the one each of us personally voted for. That’s why “we” support electing our leader via the popular vote.
As for counting the votes, it’s not complex at all: they should be counted. Obviously as a nation we need to put more effort into holding fair and reliable elections but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. Look at how much information the NYSE keeps track of every single day. If fairness were a real priority we would have already have provided for proper electoral procedures.
How would you get some of the big states to vote against the majority of their internal popular vote? Are you seriously saying that any state would do that? Texas votes 60/40 for Bush/Nader in '04, but the US as a whole votes for Nader, so Texas gives it’s electoral votes to Nader. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight…
“We” are those who believe in democracy and equality. “We” are those who don’t believe that some Americans deserve more say in who governs our nation than others. In short “we” are the good guys. "
Not to point out any problems with an attempt to cleverly subvert democracy through a giant vote-rigging scheme, but just for the sake of argument – who, exactly, are the ‘bad’ guys?
Gairloch
If you would make your argument a little more clearly I’ll have a hand at pointing out its flaws. I will point out that the idea that the EC protects against regional majorities is not only wrong but it is completely backwards. No matter how strong the electoral support for one party it never reaches 100% So under a popular vote if 60% of a region voted for a candidate s/he would only get 60% of the electoral power of the people of that region. Under the electoral college that same situation would put EVERY LAST BIT of the electoral power of the region behind the candidate. The EC doesn’t protect against the possibility of regional control; it creates it.
John Mace,
It’s almost never easy to get a state government to do something. ( Particulary in Tejas. ) The point is that it is the people of the “large” states that are getting the short end of the electoral stick. Their votes never have as much weight on the outcome of the election the votes from the “small” states. That is where the political support for the reform comes. Clearly the state would need to pass the law before the election. Once it was clear who the popular vote would put in the Oval Office it becomes a matter of “Do I want my guy or their guy?”. Obviously at that point it’s too late. But before the election the question is “Do I want to continue to have less than an equal vote?” That’s a much different proposition.
Gairloch,
The bad guys are the ones against equality and democracy, of course. You can tell them apart by their black hats. And for the sake of argument, how about you actually produce some arguments to support your bald assertions that my plan would “subvert democracy” or amounts to “a giant vote-rigging scheme”? As I see it I am attempting to finess our undemocratic electoral machinery into producing a democratic result and I am hardly proposing to rig any votes. I’m merely suggesting that we count them.
Do you call for the abolishment of the Electoral College at every presidential election, or only when the election is contentious and the Electoral College does its job as intended, but you don’t like the outcome?
We the taxpayers and voters of the United States should be able to vote and have our vote count individually. I don’t need Michigan to represent me, I’d ** rather represent myself **.
It has nothing to do with the states, it has everything to do with the population living in United States of America. Who cares if California has more people than Kentucky. They are all Americans. And they can vote. Regional differences are inconsequential.
I also strongly disagree with that stupid amendment that prevents the President from being elected over and over again. The American people are smart enough to vote whom they want to; the government shouldn’t intercede and say, “Well, you can vote for who you want two times, but that’s it!” How idiotic.
It’s funny because if it didn’t exist, Clinton would have gotten relected again and again and again. I miss Clinton. I miss Hillary too.
It would make more sense if the bigger states agreed, not to cast all their electoral votes for the national popular-vote winner, but to distribute their electoral votes among the candidates in proportion to their voting support in that particular state. Makes the voting process, within that state, a lot more meaningful, doesn’t it?
You believe in democracy and equality, and therefore have come up with a plan whereby the electors of big states are forced to vote for a candidate, even if it’s a candidate the majority of the population of the state doesn’t like?
If you want to move to popular vote, that’s fine…more power to you, but for a change this important, do it the right way, with a constitutional amendment.
Unless, of course, the names on the ballot are listed side-by-side, or the scary, touch-screen techno-thingy contraption causes them psychological trauma, or the guy who bussed them to the polls forgot to spell all the names for them.
Can you tell I got up on the wrong side this morning?
