In 2000, Gore won the aggregate nationwide popular vote, but Bush “won” the electoral vote, with results with which we are all sadly familiar. There was a brief spate of arguments in the public arena for abolishing the Electoral College – mostly from the Dem side. The Pubs did not criticize it at all, so far as I recall – having won under the EC system, and, besides, being the party which is generally more change-averse and disposed to leave the Constitution as it is (except with regard to abortion, flag-burning, gay marriage . . . never mind).
But suppose the outcome is reversed this year? Suppose Bush wins the popular vote but Kerry wins the electoral vote? In an election this close, it could happen – all depends how the votes shake out state-by-state. The short answer, of course, is that then Kerry would be president – but that’s not what I’m proposing for debate. Is it possible that such an outcome could lead to a bipartisan wave of support for abolishing the EC? Would the Pubs be mad enough to throw their commitment to “tradition” over the side just on this one issue?
Here we go again… there are too many small states that would lose influence if the EC were abolished. Maybe there would be some increased talk, but I just can’t see a scenario where 3/4 of the states would approve the elimination of the EC.
A couple days ago electoral-vote.com had Kerry leading Bush by something like
279 to 230 electoral votes. So it could happen, although today, Bush is ahead 291 to 238.
When I saw Kerry leading in electoral votes I had the same thought.
My guess: Maybe not from one election. But if they lose two elections in a row while winning the popular vote, they’ll propose an amendment to abolish the electoral college faster than you can say “commitment to tradition”.
Well, since you’re asking about how people may act in the future, this is really an IMHO thread isn’t it?
IMHO, I don’t think it’ll be an issue any time soon. Whoever wins the EC in this next election wins, period. If the 'pubs are on the losing end of that stick, you’ll hear some minor grousing, but nothing major.
I doubt it. I would never support the abolition of the electoral college (or even the “abolition” of the electoral college), even if the Republicans lost several elections in a row by your posited scenario. I don’t think Republicans, either elected or the general public, would disagree with me in the numbers necessary to change the status quo.
John, there was a series of articles in slate.com recently that claim the benefit of the EC to small states is overrated, and in some cases small states would do better without the EC.
IIRC, the rationale is that while a small state gets disproportionately more electoral votes under the EC, the campaigns still focus on the big states. Especially when a state votes reliably one party or the other. Minority-party voters in small states (e.g., Democrats in Wyoming, Republicans in Rhode Island) are thus doubly disenfranchised.
If the system were based on the raw popular vote, minority-party voters in those small states would be courted more.
Not saying I accept it – I’m still digesting it – but I found it an interesting argument.
That can’t be. I live in CA, and you’d hardly even know there was a presidential eleciton going on. Campaigns concentrate on swing states, both large and small.
But is this about pols courting voters or voters having a stronger or weaker voice? As the saying goes: be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Who the hell wants these parasi… I mean politicians horning around anyway?
Personally, I think the whole so-called ‘debate’ over abolishing the EC after '00 election was pathetically undisguised sour grapes, nothing more. It had absolutely nothing to do with any perceived past or future inadequicies, just that current election.
Everybody knew there wasn’t anything wrong with the EC. It’s just an ironic twist that, in a very close election, someone can win the popular count but lose the election. It had happened once before and it wasn’t abandoned.
IOW, it was just a bunch of whining dems stamping their little feet screaming, “NO NO NO! WE WON! WE WON!!”
One thing I will say, if Bush wins the popular but loses the EC you will not see a repeat of ‘00. The RNC won’t hold the country hostage for a freakin’ month trying to weasel victory from defeat!
Wanna bet? Let’s say Kerry wins Florida by 537 votes, and there are suspected to be serious irregularities in the vote counting in several of the more Republican counties. Do you seriously believe that the Republicans won’t attempt to do anything about that?
Oh yeah, the OP. I’m in the “no way” camp on this. I see no scenario in which 2/3 of the House and Senate, and 3/4 of the states would approve a change.
Actually, there is some precendent of Republicans trying to change long-standing rules when things don’t go their way for a while
They tried to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage when it seemed that states were starting one-by-one to allow it
After a series of Democratic filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed a rule change on filibusters (of course this wasn’t the first time such a proposal was made, but it was interesting how it came after an annoying (to Republicans) series of filibusters from the Democrats)
After the “Under God” in the Pledge case, when Republicans got worried that at some point in the future when the Supreme Court won’t be able to weasel out of making a decision, and could remove “Under God” from the Pledge, they sought drastic measures to reduce what things Courts can decide on in general.
So, in general, Republicans don’t mind chaning long-standing traditions and changing the law if they get burnt several times with the existing law.
That’s why I think it is not a stretch to see the GOP start on a crusade to convince people that the EC is bad, if they lose a couple elections in a row, while winning the popular vote.
(Since I honestly admire the Republican PR machine, I can’t wait to see what “arguments” they’ll come up with. They’ll make it seem like it’s the most obvious thing to do. Why, if you don’t want to change the EC, you hate America)
You realize, of course, that the Republicans always do better in the small states that are overrepresented by the EC method?
For the OP scenario to happen, Kerry would have to win each of CA, NY, MA, IL, etc., by 50.5-49.5% each, and Bush to win all the small states by about 80%-20%.
OK, I’m exaggerating a little. But there’s no realistic way for Kerry to win the EC without also winning the popular vote.
If there’s a genuine, credible source telling them so sure. But if the stories turn out to be complete bullshit (like in '00) and after three recounts their guy is still the loser they aren’t going to continue petitioning the FL Supreme Court for extensions. I doubt they’d go beyond one recounting.
And Polerius, to varying degrees those are somewhat valid points but we’re talking about a presidential election here, not just politics in general. And you left out the 1960 election, where its pretty much a given that there really was a lot of ‘shannanagins’ but Nixon conceded anyway because it was the height of the Cold War. Who knows. Back then the DNC might have put the interests of the country ahead of its own too.
And no, regardless of what actually does happen I don’t see the EC being dismantled any time soon.
I have seen argument like this before. (Do you have a linky by the way?) When I have looked into them, they have all relied on some trickery in the way you measure the voting record of a particular state. Can you give any examples from the articles which indicate that some state is really lost to either party?
For instance, the Republicans seem to have won Rhode Island 12 times since 1892 (28 elections). That’s just under half by my math. Wyoming is a little more skewed. The Democrats only won there 7 times out of the last 28 elections. Still, this is 25%. Certainly this demonstrates some sort of regional preference. But it is hardly evidence that either party can afford to ignore either state.
It may be true that party loyalties shift from state to state and party to party. But it is also true that party and voter loyalties shift from issue to issue. If there is a flaw in how we elect presidents it is not inherent in the electoral college.
71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes.
Three of the votes were not cast at all. These three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate.
The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector. Sometimes Electors changed their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia Electors acted together in 1836. Many times, these Electors stood alone in their decision.
As of the 2000 election, no Elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against their party’s designated candidate.
*
So you’re saying that if an illegal ballot leads to thousands of intended votes for Bush being cast for a third party candidate, and if thousands of voters in a pro-Bush demographic are banned from voting because John Kerry’s brother ordered them kicked off the rolls, and if a Democratic operative refuses to grant a county’s request to extend a deadline so that they can actually finish the recount they were ordered to make, and if several dead people in Democratic districts manage to cast absentee ballots, and if illegally stamped absentee ballots are accepted in Democratic districts but not Republican ones, then the Pubs will still not pursue any action beyond one single recount. I’ll take that bet. How much would you like to wager?
As to the OP, if Bush wins popular but not electoral then Ann Coulter and Michael Savage will order their readerships to believe that the electoral college was a sinister liberal ploy invented by Bill Clinton as part of his secret deal with Stalin and Osama bin Laden. And their readerships will believe it. But Congressional Republicans wll make no attempt at a constitutional amendment. They’re smart enoguh to realize that the EC works in their favor overall, even if it screws them on this one occasion.
Yeah… they’ll drag it out for four whole years if that’s what it takes.
(And you know how Al Gore was at least man enough to preside civilly over the Senate session confirming the election results that put Bush in the White House? That’s another thing you won’t see from the GOP, either…)
Your uncharitable view is appreciated, but at least in some cases it’s wrong. I think if Kerry won in this manner it would just illustrate that the EC is dumb. Something I thought long before 2000. In fact it was my primary justification back in the days where I planned on never voting.
That’s a very rosy… um… load of crap, I think is the phrase I want here.
Why not remove the human element of the Electoral College - or, if you like, substitute dummy voters (no pun intended) for those currently selected - and just add the numbers from each state to achieve the result?
This would have the twin benefits of ensuring state representation (which seems to be the major purpose of the EC system) while removing the maverick element (so called faithless electors). It would also avoid any problems vis-a-vis President and VP.
I would like to hear a debate about modifying the electoral college to eliminate the “winner-take-all” factor rather than the college itself. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a candidate who wins a state’s popular election by, say, 500 votes MUST receive all of the state’s electoral votes. Colorado is considering legislation which, as I understand it, would award electoral votes on the basis of the winner in each congressional district, and the candidate who received a majority of those would also receive the state’s two “senatorial” electoral votes (I guess in case of a tie you could give one to each candidate). In other words if a state has 10 congressional districts it has one electoral vote for each district and two more for its two senators. Instead of giving all 12 electoral votes to the winner of a close race, it would be possible for one candidate to get seven and the other five, or even six and six. Apparently two or three states already work this way, and any state could choose to do so by legislation. No constitutional amendment would be required.
The advantage is that the result would more closely align with the popular vote, and the system would also give voice to voters in states where the statewide outcome is really not in doubt. Nobody really thinks that the state of California won’t support the Democratic candidate, but there are some Congressional districts where a Republican could easily win. By the same token, Texas is a sure bet for the Republican, but there are districts where a Democrat could win. A proportional system would make it harder for any candidate to kiss off any state or region.
It might also make recounts easier to conduct and more accurate. Instead of trying to conduct a state-wide recount (or arguing about it, as in Florida), it would be possible to focus a recount only on the districts where the race was close. (Imagine what a national recount of the popular vote would be like.)
If we’re going to have that system at all, that would make sense. There are definitely counties in Ohio, Michigan, Florida and so on that have been identified as ‘swing counties’ that are important because of size, population makeup, etc (like a very labor- or minority- heavy county might favor Democrats, so focusing on that county would help them win the state). You can bet those are getting a very high degree of attention, at the expense of the rest of the state and of other states. These guys are clever and this system is being milked. That’s true of any system of voting, but I think we can come up with something that will better serve more voters.
