How The Electoral College Works
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-02/how-electoral-college-works
The Electoral College was created by the Framers as a compromise to save the Constitution: America would elect its president indirectly, with individuals chosen by the states based on their representation in Congress. Most states now use a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to the winning candidate. Supporters of the Electoral College say it protects the rights of smaller and rural states. But critics argue the system is undemocratic and gives too much power to battleground states. And polls show a majority of Americans favor doing away with the Electoral College. Diane and guests discuss how America elects its president.
Guests
James Thurber
professor and director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, and author of "Obama in Office: The First Two Years."
Jeffrey Rosen
professor of law at The George Washington University, and legal affairs editor for The New Republic.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
When did it ever work to everybody's satisfaction?
Never.
Besides, it was really the intention of the Founders that the government would be mostly be in the hands of the aristocracy. That seems to have worked fairly well.
The electoral college is a unique American institution, not mentioned in the Constitution. Through the "winner take all" EV allocation process a handful of voters in a few swing states decide who will be president.
Can anyone tell me why I should go to the polls to vote for president? I am a progressive in a red state which supports Romney by 14 points. I have no vote. Why should I bother?
The most unfair aspect of the current system is triggered by a vote that throws the election to the House. In article 12 when this happens each state only gets one vote. This is only slightly less dangerous than having the Supreme Court decide the election.
So, what conditions would be necessary to actually change the system and go to popular vote?
Can you give us reasons why the electoral college even came into existence. Seems like a clear way to trump the people by the elites. Similar to states rights spin when it comes to efforts to create national and consistent voting rules. Both leave room for hanky panky
Thee is no such thing as “the popular vote” for president. Each state has different rules for voting procedure. We have 51 separate elections. I doubt states would agree to having a uniform voting procedure. Without that there is no way the populav vote would be fair. Just look at the voter suppression efforts in some states.
James R.Walter
I strongly believe the majority vote should elect the leaders who represent the ENTIRE country. However, until changes are made, I'll continue to vote -if only because so many bled and died for me to have that right.
The electoral college DEFINITELY needs to be done away with. It was designed to mainly cater to the elites AND, for any libertarians out there, it's NOT in the Constitution. We don't want to go against the Constitution, do we?
It is outdated and is not respresentative of each voice that is heard. Why is doing away with this is such a huge problem?
Florida:
I am one of those people that believe that if Gore had asked for a recount of the entire state it would have happened. Without the courts' intervention.
And the result might still be ambiguous, but so much of the "bile in politics" would not have happened.
I'll vote in the Senatorial down to the local dog catcher race but convince me that I should vote for a Presidential candidate. I live in West Virginia in the west central region and the presidential ads we see are really for Ohioans. We have all of 3 Electoral College votes and honestly, who cares?
What would be the disadvantage to one person one vote. Clearly the electoral college was set up so the elites could trump the popular vote if they chose to do so. Just as the states rights claims create plenty of room for hanky panky instead of a consistent voting system across the nation
It is absurd to think that the world's first modern democracy got it right the first time. Not only does the Electoral College need abolishment, but we need to do away with first-past-the-post voting and replace it with some manner of preferential vote. Many of our country's ills, could be solved by preferential voting, including voter cynicism, polarization, and negative campaigning. Ideally election reform would be revisited every periodically and not assumed to be fixed completely once and for all.
James most people would agree to a consistent voting system across the nation just many of our elite congress members do not.
So do any of our congress members have a plan to go after a consistent voting system across the nation as well as getting rid of the electoral college.
What could we lose by eliminating the electoral college?
So do any of our congress members have a plan to go after a consistent voting system across the nation as well as getting rid of the electoral college.
Does the Electoral College give at least some weight to the agricultural states?
We all are dependent on the agricultural states, but urban and suburban voters often have very little understanding of the issues important in those areas.
I think the electorial college discourages voting. If your state is guaranteed to be won by one party, whether it is by your party or by the other party, what is your incentive to vote? The only elections that your vote could possibly affect might be one or two close local elections. This surely discourages many from going to the polls.
I live in a swing state (Virginia) so I will be sure to vote, but it would be awfully nice if all these campaign ads were to be spread out to all 50 states and the votes in those states would actually be meaningful.
basically your guests are trying to defeat the original purpose by stacking the deck for the democrats. ironic since the same people are always lobbying for more minority representation i guess rural people don't qualify as minorities.[sarc}
kathleen wrote:
"Can you give us reasons why the electoral college even came into existence. Seems like a clear way to trump the people by the elites. Similar to states rights spin when it comes to efforts to create national and consistent voting rules. Both leave room for hanky panky"
You are absolutely right. This was the point I was trying to make in my comment. Supposedly Ben Franklin, after the Constitutional Convention, was asked if we had a republic or a democracy. His reply was that we had a republic. Which means that we were supposed to have a system of government that would be by rule of law, not by rule of democracy.
If you look at the original Founders, you are looking at the "elite" of their day. Their intention was to allow a certain degree of freedom to the general populace, but the "final say" would remain in their hands. If you look at the people who have been elected to public office since the beginning, you will find the "elite" of American society. Right off hand, I can't think of a single "average" person who was elected to any significant political office.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President.
Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.
Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site at
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certific...
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
Neither the current system nor the National Popular Vote compact permits any state to get involved in judging the election returns of other states. Existing federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).
The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.
In 2008, voter turnout in the 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.
If presidential campaigns did not ignore 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in the two-thirds of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
Step 1: Do away with the electoral college.
Step 2: Institute any good form of Instant Runoff Voting.
Instant Runoff Voting allows you to vote for the candidate you actually want to win and not just "one of the two" that most people feel doesn't really represent them.
For example, Instant Runoff Voting allows you to vote for the Green Party candidate 1st and then Democrat 2nd so if the Green Party candidate doesn't win the majority then your vote goes to the Democrat. Rules can be setup to limit how many runoffs are allowed (around 3 is usually sufficient).
http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/
I would love to hear arguments from educated Diane Rehms guests on how THIS is what we should be talking about. Getting rid of the Electoral College changes how we vote for 1 of 2 institutionalized parties. Instant Runoff Voting changes WHO we vote for in a good way.
The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree, that, at most, only 9 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.