What an odd editorial. The headline says “Voters should have a say in how president is elected,” yet the editorial argues against the direct election of the president, and for maintaining the electoral college system that propelled George W. Bush into the White House despite losing the popular vote.
Yeah, I know, what the Seattle Times editorial board says it is saying is that voters here should get a direct vote on whether we want to be part of a national compact assuring that voters here get a direct vote on the presidency. But by pushing for a referendum or initiative to overturn this recently passed legislation, the Times is also arguing against the legislation itself.
This was a big thing done with little public notice, and is disturbing in its implications.
The unsigned editorial’s author doesn’t bother to explain exactly what these disturbing implications are… nor how such a “big thing” slipped by with so “little public notice.” As VGood astutely observes in the editorial’s comment thread:
So Seattle Times, you have people that cover Olympia, how come this wasn’t given more press in the Times?
Touché, VGood. Touché. The Senate bill was introduced in January. A similar House bill first received a public hearing way back on February 5. The Times had three months to warn readers about the bill’s disturbing implications… how much more “public notice” do they need?
Personally, I’d rather presidential candidates consider my vote just as important as those from crucial swing states like Ohio and Florida. And if I were an Eastern Washington Republican, I imagine I’d be damn happy to know that my vote for WA’s eleven electors wasn’t made futile by a sea of votes from dirty, Seattle liberals. Perhaps that explains why an overwhelming 77 percent of Washington voters support National Popular Vote legislation?
But, you know, nobody has their finger on the pulse of the Washington electorate like those populists at the Times, so maybe I have this issue, and the politics surrounding it, completely wrong?
The electoral college was a pretty well-thought-out idea. At the time the Constitution was being written, Virginia was the 900-pound gorilla in the room, and the Founding Fathers wanted to have some way for the smaller states to have a say in government of the new nation. Remember, this was a time when states pretty much thought of themselves as separate little countries who had a common enemy in the British Empire.
For the smaller states to want to participate in the new nation, the Founding Fathers a way to have smaller states to have some sort of a voice in its government. Hence, the electoral college system.
Obviously, the system is not perfect, and there’s a remote chance, from time-to-time, that a president may get elected without a majority of the total popular vote. Without the system, candidates would go for the large population states and ignore the smaller states. Overall, I’d say the current system serves us farily well, warts and all.
@1
Pssst, the post wasn’t a debate on the merits of the electoral college. It was Goldy ranting about the Seattle Times editorial board again.
Yes, I know, but sometimes I digress from the main topic.
@1,
I think you might do well to review the strategy undertaken by the Obama campaign over the last two years to gain a better understanding of how a post-electoral college campaign might look.
The biggest “change” signaled by President Obama’s success has to do with the virtual collapse of regional affinity politics. Even with the support of the electoral college system, the politics of regional, parochial affinity have mostly given way to new political alliances and affinities that are better described in non-geographic terms. President Obama’s campaign did a masterful job of identifying discrete political affinities around demographics, social issues, areas of employment, and social affiliations and then leveraging modern communication technology to reach out to those individuals and groups of voters and draw them into the campaign. They did this by organizing on the ground in every American community.
Population has always played an important role in national campaigns. And will continue to do so. But the ability of a candidate to micro-market to discrete, narrowly defined demographics will forever change the way national campaigns are operated, with or without the electoral college. Relying on the popular vote totals to determine the outcome of the election will only make the process more honest.
Puleeezzz
Had it been the other way around with either Gore or Kerry…well things would have been just fine by you wouldn’t they?
The argument that candidates will only campaign in a few states holds no water. That’s exactly how the electoral college works. Everyone knows how 45 of the states are going to vote so they only campaign in the same 5 states. By requiring a popular vote, every state would count because as it stands right now, if you’re on the losing side for your state, your vote has no say whatsoever in the presidency.
Besides fundraising on billionaires row in the bay area, where did obama campaign in kalifornia?
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Washington is not one. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators — 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
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). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
77% OF WASHINGTON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 77% among independents, 85% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 80% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 84% among women and 69% among men.
By race, support was 78% among whites (representing 87% of respondents), 57% among African-Americans (representing 4% of respondents), 60% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 78% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Y’know what, mvymvy? A lot of HA readers agree with the national popular vote idea.
But…
Drowning every discussion of the concept, on every single blog you find, with the exact same comment-spam is not the way to win friends and influence people. You did it on Effin’Unsound, and now it’s here.
Cool your jets!
As Washington ranks 13th population-wise, we’re on the losing end of the Electoral College, which gives small states like Wyoming and Alaska outsized representation in choosing presidents. A Washingtonian’s vote simply counts for less than a vote in any of the 37 states with less population. Why is the Seattle Times against fair representation for our citizens?
@1 The electoral college had only one purpose, and that was preserving slavery. It is an anachronism that should have been abolished long ago.
@8 Bush wasn’t elected in 2008. He lost.
Republicans like the electoral college system because it allows a conservative southerner who represents a minority viewpoint to ascend to the White House despite the will of America’s majority. Republicans don’t believe in democracy. They believe they have a divine right to govern and to hell with the people.
@17 “They believe they have a divine right to rule and to hell with the people.”
I didn’t think that statement was quite accurate so I fixed it for you.
The electoral college makes no logical sense. IF we did direct elections there is no such THING as “states”. The idea that our “state” would get less power is nonsense. YOU would vote for President…not the state voting for the President. It wouldn’t be the STATE of Washington, and it’s electoral votes, going all or nothing for a candidate. No state (say California) would get all the attention because we wouldn’t have the winner take all electoral system, the candidates would actually have to argue for all votes.
And the electoral college has nothing to do with “representation” anyway. It doesn’t diminish that in the LEAST. We HAVE Representatives and Senators for our state. They’re the ones who argue for our states interests. That’s how it’s supposed to work. That’s not changing. Does anyone really think Obama is working HARDER for Washington state “interests” because of the electoral system…really?
Mr. Klynical and Marvin had just bought a ranch together, so they were driving the fence line to check everything out when they came upon a goat with his head stuck in a fence.
So Mr. Klynical gets out of the truck, looks around, and then starts screwing the goat. He gets finished, takes a step back, and asks Marvin, “Hey, you want a piece of this?”
Marvin says, “Yeah, but do I have to stick my head in the fence?”
Mr Klynical caught Marvin screwing his goat, so he called the cops and they arrested him.
Marvin’s lawyer called to Mr. Klynical…….
“Now tell the judge, just what you saw my client doing.”
“Well your honor, I saw that man fucking my goat.”
Then the lawyer said,” and tell the judge what else you saw.”
Well Judge, after fucking my goat, he had the goat lick his dick to clean him up.”
About that time, Marvin whispered to his lawyer, “a good goat will do that for ya…..”
Q: What do you call Mr. Klynical when Mr. Klynical is standing on a street corner with a goat under each arm talking with Marvin?
A: Marvin’s pimp.
Q: How do Mr. Klynical and Marvin practice safe sex?
A: They mark the goats that kick with a big X.
Q: What does Mr. Klynical call his goat barn?
A: His whorehouse.
“@1 The electoral college had only one purpose, and that was preserving slavery.”
The electoral college was implemented to rein-in the power of Virginia, which was a slave state. Virginia did NOT benefit from the electoral college, but smaller states like Rhode Island and Connecticut did.
Actually, the electoral college was a necessity and a compromise for state’s rights.
Since there would have been many technical difficulties in tallying all the votes and getting an accurate count from every state – the election of delegates to the electoral college, who met after the lection was a standard compromise. It tooks weeks to get from Georgia to New Hampshire back then.
The system is old and antiquated. Popular vote is ewasy to count now and should determine the President. Period.