The Washington state Senate has passed Eric Omeg’s bill to join the National Popular Vote compact.
Should the bill pass in the House and get signed by Gov. Gregoire, the new law will have the effect of…doing absolutely nothing. At least not for now. But once enough states have signed up—so that their combined electoral votes total at least 270—the law will change Washington’s allocation of electoral votes from the “winner take all” system (currently used by all but two states) to a system where signatory states select Presidential Electors who are pledged to the winner of the national popular vote.
In other words, the compact could eventually lead to a national popular vote—and does so while fully retaining the electoral college in all its (distributed1) glory.
Currently the compact has been signed into law in Maryland and New Jersey. Illinois and Hawaii will likely join soon—there is a bill on the Governor’s desks in both states. Washington state joins Arkansas, California, Colorado, and North Carolina as states where the bill has passed one chamber. Combined, these nine states hold a total of 146 electoral votes. Bills have been introduced in 35 other states as well.
If you like the idea of a national popular vote, take a few moments and contact your Washington state Representatives.
1The Electoral College doesn’t actually meet as a single body. Instead they meet in each State’s Capital on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, and conduct a series of votes under procedures mandated by Congress.
The two states that currenly don’t award electoral votes by statewide popular vote are Maine and Nebraska. In both states, two EV are based on the statewide results, and the rest of their EV (two in Maine, three in Nebraska) are based on the results within each individual Congressional District.
In practice, their methodology has had zero effect. Neither of those states has ever split its electoral votes, as every CD has always voted the same way as the state as a whole.
N in Seattle,
Even though Maine and Nebraska have never split their votes, in the past individual state have used other systems. Michigan briefly switched from winner-take-all to proportional allocation in 1890. Last year there was an initiative in California, pushed by Republicans, to do the same thing—obviously solely for their own partisan advantage.
Originally, some states had the legislature select Presidential Electors sans popular vote. Most states went to the winner-take-all system by the early 1800s. And then in 2000, Florida (and I think Colorado?) threatened to go back to that—after the popular vote was, essentially, known. Apparently, Florida could have thrown the election against the popular vote, and it would have been legal.
The compact, if joined by an electoral college supermajority, would likely eliminate these Wingnut mini-coups.
Yeah, I just can’t wait for the 50 state recount! Weeeee! Actually almost every state will need to recount every time there is a vote. Why? Instead of break points at winner take all 50%+1 vote, you will have as many break points as their are Reps+2 for the state. I think we have 11, so every 9% becomes a recount opportunity. Now think of NY, CA, TX! The possibilities are endless.
No tomj, that’s not the proposal. I referred only to the two states that currently allocate EV in some manner other than “all to the statewide winner”.
Under the approach just passed by the Washington Senate, Washington’s electoral votes — all of them — would go to the candidate who won the national popular vote. Irrespective of the Washington-specific vote.
And again, this plan wouldn’t take effect until there were sufficient states signed on to constitute an electoral vote majority. At which point, it wouldn’t matter what the remaining states do … though I bet they’d all quickly join in.
In essence, this proposal moots the Electoral College without actually ending it (which would require a Constitutional amendment).
Tomj @ 3: As I’ve said before, the current system encourages attempts to manipulate the system through fraud, voter suppression, etc. Instead of trying to manipulate the vote nationwide (a nearly impossible task), all some unscrupulous characters have to do is locate a swing state or two with a close vote & enough electors to make a difference, and then manipulate a few thousand votes. That’s entirely possible (as Ohio in 2004, and Illinois in 1960 demonstrated).
The electoral system has been in place for a very long time and is a well thought-out plan. I say we stick with it even though there is an occassional anomaly where to total votes support one candidate and the other gets more electoral votes. The electoral college gives some importance to individual states whereas the “total vlote” idea only pays attentions to the higher population states.
Sorry about the spelling a grammar mistakes above, but you get the drift.
@5 “Illinois in 1960”
It’s a popular misconception that Illinois decided the 1960 election. JFK would have won without Illinois.
Official Electoral Vote Count:
Kennedy = 303
Nixon = 219
If Nixon Had Won Illinois’ 27 EVs:
Kennedy = 276
Nixon = 246
It’s also a misconception that Nixon graciously conceded the 1960 election. He pretened to for public consumption, but behind the scenes the GOP challenged the results in 11 states.
pretended
I have to agree with Politically Incorrect at 6. I’m in favor of “pre 9/11” thinking than post 9/11 thinking.
If I have to choose between wisdom of men like George Washington vs. George Bush (either one) I’ll take the former over the latter.
@6 “is a well thought-out plan”
Bullshit. The electoral college was a compromise to get the southern colonies to join the union, and its sole purpose was to preserve slavery. It became an outdated anachronism in 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. Because a state’s electoral votes are based on the number of House districts + 2 senators, the electoral college is undemocratic and violates the “one man, one vote” principle because it gives smaller states more say in proportion to population. The state that benefits most from this unequal weighting of electoral votes is Wyoming with 3 EVs for a population of 522,830 (1 EV per 174,277 people), and the most disadvantaged state is California with 55 EVs for a population of 36,553,215 (1 EV per 664,604 people. Consequently, a Wyoming resident’s presidential vote counts 3.8 times as much as a Californian’s vote. With slavery gone for more than 140 years, there’s no reason to keep the electoral college, and only inertia and the opposition to change of the small states that get an unfair advantage from it have prevented the Constitution from being amended to get rid of it. This is one idea that has outlived its usefulness and deserves to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
@6 “the ‘total vlote’ idea only pays attentions to the higher population states”
Hogwash. If the president were popularly elected, every person’s vote would have exactly the same weight. There is no rational reason for it to be otherwise.
Whatever happened to the federal notion that Washington’s electors ought to represent Washington’s voters?
Why not do away with state borders, elected legislatures and governors, and run the whole damn country from Washignton, D.C.?
The Electoral College gave us some great presidents, and there’s no real reason to change it in a way that sticks the camel’s nose of the destruction of the last vestiges of the federal system under the tent of absolute control by large population centers.
Total bupkis!
The Piper
Politically Incorrect @6 —
You say: “The electoral college gives some importance to individual states whereas the “total vlote” idea only pays attentions to the higher population states.”
Actually…NOT. The current electoral college system puts only contested states in play, regardless of their size. Solid red and solid blue states just don’t see the national campaigns, except for TV commercials that are broadcast nationally.
The proposed work-around means that every voter, regardless of the state they live in, becomes relevant to the outcome. It means more travel and more campaigning for the candidates, but voters can only benefit. Let’s give the candidates a reason to visit the solid red and solid blue states — the results might be surprising
The calculations @12 are based on population data as of July 1, 2007. I got these data from Wikipedia. On that date, Washington ranked 13th in population, so we’re on of the states that gets a short straw under the electoral college system. If all of the 11 most populous states enacted the National Popular Vote Compact, that would be enough to implement it, as their combined electoral votes add up to 271 EVs (270 is needed to win).
@14 “Whatever happened to the federal notion that Washington’s electors ought to represent Washington’s voters?”
Washington’s electors have never represented Washington’s voters. They only represent the plurality of voters. The rest get no electoral votes and zero representation in the electoral college.
@14 (continued) If the popular vote compact was implemented, your vote would count even if Washington state gave the majority of its votes to the other candidate. Let’s say, for example, that Washington votes for Obama over McCain by 58% to 42%, but you voted for McCain and the national popular vote looks like this:
McCain: 70,150,023
Obama: 70,150,022
Your individual vote would decide the election in McCain’s favor even though your state voted for Obama.
In further defense of determining the presidential election by national popular vote…the argument that small states need more influence is garbage. Look at the Senate right now. 41 Senators representing a minority of U.S. citizens can block any legislation from passing. That’s the extra influence that small states get to wield in our system. Electing the individual that will represent us all should be a simple matter of majority vote, since the President is no more the President of a person in Wyoming than of one in California.
Piper Scott @ 14
“Whatever happened to the federal notion that Washington’s electors ought to represent Washington’s voters?”
It is over-ridden by a notion that the winner of a popular vote gets elected.
“Why not do away with state borders, elected legislatures and governors, and run the whole damn country from Washignton, D.C.?”
What stupid-ass non-sequitur bullshit are you babbling about now?
“The Electoral College gave us some great presidents, and there’s no real reason to change it in a way that sticks the camel’s nose of the destruction of the last vestiges of the federal system under the tent of absolute control by large population centers.”
Try to keep up here, Piper Scott. The compact changes NOTHING about the electoral college. It is just an agreement among states that changes the way member states select their Presidential Electors.
There is nothing sacred about the winner-take-all system employed by most, but not all, states right now. The compact is just an alternative system that any state (and D.C.) has the right to adopt to select Electors. It is completely within the scope of the Constitution.
“Total bupkis!”
Maybe if you actually learn a little about it before spouting your usual drivel, you might find that it is not.
In any case, I suspect it is going to happen for the 2012 election, so deal with it!
@17…RR…
Winner take all, baby, winner take all.
In Washington State, ties are broken by lot, and the flip of a coin or the long straw drawn determines a 100% winner. A completely fair result since it’s per the rules. Ditto how the Electoral College works. Compete in the states that are in play since it’s results in individual states that matter.
There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing anything close to pure democratic outcomes. The closest you can come is Article IV, Seciton 4’s guarantee of a “republican form of government” to each of the states.
Still total bupkis.
The Piper
@20…Darryl…
“In any case, I suspect it is going to happen for the 2012 election, so deal with it!”
Oh? And you know this because???
My guess is that it may get support in one house of bi-cameral legislatures (Nebraska is the only state with a uni-cameral legislature), but that’s about it.
2012? Not hardly!
You contend that it doesn’t eliminate the Electoral College, but effectively it does just that. If 80% of Washington’s voters go one way but the national vote goes another, Washington Electors won’t reflect the will of Washington voters, which is what the Electoral College theoretically is designed to do.
This continues to be total bupkis…and a fake issue.
The Piper
@12…RR…
“The electoral college was a compromise to get the southern colonies to join the union, and its sole purpose was to preserve slavery. It became an outdated anachronism in 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery.”
Oh really? And where is your source for this? What historical analysis or textual documents have you to support this typical Rabbit bald assertion?
Remember, the Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in states then in rebellion against the United States, and not even in all parts of them! The Proclamation specified that the following states or parts thereof were affected:
“Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued”
So if you were a slave or slave holder in Terrebonne Parish, LA, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to you at all.
Additionally, the Electoral College has its roots in the same mistrust of democratic forces that caused the U.S. Senate to be selected not by popular vote, but by the legislatures of the various states.
If you want something that was inserted in the Constitution at the behest of slave holders, try the 3/5ths compromise.
And quit making up your own versions of U.S. history to suit your opinions.
The Piper
“There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing anything close to pure democratic outcomes.”
But that’s the ideal though, so why not strive for it. This retarded idea that only states (not people) should elect a President is absurd. I’m from Iowa, and I like the state, but I never understood this nutty idea that smaller states should get “extra” power and votes (via electoral college) to make up for them not having many….well…voters. That’s crazy. A couple dozen yahoo’s in Iowa should not be able to override the millions in California. I’m tired of small states thinking they have some special rights just BECAUSE they’re small. Nonsense. Of course you should pay ‘more’ attention to California than Iowa, because it has millions of more people, industry and money.
If giving small units of people extra power is a good idea, then why don’t we break it down WITHIN a state? Why shouldn’t we then make it so Black Diamond has MORE voting power than Tacoma. Shouldn’t Port Townsend have MORE SAY than Bremerton? Shouldn’t votes cast in Edmonds count for 2.6 times as much as votes cast in Bellevue? Of course not, that’s f**king crazy.
Piper
This solution completely honors the notion of individual states determining how to assign their electors. In fact that is exactly what this is…the state of Washington determining the manner in which its electors will be allocated.
IMO the largest states would be foolish not to enact this legislation due to the resulting increase in their influence in national politics. Smaller states that are now swing states are the ones that would lose out. Nobody spends much time campaigning in the non-swing small states nowadays anyway, so it’s not much of a change for them.
You realize that Washington’s electors would have gone for Bush in 2004 had this bill been in effect, right? And if you added in the electors from non-signatory states whose electors went to Bush based on their current laws, it would have been an electoral college landslide in his favor.
Which raises the question of why we need to wait until enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes. Even if a third of electoral college votes are allocated by majority rule it would be enough to swing the election.
@24…JF…
“But that’s the ideal though, so why not strive for it.”
Is it the “ideal?” Where in the founding documents is that ideal articulated? And what’s wrong with a concept of checks and balances where minority rights can serve to counterbalance majority tyranny?
Smacks of a lot of short-sighted thinking, if you ask me.
And the question has to do with states, not political sub-divisions thereof. BTW…I’ve never found the reasoning in Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims legally persuasive (note: I said LEGALLY persuasive). Justice Felix Frankfurter didn’t either, believing, instead, that apportionment issues ought to be left to individual state legislatures.
Frankly, given the nuttiness that comes out of California, anything that checks the influence of people in that state is worth it. But that’s just a personal opinion.
The Piper
Piper Scott @ 21
“There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing anything close to pure democratic outcomes. The closest you can come is Article IV, Seciton 4’s guarantee of a “republican form of government” to each of the states.”
But what is in the Constitution is that states have the sole decision making on how Presidential Electors are selected. You can whine all you want, but the people are ultimately going to go for, what is effectively, a national popular election. Even while maintaining the “sanctity” of the Electoral College.
@25…BNW…
Yes, I realized that Washington would have gone for Bush in 2004, but that’s not the point. Expediant political results aren’t worth sacrificing over 200-years of American political and Constitutional history.
The odor permeating all this is residual bitterness over the 2000 election. Get over it! Had Florida and Bush v. Gore not occured, this issue wouldn’t be seeing the light of day. Given the bill’s primary sponsor in Washington, this is especially true.
It remains bupkis!
The Piper
I guess because of the Constitution one can not simply dump the electors??
The proposed system, seems balky .. what happens if an elector is drunk or obstinate?
Could the states decide instead of electing electors to give the responsibility to a select few? How about aster the election, choosing delegates appointed by the winning and losing sides?
@27…Darryl…
Call it whining if you like…I call it being an ardent supporter of the Electoral College for well over 40-years because I believe it’s an integral part of the federal system and balance of power.
And typical of you, you’re counting your chickens before they’re hatched. You’ve got two states, Maryland and New Jersey, to sign on. Of course, everyone knows the New Jersey legislature is a gang of whack jobs (they abolished capital punishment in the face of overwhelming public sentiment in favor of keeping it), so why should anyone follow a Jersey lead?
Bills die in legislatures all the time, optimistic sponsors and dewey-eyed supporters of them notwithstanding.
Cooler, more grounded heads will prevail, and the Electoral College as currently constituted will remain on the scene. The voters of an individual state should determine how their states votes are cast, and those votes should reflect the sentiment of the state’s voters as expressed at the ballot box…even if it means my guy loses.
The Piper
@29…Steve…
Washington law requires an Elector to follow the will of the people of the State of Washington in casting his or her vote. There are penalties for failing to do so.
What happens if an Elector is drunk? Blame the party in the state that put the sot up as an Elector; the Constitution isn’t at fault, his or her political cronies are.
Balky is good…balky protects freedom and liberty…balky restrains excess…balky provides opportunities for reflection, compromise, negotiation…
The Piper
Piper Scott @ 22,
“Oh? And you know this because???”
I don’t “know this.” If you re-read (very carefully) what I wrote, I stated that “suspect it.” My hunch is based on following the remarkable progress the Compact has made thus far.
“My guess is that it may get support in one house of bi-cameral legislatures…”
I won’t ask how you “know” that :-)
“2012? Not hardly!”
Ya think? We have bills introduced in 44 states right now, and bills being drafted in three more. That’s after only two years of an organized effort.
“You contend that it doesn’t eliminate the Electoral College, but effectively it does just that.”
It doesn’t do squat to the Electoral College. It simply changes the way some states select Presidential Electors.
“If 80% of Washington’s voters go one way but the national vote goes another, Washington Electors won’t reflect the will of Washington voters”
Right. That’s the point…the winner of the election will be the person who got a plurality of the national vote. Thus each voter will have an identical vote.
“, which is what the Electoral College theoretically is designed to do.”
Nonsense. The Electoral College was not “theoretically” designed to do anything at all related to a statewide vote or state popular sentiment. States aren’t required to hold popular elections to select Electors. Any state (and D.C.) could, say, pass a law to allow the governor to pick a slate of Electors. Or pick a committee to select the Electors. Or roll a die, consult an astrologer, hold an auction, etc. Literally: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….”
That’s it…the Electoral College was simply designed to hold an election made up of Electors chosen by whatever method the Legislature of each state decides.
“This continues to be total bupkis…and a fake issue.”
Whatever the hell that means. By “fake issue,” do you mean that you think there is no such compact? I mean…where is the “fake” part coming from?
SeattleJew @ 29
“I guess because of the Constitution one can not simply dump the electors??”
Yes…one cannot.
“The proposed system, seems balky .. what happens if an elector is drunk or obstinate?”
If they are drunk or obstinate and vote for the “other” candidate, it would likely make no difference, unless there are exactly 270 electors in the Compact states and ALL electors outside the Compact states went for the “other” candidate. Seems rather improbable.
“Could the states decide instead of electing electors to give the responsibility to a select few?”
Isn’t that what the Electors are? [Correction…I misinterpreted the question. Yes…state legislatures can pass laws allowing them to create a committee to select Electors.]
“How about aster the election, choosing delegates appointed by the winning and losing sides?”
States can chose Electors however they want, including splitting them along state popular vote, national popular vote, lottery, highest bidder, whatever the state Legislature manages to pass.
Piper Scott,
“Call it whining if you like…”
(I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a bagpipe player had a very different threshold for what constitutes whining :-)
“I call it being an ardent supporter of the Electoral College for well over 40-years because I believe it’s an integral part of the federal system and balance of power.”
And it still would be. The Compact doesn’t change the EC! It changes the way states select Electors. And the way states chose electors has changed over time.
“And typical of you, you’re counting your chickens before they’re hatched. You’ve got two states, Maryland and New Jersey, to sign on.”
Counting what chickens? I’m just pointing out that there has been remarkable progress in a very short period of time.
“Bills die in legislatures all the time, optimistic sponsors and dewey-eyed supporters of them notwithstanding.”
Yep…and no doubt some of these bills will die this year. Some will even die when introduced next year, and probably next year. But some will pass, as well.
“Cooler, more grounded heads will prevail, and the Electoral College as currently constituted will remain on the scene.”
No matter what happens, the Electoral College as currently constituted will remain on the scene. I can’t tell if you are so emotional that you are overlooking this simple fact or whether you are mentally retarded!
“The voters of an individual state should determine how their states votes are cast, and those votes should reflect the sentiment of the state’s voters as expressed at the ballot box…even if it means my guy loses.”
Sorry, but “voters of an individual state [determining] how their states votes are cast” is neither explicitly stated or implied in the Constitution. Neither is it stated in the Constitution that Elector “votes should reflect the sentiment of the state’s voters as expressed at the ballot box.”
I think you need to re-visit that report you did in 4th grade (or whatever) about the Electoral College. You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings about it!
@32…Darryl…
Today is cut-off in the State House of Representatives, do you know what that means?
You talk about requiring Electors to vote for the “winner” of the national popular vote? Lincoln won the 1860 election with 39.8% of the vote against Stephen A. Douglas and two others. A less than 40% vote getter would then get all the Electoral College votes?
We’re still a federal system with certain prerogatives Constitutionally accorded to the states (see the 10th Amendment). Why mess with success?
The Piper
I’ll stick with the electoral college. Those guys that thought it up had some other good ideas – like the Bill of Rights. I’ll stick with their original plans.
As for you, Roger, and your criticism of me: you’re just angry ’cause your politically correct little femnazi-bitch is getting her ass kicked by Obama.
Eat shit and die, motherfucker!
I’d rather have Obama any day over Hillary!
SJ @ 29,
There actually was one case of an elector NOT voting the way his state did. Back in 1968, George Wallace got one electoral vote from North Carolina even though the state voted for Trick Dick for prez. It was Wallace’s only electoral vote.
BTW, one of my old college poly sci profs, a flaming FRD Democrat, defended the electoral college. Funny how things change over time.
Make that “FDR” not “FRD.”
This is a classic “Murphy’s law” invitation. The electoral college provides a firewall against having Florida 2000 situations nationwide all at the same time. Go ahead lefties and rip out the firewall, that’s a real smart move.
The “risk vs reward” benefit of this is terrible. Potentially make all residents of smaller states or rural areas feel “disenfranchised” and further erode public attitudes towards the federal government (if they can sink any lower) vs. what reward? The reward will be “voting irregularites” alleged in every big city across the entire country, further feeding the disenchanment with all things federal. Think about a close election with 25 Florida recounts: how is that a positive change?
The stalwarts pushing this concept just can’t resist meddling. They have a feel good way of glossing over the potential downsides. Typical dogooder mentality. No worries about the consequences, those will be somebody else’s problem.
Isn’t this Oemig character notorious for pushing a state senate bill to impeach the president? It’s embarrassing that the state senate takes a loser like that seriously.
The Electoral College gave us some great presidents…
J.Q. Adams, Hayes, B. Harrison, and GWB. The electoral college gave us these four presidents. These are the only elections this proposal would change.
The electoral college was a clumsy mistake tacked on to placate the various factions at the constitutional convention. It has been a joke from the beginning (see esp. election of 1800 and 12th Amendment) and long ago outlived its usefulness.
That should be “would have changed” of course.
Piper Scott @ 35
“Today is cut-off in the State House of Representatives, do you know what that means?”
Yes I do…but I wonder if you do, since 7 Mar is the relevant date for the issue at hand.
“You talk about requiring Electors to vote for the “winner” of the national popular vote? Lincoln won the 1860 election with 39.8% of the vote against Stephen A. Douglas and two others. A less than 40% vote getter would then get all the Electoral College votes?”
The signatory states agree to select electors who will vote for the candidate who wins the most votes nationally. What is the relevance of your example?
“We’re still a federal system with certain prerogatives Constitutionally accorded to the states (see the 10th Amendment). Why mess with success?
What do you mean “mess with success?” States have periodically “messed with success” by their legislatures changing the method for choosing Electors. Is that “messing with success?” In this administration alone, there have been three threatened attempt to “mess with success”: Florida and Colorado in 2000, and California in 2007. The fact is, there is nothing whatsoever constitutionally endowed about the specific ways individual states select electors. The winner-take-all system evolved over many years and replaced previous methods. The national popular vote compact is just another one of an infinite number of ways states can select Electors.
Politically Incorrect @ 36
“I’ll stick with the electoral college.”
Me to…because this isn’t about changing anything whatsoever about the Electoral College. (Sheesh…you wingnuts are really having a hard time grasping the real issue here.)
“Those guys that thought it up had some other good ideas – like the Bill of Rights. I’ll stick with their original plans.”
As we all will. When you figure out what the hell is going on, maybe you would consider leaving a relevant comment.
I’ll stick with their original plans
Wait. You’re going to revoke the 12th Amendment?
Maybe we should start by changing the Constitution? We…are a…Republic.
What is really needed? All we need to consider is the Constitution itself. In order for our elected representatives to take office they must swear to act in a particular role, not the role of selective representation, they swear to represent the citizens of their district, and to defend the _Constitution_ against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Defending the constitution, above all else, means defending the rights and privileges of the office to which you were elected.
The mantra of popular vote, of democracy, trashes the concept of _minority rights_. This is the point of the US Constitution. Not the tyranny of the majority! Why do we want to buy the cheapness of majority rule? What we need to defeat is the concept that the majority can ignore the minority. Bush hoped he could play different minority groups against one another, and it worked for about five years, we don’t need another Bush or Anti-Bush.
Frankly, no strong reason has been advanced to change the existing system, and without a clear, compelling, and convincing case in favor, the question becomes why? What else prompts this?
The whole thing remains totally bupkis.
The Piper
PS at 46: “Frankly, no strong reason has been advanced to change the existing system, and without a clear, compelling, and convincing case in favor, the question becomes why? What else prompts this?
George W. Bush was elected under the existing system. Clearly, the system is broken. Ergat, we must change the system.
The prosecution rests.
Piper
You ask why we should change the existing system. Here are four reasons:
President John Quincy Adams, elected despite losing the popular vote (by 44,804). Famous for the Tariff of Abominations, which came altogether too close to starting the Civil War in 1828. Tossed out after one term.
President Rutherford B. Hayes, lost the popular vote by 264,292 votes. Famous for the Compromise of 1877 (End of Reconstruction) which withdrew protection from blacks that wanted to vote and ushered in the “Jim Crow” laws. In 1880, Hayes had his Secretary of State create a pact with China which restricted Chinese immigration due to an anti-chinese movement out west.
President Benjamin Harrison, lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes. Actually not a bad fellow, he signed the Sherman Anti-trust act, thereby earning him the emnety of his own party (many of whom are still unhappy with that act). His own party tossed him out after one term.
President George W. Bush, lost the popular vote by 543,816 votes, although he really hasn’t done much that has annoyed anyone. A few little things, like the Iraq war, gutting FEMA, spying on American citizens, and, oh yes, there was that little incident almost a year into his first term that he keeps trying to blame on his predecessor. Something about a couple of towers in New York City.
There is no way to know whether the winner of the popular vote in any of these elections would have been a better President, but considering that all four of these fellows are normally considered near the bottom of the barrel, it seems likely that we could have done better with the fellow that actually won the most votes.
Maybe we should try that.
@48…JB…
The propriety and political wisdom of the policies of the four Presidents you cited aside, you can easily find four where the Electoral College victory matched the popular vote who had their own, if not worse, issues.
Might as well know that I’m a strong supporter of the Iraq War. And did you catch today how SCOTUS rejected the ACLU’s request for a writ of certiorari on the issue of alleged wiretapping couldn’t even get three justices to sign on? Looks like that issue so near and dear to the left is now tossed upon the legal ash heap.
BTW…in your back-handed dis of Benjamin Harrison? The word is “enmity.”
Generally, filtering the history of 100 or more years ago through a lens of modern partisan hostility proves only that you’re willing to parse the facts and spin history to support your argument.
I’m content to leave the Electoral College the way it is, and your “analysis,” such as it is, only serves to further convince me that no change is warranted.
The Piper
Piper
Sorry for the misspelling. I’ve gotten too dependent on spell-check.
Remember that although we’re only talking about four Presidents, we have only had 38 people actually elected to the office of President (four elected Vice-Presidents became President through the death of the President, but were never elected in their own right to the office, and President Ford, who never even elected as VP, and became President upon the resignation of President Nixon.)
Over ten percent of the people elected as President actually lost the popular vote, and those four Presidents are considered to be among our least effective Presidents.
Yes, the popular vote has given us some real losers as well, but the Electoral College didn’t stop that, and there is no case where the Electoral College gave us an outstanding, effective President despite the popular vote.
Time to simply trust the voters to make the decision. They’re not always right, but every time the Electoral College has, in essence, overruled them, it’s been a poor choice.
I hate it when I agree with the pipers and the Republicans. But this is a bad idea.
Actually, as much as it might help the otherside, the fairer plan is to do it by CD nationwide.
This would also cause the candidates to pay more attention to more areas. They’ll make another couple token visits to Spokane, but if they really needed to work for the 5th CD vote or the 4th CD vote, they might visit Walla Walla, Pullman, the Tri-Cities, Yakima, etc.
I believe the Constitution still gives the State Legislatures the power to determine how the Electors are selected.
@50…JB…
The history of whether a Veep who succeeds to the Presidency actually becomes the President is pretty interesting. John Tyler of Tippacanoe and Tyler, Too! fame was the first one to go that route, and he basically B.S.’d his way into becoming Mr. President. Much of the CW of the day held that he should have been an acting-President.
I’m still content that most states seem to call for their Presidential Electors to follow the vote in their own state, and that’s where I draw the line. I want the Electors from Washington State to vote the way the voters in Washington State vote, not how Californians, Texans, Georgians, and New Yorkers vote.
Keep the unique distinctions of the states intact.
Again, no compelling case has been presented for this proposed change. And anything Eric Oemig sponsors is suspect.
Did you know he got his hands slapped by the Legislative Ethics Board for improperly using his state office and state resources to influence the outcome of some collective bargaining negotiations? Well, he did! Naughty, naughty, Eric.
The Piper
And did you catch today how SCOTUS rejected the ACLU’s request for a writ of certiorari on the issue of alleged wiretapping couldn’t even get three justices to sign on? Looks like that issue so near and dear to the left is now tossed upon the legal ash heap.
As a general rule, it’s a good idea to avoid discussing topics about which you know nothing.
The court did not address the suit’s merits in any way. It denied standing to the plaintiffs. It was a classic dodge, much like it used to use in abortion cases.
Oh, and it’s called the “rule of four” for a reason.
SeattleJew asked: “The proposed system, seems balky .. what happens if an elector is drunk or obstinate?”
We’ll pray no WA State-like 16%er becomes an elector.
Piper Scott: Remember when Robert “The Human Torch” Torricelli Donkey-NJ resigned his Senate seat and Jim “I am Gay But I still Do My wife Too” McGreevey and the NJ Donkey Machine inserted Frank Lautenberg to replace him against the existing NJ laws?
NJ Donkey don’t care about voted in laws either.
Remember, Puddy always remembers donkey moves!
John Barelli: The Compromise of 1877? You’ve been reading too much of the liberal bended WikiPedia. The Puddy memory banks went into overdrive because that’s not the history lesson I learned at the feet of my daddy.
Hayes was the Republican anti-corruption candidate. He fought in the civil war. His wife didn’t drink. She was known as Lemonade Lucy.
Let’s get the facts straight with another PuddyStudy.
Democrats were pissed there were northern federal soldiers still in southern states. Democrats threatened to go back to a civil war. Republicans knew the country couldn’t withstand another one. Democrats wanted $$$200MM in new revenue to revitalize the southern states with heavy industry. There was big time fraud accusations of donkey gerrymandering and intimidation of the LA state vote.
So the Donkey said remove the soldiers and you can be president. Do I agree with it, not really. But with another civil war threatened by your forebears what was he to do?
You must commiserate with Pelletizer in revisionist history lessons. But I still like you John. You are not a Clueless Idiot like someone else.
John Barelli: The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890? You’ve been reading too much of the liberal bended WikiPedia. Another PuddyStudy because John takes one source and runs with it.
The Sherman Antitrust Act, was created and passed in the bicameral legislature by a Senate vote of 51 to 1 overwhelmingly in favor and a unanimous vote of 242 to 0 in the House or Representatives. It was popular with the people too. The law was created based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
If you remember in the 1990s – Bill Clinton used the Sherman Act against Microsoft! Why do donkey’s have such short memories.
So John, what was he to do? Veto a very popular measure?
rhp6033: Thanks for using one of my favorite tag lines first delivered on this blog by Puddy –
The Prosecution Rests!
You’re welcome.
Nuff SAID!
Puddybud:
Not that it matters to you in the least when there is an anti-Democratic drum to beat, but the subject of my post and of this thread was the proposal to elect the President by popular vote.
President Hayes is considered to have been an ineffective leader. The compromise of 1877 is an example of failure of leadership, and led to the results I mentioned.
I’ll agree that President Hayes was apparently a good person trying to make the best of a bad situation. I will also agree that it is likely that Governor Tilden would probably have removed the troops, and may not have been any better as President.
No mention was made of President Hayes’ party affiliation, in part because the current positions of the political parties bear little resemblence to the positions of the parties in the 19th century or even the first half of the 20th century.
However, since you seem to want to bring partisanship into that argument, I’ll simply point out that President Hayes was indeed a Republican, and that the Republicans wanted to win so badly that they were willing to ignore the popular vote and betray their party’s principles.
Now, do you have an opinion on the National Popular Vote Compact, or are you simply spouting rhetoric for your own amusement?
Oh, and by the way, Puddy. I’m also rather fond of the Sherman anti-trust act. Again, you miss the point. President Harrison was also a nice person (I presume).
He was an ineffective leader. Period. Party affiliation from the 19th century is irrelevant. Grover Cleveland was no great shakes either, but after one term with President Harrison, they brought him back.
Apparently he looked good in comparison.
The topic of this thread, and my post is “Washington Senate passes the National Popular Vote Compact bill“. My position on this is that we should trust the voters and elect the winner of the nation-wide election for this uniquely national position.
Do you have an opinion on that topic?
This is a terrible law. If we really want to change to a popular vote for President (and we damn well should; there’s no good reason in today’s America why a voter in a small-population state should have more power than a voter living in a large-population state) then we should do it nationally, all at once.
This push for a change is being enthusiastically supported by Republicans who see an opportunity to snag votes in California, but they hypocritically don’t want it to take place nationally. After all, Gore got more votes nationally than Bush did.
Washington should amend this law to make the criteria not 270 Electoral College votes, but ALL of them. Get the entire nation on the same page; anything else leads to an unfair system.
John, The WikiPedia article has a real liberal bent to it. That’s all I said you read. The deal wasn’t that great.
Your point was they were nice people?
“Famous for the Compromise of 1877” – Political deals always come back to bite you in the ASS.
“he signed the Sherman Anti-trust act, thereby earning him the emnety of his own party” – No it didn’t. The party wnated it. He screwed the pooch on other issues.
Your point again? Surely you jest I missed your point.
BTW John Barelli, I like the Electoral College system. This way big state votes can’t override little state populations.
Puddy:
This thread has gotten rather old, but just for the record, I didn’t read the Wikipedia article on the compromise of 1877. There are too many other sources that are pretty easy to find on this bit of history, and my personal library has all the basic information.
I’m a bit wary of quoting Wikipedia, and while it is often useful as a starting point, I’ve seen several articles where some rather blatant editing was done from a particular political bias.
Where Wikipedia is often useful is the footnotes. Folks playing “fast and loose” with editing the articles don’t usually go to the trouble of messing with them.
I’m not sure that I follow your reasoning about small states being overridden by large state populations in this case. I see the Presidency as a uniquely national position, and as a way of balancing the overall national interest against that of the individual state interests (which are protected by the fact that the states have individual Congressional delegations.)
If we consider the Presidency to be a national office, rather than a position representing the cumulative interests of the various states, then a national election, with the winner of the popular national vote being the winner, makes sense to me.
Holy crap I can’t believe how stupid Democrats are about this bill and scheme. Folks, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Parliamentary Mob rules Democracy. We have a majority rule democracy that has a Constitution to protect the minority from the majority. Our founders rightly put balances to power in place to protect and ensure that small states and their citizenry would not have their power and influence usurped by the largest states and their interests. This idiotic bill and farce eliminates all balance. Should this pass there would be no need for anyone to seek the presidency beyond the states of N.Y., CA, TX, FL, Michigan, IL, MA, and perhaps a couple of other populous states. Talk about disenfranchisements?
For what? Because a couple of disgruntled Democrats are still pissed because they think that Gore lost the 2000 election in Florida. He didn’t even lose the election in Florida. He lost it in his home state of Tennessee. If he had won Tennessee’s votes he would have been President. For Chrissake’s if the people of his own state that know him best can’t save the nation from him, then what? HE DESERVED TO LOSE, now leave a perfectly good system and electoral college that has worked perfectly ALONE!