In that same election Gore carried only 676 counties, while Bush carried 2,436 counties. Geographically speaking, Bush had won in a landslide, however because large parts of our population are concentrated in certain States, Gore managed to win the popular vote. This begs the question, if the President were to be decided by popular vote alone, would voters in rural areas be completely ignored by the candidates? As Wallbuilders.com points out:
Indeed, without the electoral college system, candidates would logically spend their campaign courting voters in the most populous urban areas such as Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Washington, D. C., Miami, Seattle, etc., rather than visiting cities in more rural areas — cities like Wichita, Birmingham, Amarillo, Cheyenne, Springfield, Tulsa, etc. Additionally, since larger urban areas tend to be more liberal than the rest of the nation, presidential campaigns would therefore cater predominately to liberal interests.National Popular Vote Inc. is leading the charge in this debate, their purpose is "to study, analyze and educate the public regarding a proposal to provide for the nationwide popular election of the President." This group actually advocates bypassing a Constitutional amendment to alter our electoral process, and they are asking the States to do it on their own. Their proposal calls on states to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest vote count nationally. If enough states do that, the candidate with the most votes nationally would be guaranteed to win the election. The Washington Post reported Maryland is ready to do just that:
The bill, which the Senate approved 29 to 17 yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide — not statewideMy advice to Maryland voters, stay home on election day. Your votes will no longer matter. The Maryland legislature has effectively nullified its residents votes with this bill. If a candidate were to receive enough votes nationwide he (or she) would receive all of Maryland's electoral votes, even if the voters of Maryland voted overwhelmingly for that persons opponent. The Washington Post also is reporting:
"California lawmakers passed a version of the bill last year, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). This year, lawmakers in one chamber of the Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado legislatures have approved such a measure, but it has not yet made it through the other chamber, according to National Popular Vote Inc., the California-based group pushing the idea."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - moonraven
It's about f-ing time.
2 - Sisyphus
Unlikely to be ratified by the states. The amendment would benefit the states having populations greater than average and dilute the influence of the less populous states. Numerically, there are many more less populous states, which would (theoretically) tend to vote against the ratification of such an amendment.
3 - Dave Nalle
IMO support for this idea should be grounds for impeaching Sen. Clinton and removing her from office.
Dave
4 - RJ
If you do away with the Electoral College in the name of "democracy" then you must also do away with the United States Senate for the same reason...
5 - RJ
Unlikely to be ratified by the states. The amendment would benefit the states having populations greater than average and dilute the influence of the less populous states. Numerically, there are many more less populous states, which would (theoretically) tend to vote against the ratification of such an amendment.
And that is the reason why this proposed Constitutional Amendment will never pass 2/3rds in the Senate...
6 - Lee Richards
Re #3: Dave,
Why is Clinton's supporting this idea, whether a good or bad one, an impeachable offense legally?
7 - troll
sarcasm in the face of the impeach Bush arguments - ?
8 - moonraven
This should have been done years ago so that, like every other country I am familiar with, one voter equals one vote.
It is anachronistic and reflects the elitist views of the founders.
It is undemocratic to maintain the electoral college, and it prevents successful campaigns for party nomination by folks from states with low electoral college votes.
Nalle, you can't have it both ways--call for support of Bill Richardson (New Mexico has 5 votes--which given the history of NM elections Richardson cannot even promise would go to him, as The Dead of Rio Arriba County are a political force to be reckoned with) and for maintaining the electoral college.
9 - Dave Nalle
The mistake in your logic is in assuming that more democracy would be a good idea.
And Lee, it may be a stretch to suggest impeachment. Perhaps a trial for treason would be more appropriate. Advocating the destruction of our constitutional form of government ought to be some sort of crime, at least when engaged in by someone who might be in a position to actually do it.
Dave
10 - Sisyphus
"Perhaps a trial for treason...."
So in your warped world view, the mere proposal and/or support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an act of treason. Wow. You've fallen off the outer edge of the right wing. Good luck finding your way back.
11 - jaz
funny...i disagree with doing away with the Electoral college...but i don't find anything treasonous in suggesting an alternative or offering something as an Amendment
far different than ...oh say, violating the Constitution blatantly with things like unlawful wiretaps, suspension of a citizen's rights under the Constitution (Jose Padilla) and a few other things
such are the blinders of partisans
12 - Dave Nalle
Sissy, proposing an amendment which would destroy our basic form of government and eliminate the fundamental protections for the rights and interests of individuals is treasonous, whether it can be prosecuted realistically or not.
Dave
13 - jaz
how can offering an Amendment in a legally delineated manner be treason by either the letter or spirit of the Law?
some eccentric billionaire could start the work to offer an Amendment that all Citizens are required to wear mauve propeller beanies on every alternate Thursday...
it's silly, but in no way treason
both my example, and the bit under discussion have about the same chance of ever getting brought up on the floor of the Congress, much less passage and brought to the States for consideration
artificial drama over nothing
14 - troll
nope - it's Dave's artificial drama with a purpose ie to smear the opposition
15 - Sisyphus
"proposing an amendment which would destroy our basic form of government and eliminate the fundamental protections for the rights and interests of individuals is treasonous"
Even if I agreed with your premise, the proposed amendment does none of those things. I don't favor the amendment because it doesn't go far enough. We really should be looking at doing away with our goofy "winner-take-all" elections and putting into place a proportional voting system. It is more representative than our current system and has the added benefit of eliminating the domination of the two political parties.
Don't fix it if it ain't broken. But a whole lot of government is broken and desperately needs fixing.
16 - jaz
to be Fair, troll...the original Poster started it in the Article
i checked the link for the source but there's no substantiation ni the piece itself...but i don't doubt there are some boneheads who think doing away with the Electorals is a good idea...it's not...
me...i'd like to see the guy who gets the second highest electoral vote be the VP...like it used to be in the Constitution...that got changed, with no cries of "treason"...but i think it would go a long way if those provisions were brought back into practice...with the opposing Party holding the VP seat...Impeachment gets some extra teeth, as well as providing another level of originally Intended checks and balances...
but i digress...
17 - troll
jaz - actually I think that author did an admirable job of avoiding flame words like 'treason' and 'impeachment' in his presentation and stuck to some pretty rational arguments against the one man one vote movement
18 - jaz
point taken, troll
for troll, in the Spirit of the holiday, sort of...
heh
19 - Sisyphus
"i'd like to see the guy who gets the second highest electoral vote be the VP..."
That's what I'm talking about with proportional voting, but also in the legislature. In simple terms, with winner-take-all, a 51% majority elects their representative into office, whereas the 49% "losing" minority has NO representation at all. It would be more fair if the 49% minority of a given district was represented proportionally.
20 - jaz
Sisyphus, what you're talking about is a complete change in the system, whereas what i spoke of was how it was originally outlined in the Constitution
part of my purpose for mentioning it was to draw attention to the Fact that our ways of electing some folks have changed, with no charges of "treason" when done properly as the Constitution itself lays out
the other part was as i stated, it restores another layer of "checks and balances"...imagine the Possibility of VP Gore after 2000, and how things might be different(or even VP Dole...etc)
but Congressional Districts are supposed to be the smallest unit of Representation, so being a bit binary there serves the overall purpose if you remove artificial gerrymandering
21 - Sisyphus
"what you're talking about is a complete change in the system"
Yes, I know. It's an idealistic view, probably not without its own flaws and I'd have to know the details before supporting such a change (anyway will never happen in a million years). But it's an interesting, alternate approach worth looking at, especially on the state and local level.
22 - bliffle
"If you do away with the Electoral College in the name of "democracy" then you must also do away with the United States Senate for the same reason..."
Doing away ith the senate is a good enough idea to stand on it's own.
If we do not convert to a Unicameral legislature, the only option for under-represented states like NY and CA is to split into several states, each, and demand more senate seats.
Do you want that conflict? Probably an armed civil war?
For clearly the current mal-distribution of senate seats is unfair, and an unfairness that is bottled up too long will result in civil turmoil. Witness the civilrights history of the past. The vietnam draft turmoil. Indeed, the vietnam war itself.
23 - bliffle
Nalle: "And Lee, it may be a stretch to suggest impeachment. Perhaps a trial for treason would be more appropriate. Advocating the destruction of our constitutional form of government ought to be some sort of crime, at least when engaged in by someone who might be in a position to actually do it."
Thus Dave Nalle reveals that he is either a hysteric or a neocon apparatchik. Since he has had (short) periods of calm in the past one must assume the latter.
If proposing an amendment amounts to treason then what of the numerous people proposing Defense Of Marriage Amendments? Etc.
24 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, stupid though it is, the Defense of Marriage Amendment would not change the basic structure of the government. That's what I object to, not the general concept of amending the constitution appropriately. I also object to past amendments that make fundamental changes, like the 16th.
Dave
25 - Charles
I didnt write this to accuse Hillary of treason, nor was it my intention to imply that. If Hillary proposes such an amendment, as she promised she would, it would not be treason.
I do not like the idea behind abolishing the electoral college, but the responses to this article which imply treason are just as ludicrous as Hillary's proposal.
The Constitution was setup in such a way that if the people feel it no longer applies to modern times it can be changed. Wether or not you agree with Hillary's proposal, it is important to remember it will take a 3/4 vote from the states to make it pass.
The bill that Maryland passed should be considered treasonous because they intend to intentionally ignore the voters of their State in favor of the national majority. If an amendment to the Constitution were to pass, it would be because the will of the people prevailed.
I do not belive though such an amendment could, or should pass.