Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Last week, both houses of the Illinois General Assembly passed a law that would enable Illinois to bypass the Electoral College in future presidential elections. The move came just before New Jersey Governor John S. Corzine signed similar legislation on Sunday that would eliminate New Jersey's participation in the Electoral College. The only other state to have passed a similar law is Maryland, which was the first state to take up the cause.
Beginning in 2006, a nonprofit called National Popular Vote, Inc., which was started by a Stanford computer scientist, launched a nationwide campaign to abolish the current Electoral College system. The movement to abandon the Electoral College has gotten support from different partisan groups for different reasons; Democrats rally around the 2000 election in which Gore was favored by half a million votes but lost in the electoral college (sort of), while Republicans are eying big states like New York and California, hoping to collect at least some votes that they have been denied in the winner-take-all system.
Another nifty aspect to this is that the process doesn't involve any sort of constitutional amendment. If it happens, change is going to be made entirely by the states. With 21 electoral votes, Illinois would be the largest state to sign on, but a bunch of other states are going to have to get on board if this thing is actually going to happen. The proposed NPV will only take effect if enough states to garner a majority of votes in the Electoral College (270 of 538) have passed the bill. According to a recent In These Times article, "NPV bills are expected to be introduced in all 50 states in 2008."
But back to Illinois...
Illinois is the quintessential example of the flaws in the current system. As a safe state for Democrats, both major party candidates ignore it. There is little motivation to campaign there since the winner in Illinois gets only 21 electoral votes and the loser gets nothing. As a result, Illinois voters play virtually no role in shaping the issues of the election.
Now, however, the bill will be sent to Governor Blagojevich's desk, which, given what has transpired in the past week, seems like it should be a total wildcard. Blago is expected to give the bill his autograph though, as he supported Electoral College reform when he was a congressman. --Mark Boyer
image via Governing.com
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
You really miffed on explaining how Illinois' bill would allow us to "bypass the Electoral College". As I understand New Jersey's bill, it would automatically award their EC votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, in the case that a number of other states agree to do the same.
If Illinois' bill is the same, that wouldn't change how candidates campaign here, because we're still going to be Dem-dominated; but, in the case of the 2004 election, all our 21 EC votes would have been awarded to Bush, because he won the popular vote that time, disenfranchising all the voters of Illinois.
Now, if our bill changes state law to award our EC votes proportionally, that would change things. However, all it would do is encourage the GOP to cmpaign here more, to see if they could shave a few votes away. Do we want that?
Not that this post was very clear, but I think the goal of the bill is to ensure that the candidate (from whatever party) that receives the most votes nationally actually gets a majority of the electoral votes, thus ensuring his or her election to the presidency.
The bill attempts to run around the potentially harsh effect electoral college without abolishing it by constitutional amendment. Of course, part of that effect could be that Illinois' electoral votes could be cast for a candidate that did not win a majority of Illinois votes. Remember, however, the goal is to make the electoral college meaningless by giving effect to the national popular vote. Thus, no one is "disenfranchised."
Illinois has been "safe" for Democrats at the national level for less than 20 years, hardly indicative of a historical trend. It's just as likely that the election results have been a reflection of the quality of the Republican nominees for President. And "only" 21 electoral votes? That's 8% of the 270 required to secure victory. Considering the close results of recent races, candidates in both parties ignore the state at their own peril. While eliminating the Electoral College may make sense, the excerpt makes it sound as if protecting the parties from their own poor strategies is a key motivation.
Illinois has been "safe" for Democrats at the national level for less than 20 years, hardly indicative of a historical trend. It's just as likely that the election results have been a reflection of the quality of the Republican nominees for President. And "only" 21 electoral votes? That's 8% of the 270 required to secure victory. Considering the close results of recent races, candidates in both parties ignore the state at their own peril. While eliminating the Electoral College may make sense, the excerpt makes it sound as if protecting the parties from their own poor strategies is a key motivation.
Chris: You're 100% correct regarding how the NJ bill works (and presumably the IL bill too). But since there's a requirement that 50% of the electoral college would pass the law, it sort of overrides the states that don't pass an NPV law. I wonder if that would open it to a constitutional challenge... Scalia might rue the day he came out against facial challenges.
The problem with your last paragraph is that proportional awarding of EC votes on a state-by-state basis will reward states that don't adopt the system. For example if Illinois with 21 votes goes proportional and Michigan (with 17) does not and my campaign is around the 50% mark in both states, it's in my interest to hit the winner-takes-all state. If I lost 2 votes in Illinois by ignoring it, I gain 17 in MI.
You mean my vote in Illinois might actually count for once?
I'm in.
I like the Electoral College. Am I the only one?
"Swing states" change from election to election, in 2000 it was FL, 2004 it was OH, who knows, it could be IL in 2016.
Also, I disagree with knee-jerk reactions to contemporary events that have the effect of subverting the Constitution, which has been working out pretty well for us. Only four times has the winner of the popular vote not won the Presidency and one of these times was due to Congressional shenanigans.
The electoral college is great. I want to marry it.
Spav1: I think there's a consensus now that the electoral college decreases the power of the individual vote and makes people less likely to vote.
There was an article arguing the contrary in Discover Magazine back in 1996, but I haven't bothered re-reading it. Just linking to it for your edification.
I couldn't make my response fit as a comment, so I posted it here:
http://www.morydd.net/goodbye-republic-hello-democracy
My problem with getting rid of the Electoral College is that if we completly did away with it on a national scale, then we would have a de facto Electoral College called "Politicians only Campaign in Urban Areas"