Chicagoist: Electoral College Dropouts

Spav1

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:26:33 -0600

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"

morydd

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:23:42 -0600

I couldn't make my response fit as a comment, so I posted it here: http://www.morydd.net/goodbye-republic-hello-democracy

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:04:31 -0600

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.

Spav1

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:41:54 -0600

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.

Pinwiz11

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:27:26 -0600

You mean my vote in Illinois might actually count for once? I'm in.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:41:35 -0600

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.

shameshameboy

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:15:11 -0600

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.

shameshameboy

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:15:01 -0600

mss2400

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:14:50 -0600

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."

Chris F

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:56:51 -0600

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?