Push to Abandon Electoral College
My goodness there are some blithering idiots in Madison.
Some state lawmakers are supporting a plan that would do away with the Electoral College and elect presidents solely on the results of the national popular vote.
A few Wisconsin lawmakers are pointing to George Bush’s 2000 election win over popular-vote winner Al Gore, as one example of why the Electoral College method of choosing a president is outdated and flawed.
“Right now there is no guarantee that the presidential candidate who gets the most votes will actually get elected,” said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys.
Roys of Madison has authored a bill calling on Wisconsin to partner with other states in awarding its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote regardless of who wins the Wisconsin vote.
First off, this is clearly unconstitutional. If you don’t like the electoral college, then amend the constitution.
Second, why do they want to disenfranchise Wisconsin’s voters? If in 2008 Wisconsin had voted 98% for McCain, why would we then throw our electors to Obama?
Third, the implementation of this is fraught with the opportunity for shenanigans. What happens if Illinois’ legislators renege on the deal and certify electors for the 2nd place candidate? Does Wisconsin have any recourse or have we already thrown away our votes?
This bill should die the long lingering death of a slug coated with salt and the politicians who supported it should have their heads examined.
Agree!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 1218 hrs
Just another case of our state politicians representing their agendas instead of fighting for the Wisconsin voters. They fail to realize or agree that the Presidential election should be decided by four or five states. Why not just do away with states all together?
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 1332 hrs
The whole reason FOR the electoral college is so that states like Wisconsin do not get ignored. If it was based on the popular vote, politicians would only pay attention to the large cities and ignore the rest. (sorry - Madison is not a large city)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 1401 hrs
How is this “clearly unconstitutional”?
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have. It does not dictate how those electors must decide their vote.
(Not saying I agree with this idea)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2010 at 2217 hrs
If some states can split their electors, Wisconsin can do this. Technically the electors could vote for anyone once the Electoral college meets.
It still is a galactically stupid idea. If you want to change the system, the constitution has a process for that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 0950 hrs
Again, one doesn’t need to adjust the constitution to change how electors vote. The constitution only dictates how many electors each state has, and leaves it up to the states to decide how they should act.
Owen, are you planning to retract your incorrect “unconstitutional” claim?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 1213 hrs
Section 7.75, Wisconsin Statutes, states that electors must cast a ballot for the presidential and vice presidential candidates they were chosen to elect. However, since there is no statutory penalty for being a “faithless elector” by voting for someone else, the only real constraints are custom, tradition, and loyalty to the candidate and the party.
So yes, Owen erred when he said it would be unconsitutional. However, it would be illegal, even if there is no penalty for breaking this particular law….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 1331 hrs
The one thing that is not stated however, is that when you vote on election day, you are NOT voting for a Presidential candidate, you are voting for a slate of ten electors, either Democrat or Republican (or of a minor party), and hoping that those electors vote as they were commited to in representing the people of Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 1335 hrs
I would agree with moving to a proportional system, Nebraska and Maine do it that way now. I think this system (were it used in all states) would bring a lot more states into play every four years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 1513 hrs
Even a proportional system would have its problems. Wisconsin has 10 electors, a vote split 60-40 is easy to see, but what do you do with 65-35, or 61-39 or 69-31? what do you do if all 3rd party candidates combined poll 10% or greater, but no individual one reaches that mark? Not saying the present system can’t stand some fixing, but consider all the ramifications before making changes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 1532 hrs
When I first heard this idea (more than a year ago, I think) I thought it was brilliant. I still think so.
No one would be “disenfranchised” by it. The candidate with the most votes nationwide wins. Very simple, very democratic. I can’t think of any good reason why the president shouldn’t be elected by popular nationwide vote.
And if you’re disturbed by the idea that it’s an end run around the Constitution, I don’t know what to tell you. And anyway, after people got used to the idea that, yes, your vote counts just as much as someone in Wyoming, passing a constitutional amendment might not be the virtual impossibility it is today.
IF all states adopted such a law, I’d be all for Wisconsin joining them in it.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2010 at 1931 hrs
Let’s dissect this and see why it isn’t a good idea. Gov. Reggie Rhino polls 65% of the vote in WI while his opponent, Sen. Danny Donkey, polls 35%. In a very tight nat’l election, Sen. Donkey wins by 51%-49% of the popular vote. There are 538 electoral votes, the 528 not represented by WI break dead even, 264-264. Under this proposal, Wisconsin’s electors would go to Sen Donkey, and give him the election, even though the majority of Wisconsinites voted for Gov. Rhino. This would DEFINITELY disenfranchise the voters of Wisconsin.
Try again….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 1953 hrs
A strictly popular vote gives the more populous states far too much say in a presidential election. A popular California governor would be all but certain to win a presidential election. That was, in fact, one of the reasons that the electoral system was put in place. To keep two or three populous states from running things. Why would a candidate waste any time in a low population state like Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc… No bang for their buck. You’d be better off campaigning on a platform that was important only to California, Florida, and New York and skipping flyover country altogether.
Another problem would be recounts. Just imagine a national recount on a presidential election. Do you remember those party apparatchik election commissioners in Dade and Broward counties during the Florida recount… inspecting possible dimples and divining the “intent” of a voter even when no presidential vote was cast? Sorting votes, in many case without even an impartial observer present. Multiply that times 50 in a recount so big that oversight would be impossible. Mysterious boxes filled with Al Frankenesque votes would be showing up all over, not just in Minnesota.
Of course, perhaps that is the reason some folks would get rid of the Electoral College. It would make that sort of fraud far easier.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 2053 hrs
Try again….
It’s an interesting example. So you’re saying it’s a better or more democratic outcome for the loser of the popular vote to win office. Huh.
A strictly popular vote gives the more populous states far too much say in a presidential election.
What it does is give each voter an equal say in the outcome. And it guarantees that the candidate voted for by the most people actually wins.
You’d be better off campaigning on a platform that was important only to California, Florida, and New York and skipping flyover country altogether.
We already have that “problem.” Less populous states have fewer electors. Or would you prefer that each state had the exact same number?
I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t have a system which guarantees that the candidate with the most votes wins.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2010 at 2127 hrs
As a Wisconsin resident, I want my vote to count.
Under the Electoral College, with Wisconsin being a battleground state, we are guaranteed to be visited by the candidates, and our votes will help decide the presidential election.
If we change to proportional voting, no candidate would ever spend time or money in Wisconsin, since each candidate would probably get 5 votes. Spending the money to get the 6th vote (assuming one would need 55% + 1 vote to get the 6 electoral votes) is not wise allocation of resources.
Yes, under the current Electoral College, voters in states with proportionally large red or blue populations (New York, Texas, Wyoming, Vermont), don’t get the attention of the candidates. Large states don’t get the attention, because of the money needed to sway large numbers of voters to your side. Small states don’t get the attention, because of the lack of electoral votes.
But you know what? I really don’t care about the voters in those states. And neither should the elected leaders in the Wisconsin Legislature. They represent the voters of Wisconsin. If this piece of crap legislation, our Legislature will be forever disenfranchising the voters in Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 2149 hrs
voters in states with proportionally large red or blue populations (New York, Texas, Wyoming, Vermont), don’t get the attention of the candidates. Large states don’t get the attention, because of the money needed to sway large numbers of voters to your side. Small states don’t get the attention, because of the lack of electoral votes.
No. The states which get the attention are the swing states. And their particular issues and concerns take on disproportional importance in the election of the president.
But you know what? I really don’t care about the voters in those states.
I would think your basic sense of fairness should guide you to realize that there’s no earthly reason why your interests matter more than those of another citizen. Your vote shouldn’t count more than someone else’s. And neither should mine.
As far as protecting the interests of the states themselves, we have the United States Senate for that. And frankly I think it already gives less populous states more influence than the interest of federalism requires.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2010 at 2157 hrs
Another thought occurs. Just think of the millions of Republicans who live in California or New York. Think of the Democrats in Wyoming and Idaho. These people know damned well that their vote isn’t worth three rows of rabbit shit.
But with a true popular vote suddenly their vote does mean something. It’s as influential as any Floridian’s or Wisconsinite’s.
Enfranchisement. Dig it.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2010 at 2201 hrs
Scott, if you want a national popular vote, then work toward amending the constitution.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2010 at 2208 hrs
Well, Owen, as it turns out that’s not necessary. If each state adopts a law that it’s electors must vote for the winner of the national popular vote, the problem is effectively solved. And such a thing is certainly not unconstitutional. States can choose to cast their EC votes any way they want.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2010 at 2213 hrs
So.,.. in other words… screw the constitution. We’d rather outsource our votes to other states. That’s the wimp way out.
Seriously, if Wisconsin votes 96% for a Democrat in the next election but a Republican wins the national vote, you’d be OK with casting all of our electoral votes for the Republican?
Sorry, but I like my vote more than that.
Posted by Owen on February 22, 2010 at 2217 hrs
I would be more than okay with it. I like democracy that much.
Posted by scott on February 22, 2010 at 2220 hrs
So in bizarro world, we can just get rid of the states and just be one big country - like France.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 2305 hrs
Well, now you’ve really lost me, Scott. Do we live in a democracy? Since when? What a truly dangerous thing that would be. I expect you’ve never really thought that through.
I often like to say that democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Thankfully there were not too many scotts around when the nation was founded, but rather there were wise people who realized that a representative republic was the only safe way to go. Giving small states power in this federation, rather than giving the larger states the power to make decisions by themselves. You apparently don’t get that… or perhaps you’ve never taken the time to truly think it through.
It’s all about giving the states more power and the federal government less….. and making the president beholden to all the states… not just 3 of them.
Democracy. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch…. and our local sheep have convinced themselves that this is a good idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 22, 2010 at 2320 hrs
“No. The states which get the attention are the swing states. And their particular issues and concerns take on disproportional importance in the election of the president.”
Um, Scott. The whole paragraph you quoted was about the non-swing states - “...states with proportionally large red or blue populations.”
You also make my point. Battleground states get their concerns addressed. WE are a battleground state. That means we get our concerns addressed.
“I would think your basic sense of fairness should guide you to realize that there’s no earthly reason why your interests matter more than those of another citizen.”
But why should interests of voters in other states matter more to the Wisconsin Legislature than our interests? The proposal before the Legislature would allocate our Electors based on how the rest of the country votes, not how Wisconsinites vote. Why is this fair to Wisconsin voters?
“Your vote shouldn’t count more than someone else’s. And neither should mine.”
In Wisconsin, my vote counts the same as yours.
“As far as protecting the interests of the states themselves, we have the United States Senate for that.”
But the State Legislature needs to protect the interests of the citizens of that State. Why should we vote to give up our vote? The US Constitution allows us to allocate our Electors as we see fit. Why should we not allocate them in a way that is most adventageous to us? Instead, you want us to allocate them in a way that NYC, LA, Chicago and Dallas says.
To take this stupid idea even further, why not require our Congressional Delegation to vote on bills based on how the rest of the Congress votes? I mean, if we’re going to vote our Electors based on how everyone else votes, why even vote our interests in Congress?
Please, Scott. Address why we should disenfranchise ourselves? Why should our Legislature make Wisconsin irrelevent in Presidential Elections?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 0118 hrs
To take this stupid idea even further, why not require our Congressional Delegation to vote on bills based on how the rest of the Congress votes?
An excellent point.
If 50.1% democracy is the most important thing, then I would expect us to follow suit in all cases. If voters in California and New York support dairy laws that hurt Wisconsin, should we throw our support behind them? It would be wrong to go against the majority, wouldn’t it? The majority votes to take Lake Michigan’s water and pipe it south and west… Wisconsin votes yes?
Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. How far does your 50,1% democratic imperative take you, Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 0825 hrs
I often like to say that democracy is three wolves and a sheep
We have a constitution which limits the power of the majority. I just happen to think that the EC isn’t protecting minority opinion; it’s giving purple states and their issues center stage in what should be a nationwide decision. Nobody’s talking about doing away with the bill of rights or abolishing the senate. Small states and minority opinions have a lot of other protections from the tyranny of the majority.
Battleground states get their concerns addressed. WE are a battleground state. That means we get our concerns addressed.
Yes, I see your point quite well. The current process gives states like ours, and the people who live in them, a greater say in determining campaign issues. Basically, it’s not fair but since it favors me, that’s okay. I don’t agree.
Instead, you want us to allocate them in a way that NYC, LA, Chicago and Dallas says.
What I’d really like is for individual voters to allocate their own votes.
To take this stupid idea even further
To take your stupid idea even further, why not have the wisconsin House delegation vote amongst themselves and then all cast their vote in congress based on which side won? It’s needlessly undemocratic, that’s why.
If voters in California and New York support dairy laws that hurt Wisconsin, should we throw our support behind them?
No, I would expect our congressional delegation to stop it as best they can. Especially effective in the Senate, where we have an equal say as California.
Supposing YOU lived in California, guys. Your vote there wouldn’t mean spit when it came time to electing a president now would it? If we did things my way it would.
Posted by scott on February 23, 2010 at 0842 hrs
No, I would expect our congressional delegation to stop it as best they can.
Why? If that is what the majority wants, why would you, a strict supporter of pure democracy, stand in the way of the 50.1% majority? Because it favors you? Your state?
““Basically, it’s not fair but since it favors me, that’s okay. I don’t agree.”“
You are arguing in circles. In one case favoring Wisconsin is unfair, and in another case you expect your Senators to fight against the will of a majority in favor of Wisconsin? You are giving me a nosebleed here.
Given your democratic ideals, why would you EVER place your states needs over the needs of a majority in other states? None of the things I gave as examples are protected by the Constitution. Don’t you understand why we avoid pure democracy? It’s dangerous… especially for the sheep.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1025 hrs
You are arguing in circles.
No, you’re being deliberately obtuse.
In one case favoring Wisconsin is unfair, and in another case you expect your Senators to fight against the will of a majority in favor of Wisconsin?
I’m for every player having an equal say.
Posted by scott on February 23, 2010 at 1105 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:06 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).