Iowa Seeks To Remove Electoral College 1088
Zebano writes "Since changing the US constitution is too much work, the Iowa senate is considering a bill that would send all 7 of Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election. This would only go into affect after enough states totaling 270 electoral votes (enough to elect a president) adopted similar resolutions."
This pact is old news (Score:5, Informative)
If Iowa adopts this measure, it would be noteworthy, but the summary seems to imply that this is a new idea or something unique that Iowa is considering. It is not. See the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [wikipedia.org]:
Re:Headline wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article....
The votes go to the winner of the NATIONAL popular election.
Once 270 votes worth of state agree then a vote in Florida of Ohio will be worth just as much as a vote in Texas or California.
By doing this, the winner of the national popular vote will always win. By distributing the electoral votes along the popular vote of the individual states you still have the potential of a 2000 result. PLUS you still have thoes purple swing states.
WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
This is one of the absolutely dumbest Ideas I have ever heard. It would makes Iowa completely irrelevent in the national elections. The idea of the Electoral college is to stop the largely populated areas from dominating the smaller and rural areas with policy that simple doesn't translate effectivly. That is why each state got two senators instead of the same amount as the representatives. It's to equalize the effects of the larger populations.
If this happens, then expect Iowa and every other state stupid enough to follow suit to end up like California which couldn't even pay out tax refunds because they spent too much on stupid shit. California alone has more of a population they their electoral representation compared to say Iowa or Ohio or KY or WV. The east coast states typically will too. It could be possible for a candidate to get the popular vote simply by concentrating on the population centers and ignoring more then two thirds of the other states and plans like this one only makes it possible.
What is good in one state doesn't mean it is good in another, the electoral college signifies that by making the candidates visit and court each state. The founding fathers knew about this and feared large groups of concentrated population centers making it impossible for smaller areas to be effectivly represented. It's the reason why it is there, the state has the election, not the nation.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2, Informative)
And before some moron screams that I'm "lying" about the Franken thing: Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] article on it.
I smell a rat. Its name is Franken.
Proud to be from Maryland (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Headline wrong (Score:1, Informative)
No, it was designed to prevent the most populous states from having most of the election power. Keep in mind when it was created the legislatures chose the electors without a popular vote.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:4, Informative)
If the popular vote truly counted, that would be a very compelling reason to register and/or go out and vote.
The popular vote counts on a State by State basis, not on a national one.
The electoral college makes sense when you consider that the States are supposed to be semi-independant.
affect/effect (Score:4, Informative)
Stop verbing nouns. Or nouning verbs in this case.
Re:Before we tag this as a bad idea... (Score:3, Informative)
Sort of. It's not what they had in mind for the election of an executive. The executive was to be elected by the individual states (with electoral votes weighted by state population). This would prevent the larger, more populus states effectivly removing any executive representation from the smaller states.
Similarly, Senators were to be appointed by states, not by popular vote -- so they represented the whole states intererst, with 6 years in office without worry that a single vote or three could effectivly remove them from office next "election", and essentially avoid populist influence on a Senator. Until the passage of the 17th ammendment, there were some states that elected senators similar to how we do it today (the constitution allowed for that)...
Personally, I think democracy (as it's being practiced in the US) is going to cause our country to flounder. We need to remember that the US is a republic (founded on democratic principles) for a reason. It's a shame that so few people actually have read not only the constitution, but the Federalist papers -- or Madison's account of the constitutional convention. If they had, we'd see a lot less of those "that's what our founders had in mind" statements (not that yours is totally off base).
A good laymans book on the Constitution is Constitutional Journal by Jeff St. John. Basically, it's an account of Constitutional Convention in 1787, as written by a daily newspaper journalist of the period. Entertaining and enlightening.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:4, Informative)
And we've all seen how well THAT worked out.
To wit: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=194983 [breitbart.tv] (Howard Stern Interviews Obama "Policy" Voters)
Sure, it happens on both sides, but that was the most striking example that comes to mind when I think of uneducated voters.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Informative)
#2 - The logistics of holding a "national recount" are simply not possible. Recounting a state alone is bad enough (look at the Dem vote fraud efforts for Franken and the "targeted recounting" of counties, which magically has more votes than voters in several Dem-heavy districts trying to steal the Senate election).
Show me a single county in Minnesota that's reporting more votes than voters. It shouldn't be hard, because you say that there are several. The data are freely available from the Minnesota Secretary of State http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ [state.mn.us] so there's nothing standing in your way.
Note: a county that reports more valid votes after a recount than it did on election night is an entirely different thing than a county reporting more votes than voters. The former is a natural result from going back over the data more carefully, the latter is a huge red flag that someone screwed up and would be actual news, instead of a throwaway line muttered by wingnuts.
I'm not saying that the Minnesota recount has gone perfectly, both sides have been pretty childish, but if you're going to complain about it at least complain about real problems.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful presenting that WSJ "article" as fact. It's an op-ed piece in their Opinion section, which means there's no implication of journalistic impartiality there.
Re:Great way to get LESS registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
I think you guys missed the last bit: "This would only go into affect after enough states totaling 270 electoral votes (enough to elect a president) adopted similar resolutions."
So, until enough other states have similar resolutions, Iowa votes will be counted exactly the same way as they are today. When (if) Iowa is joined by enough other states that together their electoral votes will dominate those of the remaining states, then you'll have a president elected by popular vote. Even in the holdout states, votes will still count: they're part of the popular vote that Iowa and friends will be evaluating.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:3, Informative)
Originally the EC didn't have to vote with the state! They still don't. The electors can vote for whomever they wish.
Depends on the state. About half of the states legally require the electors to vote for whom the state tells them to.
Re:Into affect? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:3, Informative)
According to the wik [wikipedia.org], 24 states have laws binding an elector to vote for the candidate they're told to vote for, and some states have laws that render their elector's ballots void if they don't follow directions. The Supreme Court has upheld these laws.
The electors are party operatives chosen for their loyalty. Attempts to make the office anything but a ceremonial role are very rare.
Re:Just remove the electoral college (Score:3, Informative)
And we can ignore the following states because they do not have the population to effect the election:
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hapshire, Maine, and Idaho. Together, they have less than 5% of the population of the country.
You ignore other inconvenient facts, such as the interior states have much lower populations than the coastal states and thus many may as well not vote as their votes will be a drop in the bucket.
You are obviously ignorant of how the electoral college makes one's vote count MORE.
You are obviously ignorant of why the electoral college exists and how it works.
No. They will only have to work hard to get votes in the 20 most populous states. Those will be the states hold almost 75% of the population. The other 30 states will be mere afterthoughts. Party line voting and special interest voting will result in those 30 states not having a meaningful effect on the outcome.
Either you are ignorant of American geography and population, or you think that all states have the same concerns, or you just don't give a damn about the people in smaller states.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
Instant run-off would have you selecting second and third choices; for the candidate that gets the least votes, his voters go to their second choice, then the next lowest is eliminated, until there is only one.
So in your example, either B or C would end up with 60%.
I don't think you understand what this law's doing (Score:5, Informative)
Iowa isn't going to award all 7 of its votes to the winner of the election in Iowa. That would be "winner take all" as you're complaining.
Instead Iowa will give its 7 electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes *nationwide*. But ONLY if enough states adopt the measure.
That would mean that the candidate with the most votes nationally would always win the electoral vote.
So it's "winner takes all" in the sense that the winner wins, instead of sometimes losing like in recent history.
I call shenanigans... (Score:3, Informative)
It seems like there are several people posting from the hip, so to speak, and getting very worked up without quite understanding what the Electoral College does, what it is, and the nature of the current situation. You may disagree with me on a factual basis. If that's the case, please cite something. All my info is from wikipedia and several civics textbooks I've got kickin' around.
1. States are allotted a number of electors equal to their Representatives and Senators. In other words, all but two electors are granted in proportion to a state's population. DC gets three, the minimum a state could theoretically have, despite having no Congressional representation (with any teeth, at least).
2. About half the states have laws against what are called "faithless electors", or electors who vote differently than how they're "supposed" to. It's a pretty rare occurrence.
3. The Electoral College was instituted for a number of reasons, but a lack of confidence in the wisdom of the mob was certainly one. In the 18th century, it was highly unlikely that every eligible voter in every state would have enough information about the candidates to make an informed decision, or even know who the candidates were, for that matter. Electors, known to the community and considered "in-the-know", solved the information problem to a degree. It was also hoped that they would act as a last-ditch defense against a charismatic politician duping the public. Not so successful in the last regard, I'm afraid...
4. Although most states use the winner-take-all system, they do so by custom rather than law. Nothing in the Constitution requires it.
While it is true that votes in smaller states pack a bit more of an electoral punch, it doesn't do them too much good these days. Remember the bit about the House of Representatives? In the pre-industrial U.S., the difference between urban and rural populations wasn't nearly as dramatic as it is today, simply because cities had yet to become industrial centers and so didn't draw population from the countryside or smaller towns/villages. Consider the following. Iowa has seven votes. California has 55. Two Ohios and a North Carolina, if you will. Maybe Iowan votes are worth more per capita, but California as a whole is worth almost eight Iowas.
Candidates only have to win the big states. The smaller states tend to go reliably to one party or the other. Look at the number of campaign stops and amount of money spent per state and you'll see that it leans towards the populous states.
The reason, and this is important, that people pay attention to Iowa is that Iowa is the first to hold primaries, and they do so in a caucus. Iowa's impact on the national election is in the very first stages as a bellwether for party nominations.
Furthermore, even if Iowa decides to toss it's seven votes to whoever already has 270, I daresay it wouldn't affect the outcome one way or the other. At 270, we already have a winner.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
This was more true before 2008. In 2008, Obama won 36 counties and McCain won 25. In the House races, Democrats won all but three districts in New York state.
Excellent tool for looking at electoral results: http://scoreboard.dailykos.com/map/ [dailykos.com]
Re:Ignoring the Constitution is easy (Score:4, Informative)
It's hardly inarguable, since it *was* argued, and successfully, 150 years ago.
First, your argument has the time wrong, because the time of unconstitutionality wouldn't have been when the gold standard was abolished, but rather when the government started printing money during the Civil War.
More importantly, your argument claims that, because states are prohibited from making anything but gold and silver coins legal tender, that the federal Government's act of making paper money legal tender is unconstitutional when states use that money. This is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Article 1 Section 10 is a limit on state power, not federal power. Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to coin money, and further allows borrowing in the credit of the United States, and therefore allows for the printing of fiat money.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:2, Informative)
Erm...what exactly were you thinking democracy was supposed to be?
America is not, and never has been, a democracy. Even before the Constitution was written, it was a Republic. We have democratic elements to our Republic, but it is not a democracy.
Democracy, put simply, is majority rule. What the founding fathers realised though, being the astute scholars that some of them were, was that when the "majority" gets to be over about 500 people or so, it breaks down into mob rule, and the minority doesn't simply get over-ruled, they get trampled over.
Now, a Republic is representative rule. You could quite easily create a feudal republic if you wanted, where feudal lords pick representatives to represent them in government. Perhaps if that were the case you'd more easilly recognize the difference between a republic and a democracy.
The fact is, the fairest way to select representatives for large numbers of people in a system intended to be by, for, and of the people is by democratic means. There is a single democratic election to select local city, state, senate, and congressional representatives, and there is a two-stage election for the President. The people vote (democratic) for the electoral college representatives (republic) who then vote for the President (democratic republic). The third branch, the judicial, we get very little say in who gets to be there, and that is another balancing measure.
Get it now? The whole purpose of the system is to even out the power, to prevent Mob Rule. Large population centers get more of an influence than small population centers, because that is fair. However, they do not get a proportional amount of influence to their size, because that would allow them to overpower the small population centers, which is not fair.
It's the same reason the Congress is split in two, with one half having nothing at all to do with population (Senate, each state gets 2 representatives, no more and no less) and one that is tied to population (the House of Representatives, representatives determined by population). Again the whole point of giving a small state more power per-person than a large state is to allow it to defend itself against mob rule. And it works well.
Large population centers still drive the majority of decisions in government, and it is more likely the guy who gets all the big states will be President, but it's not a guarantee in any case because the power is adjusted to protect the minority from the majority.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:3, Informative)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. I can't wait until we have more and more Democracy.
In the history of the US, the electoral college has overridden with the popular vote three times:
George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000... which I won't go into here.
Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888... Whose mismanagement of the economy led to him being replaced by his own predecessor (Cleveland) after one term.
Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden in the scandal-ridden election of 1876... Who ordered federal troops to put down striking railroad workers across the eastern US, killing scores. He also served a single term.
In theory, the electoral college allows us to avoid the perils of mob rule and elect noble leaders unpopular with the cruel, unwashed masses.
In practice, however, that's a load of shit.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:3, Informative)
This is thanks to what the ACLU calls the Constitution-Free Zone: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html [aclu.org]
As a resident of Washington State, I've been lucky not to see this kind of thing yet but I may have to do the same as you if it ever happens to me.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of all 158 of them [wikipedia.org]. They range from accidents (flipping the VP/Pres votes), protest votes, and changing of votes because the candidate died between the election and the electoral college vote, to outright just plain voting for the other side. The entry has a few citations to sources, but in general these are pretty well known.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:4, Informative)
Yes you can -- if you understand why it was designed to do what it does.
States are supposed to pic a executive. The select an executive to represent the STATE. They send electors (the number of which is weighted by population) to vote for that executive. How can a state pick 51% of an executive? And 49% of another? They pick a SINGLE executive, not two, three or more.
By removing this system, you effectivly remove any executive representation to small states. Preseidents will be elected by large cities (Los Angeles, New York City, etc) of a handfull of states. Executive decisions will be based on the needs of those few zones rather than the country as a whole.
But right now, small states have FAR MORE voting power per person than large states. Why should a Wyoming resident's vote count for more than a California resident's?
Actually, when you do the math, the states that really get screwed in the current system are the mid-population states. The largest states tend to be represented proportionally, while the smallest states are over-represented, taking the share from the middling states.
To do the math yourself, go to www.census.gov and get state populations (don't forget DC). Then put those in an Excel spreadsheet next to the electoral votes for each state. Divide pop by votes, then sort those numbers. Also calculate the total population by 535, then divide the representation for each state by that number. You'll see who comes out ahead and behind.
I last did this years ago, so I don't have it to hand now, but it's very interesting. There's about one electoral vote per 700,000 people in the US, but Wyoming gets something like 1 per 500,000. California, Texas, and New York each came out at about 700,000, but states like Ohio etc. were more like 800,000.
I think the notion that the states elect the executive is somewhat outdated, given the shift to greater Federal control over individuals (while at the same time, civil rights granted by the national government have been conferred on individuals as well). Keep in mind, also, that this system predates states the size of Texas and California... it doesn't account for the idea that a single state might be large enough that they take on an unfair economic burden, as well as housing a disproportionate population.
This whole f'ed up system is why some of us would like to see California declare independence. Trade deficit? WHAT trade deficit? California exports more than it imports (in spite of housing the largest port complex in the country). There are reasons other than our gigantic population why the federal government should, now and then, have to make us happy. As it now stands, they practically never do.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
There is no run off system here in the US. Let me try to explain the differences between the US and British systems as I understand them.
The British have a parliamentary system and your parties actually stand for something. Since your parties are formed around issues, there needs to be a run off system so that the lesser issues also get their say. IIRC, your current government leaders must form a majority of total parties to maintain in power. Gross oversimlification I know.
The American system is a factionalized system and our parties don't stand for anything. They might have issues they believe in right this moment, but they are not beholden to those issues but rather to the voters who want them. There are two parties and they add and drop issues as they get or lose votes. Thus, both parties fight over issues and people to have the majority. This means that the process of forming the majority is done at the party level rather than the government level. This is further complicated because there is no national election except for president that is done by the electoral college who represents their state. So almost all government officials, no matter where they stand in the government, are beholden to people back in their state, not the government or even party as a whole. Since the parties don't stand for anything besides red and blue factions, you can end up with a socialist Republican in one state and a free market capitalist Democrat from another even though such beliefs go against the general trend of their party.
In the American system, any 3rd party, as the lesser parties are known, whose issues gain enough of a following to become a sizable vote, will be absorbed by one or both of the major parties. Either their candidate will join a major party to gain the contacts and influence it gives them, or the major party will adopt their platform planks into their own to gain their voters. Likewise, anybody in the in the major parties whose issues don't get them enough votes and power they want, break away and form a 3rd party. These 3rd parties act as a sounding board and pulpit for new and old ideas for the major parties. To either be picked up as their issues resonate with the larger population or be forgotten as they become radicals that nobody wants.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the 17th amendment passed because, as great as that balance and distribution sounds in theory, the practical reality was different.
In practice, the appointment rather than election of Senators provided a wide-open avenue for corrupt appointees, seat buying (see Blagojevich), and a nepotistic entrenchment of political power.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:5, Informative)
Hint: You're wrong, it's an amalgam of issues.
Slavery is what divided the nation. That was the issue that got Lincoln elected, and that was the issue that provoked the Southern states to secede. Lincoln always stated that he had no intentions of forcing abolition where it already existed but they seceded anyway (some before he was inaugurated even) because they did not trust him. Southern media depicted him completely contrary to his nature to inflame the public that he would free their slaves. He only agreed to free the slaves once he needed to boost northern morale and to gain black soldiers which he needed badly.
State's rights is perhaps what enabled the war to occur. If nation were more centralized then secession wouldn't have occurred despite Lincoln's election, and if it were more decentralized than the north wouldn't have cared. Certainly southerners fought for their 'state's right' to slavery but northerners fought for either union or abolition. (sometimes just one, sometimes both)
There's a lot of revisionism trying to shrug off slavery as part of the war but it still was the idea that set off the war and many died purely for abolition. I will concede it could have been another issue later, and that is the state's rights problem that the war settled, but to say it was not about slavery is just ludicrous.
Re:One way to get more registered voters (Score:3, Informative)
Just to be picky he said Bush Sr.