John Washburn wrote on May 02, 2009 02:09 AM: The current phenomenon of the Electoral College not matching the popular vote is due to two things. The first is the "winner take all" approach you mentioned above. If all states apportioned electors on by congressional district, then the Gore/Bush discrepancy would not appear.

Neither half of the ruling party wants apportionment by district (ala NE and ME) because that would mean the presidential election would be 487 (435 disticts, 50 states and DC) elections instead of 51. Both halves already hate the 51 election requirement of today. There is no way they want a ten-fold increase in the difficulty of runing a *national* campaign. The ruling party, both halves, wants a *single*, national campaign for President, not 51 as is today or 487 under district apportionment of electors.

But, even with winner take all approach the more fundamental problem is the artificial limitation of the size of the House of Representatives to merely 435. Roosevelt Democrats set this limit in 1941 (prior to Pearl Harbor) when it looked like their man FDR would have trouble in 1942. If the size of the house were to have followed population trends it would be have about 1000 members today. With any number greater that 597 for the House of Representatives, Gore would have won in 2000.

This is a simpler solution (if the EC is actually a problem) especially with a census and a re-apportionment approaching. Change the size of the House of Representatives to something more historically reasonable such as 1000.

Here is a link with details of the above two problems:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm
and here is a link to the analysis of house size to electoral college victory in the 2000 Bush-Gore 2000:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Neubauer-Zeitlin.htm

Paolo wrote on May 01, 2009 02:03 PM: The Electoral College is also a remnant of the original Founders' intent that the States voluntarily cede carefully-limited powers to a central government. In effect the Electoral College underscored the idea that the STATES would elect the president, not "the people."

I would be perfectly happy if there were no popular vote for president, at all! The state legislatures should grow some manliness and take back the power that is rightfully theirs.

Titus wrote on May 01, 2009 09:14 AM: Correct, Bill. It's populist pandering to an citizenry unfamiliar with all of the different, yet equally valid, voting methods. I'm partial to ones that account for deeper preference schedules than just #1, but I'll settle for one that doesn't put an obvious demagogue at the helm.

Bill Smith wrote on May 01, 2009 06:56 AM: The national popular vote is a myth created by the media.

Doug wrote on April 30, 2009 10:49 AM: The Electoral College is justified on statistical grounds. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/03/weekinreview/why-the-election-is-like-baseball.html

It can seem unfair when the popular vote is very close, like in the 2000 election. In cases like that, however, the margin of error is greater than the margin of victory, so who gets elected basically comes down to who was more favored by systematic errors.

The EC really shines when a tyrannical majority attacks a vastly outnumbered minority. In a case like this, it gives the minority a fighting chance. We haven't seen this situation in America, but if we abolish safeguards like the Electoral College, who knows?

Paolo wrote on April 30, 2009 05:43 AM: Although the Founders clearly failed to achieve what they wanted with the Electoral College, I think it was a good try.

The Founders hoped the Electoral College would prevent the mob from electing a king based on typical mob passions.

What they wanted was a group of upstanding citizens to convene, deliberate carefully, and then choose a president. All this was to take place outside of the pressures of "one man, one vote" mob rule.

The Founders wanted the president to be elected very much indirectly. The people choose their state legislatures, the state legislatures choose the electors, and finally, the electors choose the president.

Unfortunately, the state legislatures wimped out long ago, ceding their power to the caterwauling mob. This explains our tendency to elect actors (Reagan), failed business executives (Bush 2), and smooth talking socialists (Obama) as president.

Now, if some state legislature would just show some spine, cancel the popular vote entirely, and simply choose a slate of electors to vote for whomever they please, things could begin to turn around.

Bill Smith wrote on April 29, 2009 03:56 AM: Oh look Vin, you are a racist and klan member because you don’t support theft and democracy. Typical response from the supporters of fascism.


Richard, please tell us why you support theft and murder? It is obvious you believe in stealing money from others for things you agree with and killing those who resist.

Richard wrote on April 28, 2009 12:45 PM: Careful, your pointed head is beginning to look as if it fits all too nicely beneath a hooded white sheet.

Specifically, your use of "mendicant classes of inner-city New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles" and "the gun-grabbing, welfare-addicted single moms of the nation's eight or 10 largest cities". Ouch!!

Your boss, Mr Mitchell, made a valid point about the protections afforded small states and you alluded to it. However, your invective against those less fortunate than you was not called for.

Those poor beggars and other indigents votes should matter in an evolving, supposedly democratic republic such as ours. What's wrong with becoming more of a one man, one vote country?

But then we would have to level the playing field even more through education and looking out for our fellow Americans.

Bill Smith wrote on April 28, 2009 04:41 AM: How anyone can embrace something as evil and corrupt as democracy is beyond me.


dan wrote on April 26, 2009 06:13 AM:
Vinny hates this idea because a majority of American voters should not be allowed to choose the president?

One man, one vote is called a Democracy. Bring it on, the UNITED States of America!

Bill Smith wrote on April 27, 2009 11:03 AM: Why do those “educated” in a government school always bring the “dems vs. repigs” rant every single time when there is no worth while difference between the two? The American sheep have been fooled well.

Read All Comments