Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Popular vote

In the wake of the 2000 election, the Electoral College came under heightened scrutiny. For the first time in 124 years, the candidate who drew the most popular support did not win the White House.

Ever since, Democrats angry at Al Gore's loss to Republican George W. Bush have floated various proposals to undermine -- or even eliminate -- the Electoral College, put in place by the founders to protect against the "heats and ferments" sometimes associated with direct democracy.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Public employee pay
  • FROM OUR READERS: Do those who voted for Halverson have a clue?
  • LETTERS: No more cuts to public schools
  • EDITORIAL: Another drug raid gone bad
  • LETTERS: Classic case of burying the news
  • LETTERS: Public school cuts political, impractical
  • EDITORIAL: 'Buyers in these areas are responding ... '
  • EDITORIAL: Rich man, poor man
  • FROM OUR READERS: No tax hikes? It might be time to sue
  • EDITORIAL: School choice



  • Never mind, of course, that the 2000 election could have gone either way -- or that subsequent elections could result in a Republican capturing the popular vote yet losing the Oval Office. Many Democrats were so incensed they sought to reform the system to their advantage.

    But now, they're finding out, two sides can play that game.

    On Tuesday, an official in the California Republican Party announced that he will work to put an initiative before voters awarding the state's electors by congressional district, rather than through the traditional winner-take-all scenario. That would be devastating to national Democrats, who count on left-leaning California's 55 electoral votes every four years.

    States are free to award their electors however they see fit. Currently, only two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- award their electors by congressional district. In 2004, President Bush carried 22 California districts.

    If such a measure passes, said Democratic consultant Chris Lehane, "it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008." Mr. Lehane went on to call the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election." That's rich.

    First of all, the measure -- even if approved -- won't be in effect in 2008. Secondly, where were Mr. Lehane and other outraged Democrats when California lawmakers were voting to change the system so the state's presidential electors might be automatically awarded to the winner of the national popular vote?

    This was a not-so-subtle effort to gut the Electoral College through a system of interstate compacts that would determine which electors voted for whom. Democrats got behind it because they felt it might benefit their candidates in the future.

    How about if each side simply stops playing games? The 2000 election is over. It represented only the third time in our 230-year history that the winner of the popular vote lost the election. But if activists on either side believe the Electoral College has outlived its purpose, let them propose and agitate for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it -- rather than play duck and cover around the edges.



    Leave Your Comment 5 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Michelle wrote on August 01, 2007 05:44 PM: Right on Ken. That one kills me. Right up there with those who refuse to vote-yet still believe they have the right to complain about what is happening in this country. If you only vote for President, you might as well have a monarchy or dictatorship.


    Aaron wrote on August 01, 2007 05:22 PM: This entire fiasco shows that it doesn't matter what your part affiliation is. Both sides are trying to skirt around the overall issue and screw the other side. The final paragraph says it all...let the "activists" propose a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electorial College. Stop trying to screw the other side because neither side is really worth a damn.


    Ken wrote on August 01, 2007 02:02 PM: Still makes me laugh to here someone say "I just voted for president, I dont care about the other offices."


    Randy wrote on August 01, 2007 12:56 PM: Better idea - dump the Electoral College completely. Let the popular vote rule.

    If you really want to see fast reform, convince the Legislatures of 38 states to call for a Consitutional Convention. Then the people could bypass Congress completely in making changes to this Country.


    Douglas Democrat wrote on August 01, 2007 10:44 AM: First of all, the measure -- even if approved -- won't be in effect in 2008.

    And that would be incorrect - all sources of information indicate this would become effective upon passage in June, 2008.

    If the rules need changing, the appropriate time isn't 5 months before an election. They should have made the change in 2005 or wait until 2009.