The vaunted founding fathers had a deep distrust of small d democracy and put every obstacle in its way, of which electoral college was only one.

I am glad they mention uneven representation in the Senate. Politics in this country will be skewed as long as the Dakotas have as many Senators as New York and California combined.

The idea of the electoral college worked when the members of the House were all representing approximately the same number of people.

Once the House was limited to 435 members, then things got screwed up.

To have one state have 600,000 voters equal one electoral vote while another state has 1,200,000 voters equal one electoral vote there is a major problem.

I’m tired of seeing the Dakotas, and other small states determine who the President is.

Theoretically, the small states have the Senate, the big states have the House and ALL states have the President.

The oligarchs like the EC. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy. Just like China and North Korea (DPRK). Think about it.

Although there is the rampant and absurd delusion among, I suspect, the majority of USA’ans that we are a democracy with our Freedoms and Liberties. /s

Obviously a Republic dilutes the will of the people and makes the outcomes of an election easier to game. Hence it was created.

In 1790, Virginia had about ten times as many people as Rhode Island. Now, California has closer to a hundred times as many as Wyoming. People from the smaller states have an amazing deal in the Senate.

What does the popular will have to do with American politics?

I’m less concerned about the Dakotas having the same amount of Senators than CA or NY than I am about the unlimited amount of money that buys these Senators. There needs to be public financing of elections, where individual donations can’t go beyond a specific amount. Of course, the MSM would be one of the entities fighting this tooth and nail. As long as you have Senator and Congressman So and So in the hip pocket of big pharma, oil, agri business, etc. there never will be any meaningful change, We will just continue to have the “best government that money can buy.”
I think this is one of the underlying themes of OWS.

The reality is eliminating the EC would not lead to democracy as congress and the POTUS will still be bought and paid for

Whether or not Citigroup personnel believe in plutocracies or that the U.S.
should be a plutocracy,

http://goo.gl/gI8gU

when Mr. Obama weekly, if not daily, rolls out one plan or another aimed at
a world defending TBTF banks from failure, he in fact is defending corruption
currently, likely fraud and violations of trust precedent.

Eliminating the Electoral College would help break any vestige of long past
U.S. flirtation with plutocracy other than the aim of ego-creeps on their own time.

However, he’s been supportive of OWS – like actions where they can predictably
result in out – of – control scapegoating.

Scapegoating and fraud should not be replaced with scapegoating and fraud, I think
the North Africans can, with patience, be helped to understand.

When the American creed of free, equal and happy was founded, it had come from
what was purportedly free, equal and happy, so we can understand the confusion
and the fact that it can work both ways (going to good, going to bad.)

Israel’s democracy in fact leans on the selection of a electors, and so the North
Africans are welcome to observe our own awareness of self-importance issues
going all around. However, I happen to think ours is a world attempting to
transition from survival vs. ideal to one where survival IS ideal, and we all have
to take baby steps investing in trust, and take baby steps giving up the
scapegoating (judging to control so as to profit or to pacify) and self-importance
(ego defense.)

I think life in the street will immediately improve once we no longer have reason to
fear each other. That defines transference. Fear mastered by ones who know it.

Regardless of his desired aims, his results are opposite from what I’ve always
wanted and so would be disappointed to see him renominated.

I DO NOT / CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER AS TO ANY ASPECT OF
THE PSYCHE OF ANY MEMBER OF THE REFERENCED KOCH BROS.
FAMILY/IES OR ANY OF THEIR RELATIONS TO ANY EXTENSION
(HOWEVER, THEY ARE VERY PUBLICLY INVESTED AND I THINK PEOPLE
ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN SUPPOSITIONS)

Should this be true:
http://my.firedoglake.com/scarecrow/2011/10/16/is-herman-cain-gop-clown-of-the-week-the-koch-bros-manchurian-candidate/

then it looks like the forcing of ones’ selves on others despite being utterly transparent.

Should the factual claims be true and my own opinion(s) and characterizations have any
validity, then how is that different from rape (which is forcing one’s self on others for ego gratification but most carnally?)

Small states make out under the Electoral College and Senate. They’ll never approve constitutional amendments to change this. Won’t happen.

As pointed out by other posters, the existence of the Senate insures that smaller, western, and conservative states will have a disprportionate voice in government. Moving to a unicameral legislature (the House only) would also do much to eliminate the constant gridlock and games playing that passes for governance. I would also add at-large seats in the House representing all Americans, which would serve to attenuate regional interests.

We should run another national poll to see what percentage of Americans know where Djibouti is.

My point is that polls taken in ignorance are worthless. The system as it stands has no national elections at all. The change is a huge one because it institutes the first national election in the history of the country, but nobody conducting the poll bothered to inform the respondents of that.

Indeed, there are commenters here who are also in favor of getting rid of the bicameral structure because of the Senate giving disproportional representation to states with large areas but small populations. One look at India, which doesn’t use its upper house for proportional voting, and therefore has in effect a unicameral system based on population, would dissuade you from that plan. UP gets all the corrupt goodies of the Lok Sabha, because of its overwhelming population, and can bully the rest of the states, as California would be able to in a unicameral system, which is why large, diverse nations should actually have bicameral systems set up exactly like ours is, but with people elected to office who actually are there to participate in government.

Ignorance is bliss. But it isn’t a good way to design governments.

You guys must have failed high school US history to not know that the senate was designed to give states with less population an equal say countered by the House which gives say based on population. It was designed this way to counter what is know as “tyranny of the majority”. Its not a bug, its a feature.

I don’t believe that was the motive.

The nation is considered a federal, democratic republic, and while originally free, white men of property were the voting pool in local elections, the Electoral College is the democratic mechanism by which the individual states are given an opportunity to participate in the selecting the national leader. After all the nation is a union of the participating states, not simply the people…. who do get to vote as well.

Such a mechanism goes back to Ben Franklin’s Albany Plan of 1754, which appropriated members of the Grand Council by population of the participating states. In other words, what in 1789 became the Lower House of Congress. Of course, the Senate rose from the Great Compromise.

One look at India does not dissuade me. What else have you got?

In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in those states.

Look up (The99PercentDeclaration)I think you will find what your wanting in the 20 General Assembly Petition of Grievances.

Ever been there? You need to get out of the cities and see how things are disproportionately distributed.

Why is it idiotic and horrible, exactly? We’re a nation of states, and that’s how we vote. I’d rather have people in smaller states be relatively overrepresented than underrepresented. Otherwise a presidential candidate goes to NY, CA, TX, FL, PA, OH, MI…and that’s probably it. I’m fine with the electoral college. Now, proportional EV allocation by district might be interesting, taking away the winner take all model.

Yes … this poo pooing the Senate is baffling me.

Not that I support the system but the outcome would have only changed the election about once every 100 years. And in 2 of the 3 the margin was tiny. Its not like someone was handed the election because they won Pennsylvania.

But I strongly agree with alan1tx. My entire voting life I have never felt like my vote mattered. And felt ignored. Even though the races here usually break between 50/50 to 55/45. Basically those of us in NY, CA and TX are simply bystanders. But still popular voting would not have changed the outcome in any past elections.

It was made supposedly to protect from the tyranny of the majority. Nobody ever thought about protecting us from the tyranny of the minority.

And yes, the popular vote would have changed a lot, we would have had Gore instead of Bush.I want the will of the people, not the will of the electoral college. It baffles me people want people from smaller states being over-represented.Your vote is your representation.

OH noooo….

The first issue with breaking things down from winner take all is GERRYMANDERING. We already have more or less permanant seats. Districts will never switch hands unless there is some major scandal or batshit crazy candidate. You could carve up states so that a Repub will always win.

That would also lead to micro targeting campaigns. More of the country would be flat out ignored while money and time was pumped into key districts. So Miami could be written off while all the focus is on Tampa. It just takes what we have now and exxagerates it,

I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to reform the electoral college by making the number of a state’s electoral votes directly proportional to their populaton; that way, politicians would still have an incentive to campaign in low-population states. Who’s in with me on this?

tyranny of the minority.

Sounds like black racisists. I’ve been told there’s no such thing.

We don’t even get to vote on or choose the kinds of polls and surveys that are foisted on us.

So, someguy, in order to “equalize” states, we make some citizens’ votes worth more than others through unequal representation in one of the two houses. And you’re going to try to justify that?

I live in a large and populous state, so my vote is already worth less than yours in terms of influence in the Senate.

I live in a major city, and the laws in this state have the same effect on urban and rural areas as between large and small states, so in a state where people’s votes are already worth less than those of people in (say) your state, my vote is also worth less than my neighbor’s vote across the county line.

And my state is a net contributor of income taxes; i.e., it pays more in aggregate federal taxes than it gets from the federal government. Why am I not surprised.

Explain to me again… why should I bother to vote in your wonderful elections rather than simply sitting at home and watching the same result as if I voted? I am sorry, but the deal you tout so highly is grossly unfair to a lot of us.

(For the record… I did NOT flunk any courses in American history or government.)

not meaning to diminish

(see my own comment above–page search or scroll to holygenes, pls, as entering to Edit under myself seems analterably landing me currently beneath SBtheYDD, whose info is most interesting all the same)

the physical violence aspect of rape, but, basis my
supposition w/ disclaimer knowing nothing of the
subject identifiable actors’ / their relations’ psyche(s:)

once transparent as to method and purpose, to force oneself
on others nonetheless is very similar to rape in terms of
forcing one’s ego.

As to the violence toward women part: I’ve elsewhere theorized
why scapegoaters tend to be misogynists.

Most physical violence / rape toward women is not reproductive instinct-
related. If a guy’s a total loser he knows where to take care of that
non-violently.

It’s horrible because Gore like had the election stolen, or something.

I guess there weren’t complaints when Howard Dean fifty-stated the Republican’s asses years back, but hey, repeal that electoral college thingy. It’s totally ridiculous that those filthy fly-overs like the Dakotas actually matter. They should be more modest, like the Great Blue Banana Republics of New York and Michigan whom forced the rest of the nation to bailout their own state industries. I mean, California has so many more union cronies, illegal immigrants, and dead people than the other states, they HAVE to count more than West Virgina than they already do. Besides, a Firedoglake blogger just said we must, that means something.

You have to make arguments for and against the need for the Senate and the E.C. and the winner-take-all system of awarding electors in the context of the time the system was devised and the present time.

At the time the Constitution was conceived, the prevailing political/territorial identity for American’s was that of “State” first and “U.S. Citizen” second. It was that way until the Civil War. The creators of the government would never have considered individual voter equality for federal government offices. In their minds, the only way the federal government could exist is through the States. It wasn’t a federal government for the people; it was a federal government for the States.

Today, State identity is secondary to national citizenship on the Federal level. I will argue that party identity is vastly more important that State identity to most voters on a national level. Therefore, there is no longer a need for a bicameral legislature or the Electoral College.

Sorry amghru,but the Senate of 2 Senators from each state is ingrained in the Constitution and is the only clause that cannot be changed by an amendment.We would have to have an entirely new Constitution to change the Senate.We are a nation of sovereign states with a Federal government of limited powers which is all well and good.Under this system,we can deal with our problems as Lincoln and FDR dealt with the terrible emergencies of their time. We just need the political will.

Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah – 70%, Vermont — 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers — including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states and less than 60 districts. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote

With the current system, it could only take winning the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support , hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

In the 2000 presidential election, Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes. If the national popular vote had controlled the outcome, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida. Those 537 votes won Bush the Presidency.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president, without needing to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.