Tweet
Former Vice President Al Gore has very publicly joined the call for the United States to eliminate the Electoral College and instead have our President directly elected by a national popular vote like a sane democracy. From the Huffington Post:
In a discussion during Current TV’s coverage of the Republican National Convention, Gore and his co-panelists argued that Electoral College system had a corrosive effect on the power of votes and presidential leadership. For voters, casting ballots in a state that is predictably red or blue feels pointless in determining presidential elections. For leaders, visiting a state that is already in the bag for Republicans or Democrats seems unnecessary.
“I really do now think that it’s time to change that,” Gore said. “It’s always tough to amend the Constitution and risky to do so, but there is a very interesting movement under way that takes it state by state, that may really have a chance of succeeding. I hope it does.”
Obviously there are few people who personally better understand the stupidity of the Electoral College than Al Gore who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election since he did not carry enough states to get to 270 electoral votes.
The 2000 election, though, wasn’t an isolated incident, it has happened three other times in American history. Given that there has only been 56 Presidential elections, that means in over seven percent of elections the candidate most Americans voted for did not become President.
To truly eliminate the Electoral College would be take a constitutional amendment, but it can essentially be replaced with a national popular vote rather easily using only an interstate compact. That is what the National Popular Vote campaign has been rather successfully working towards. Once states with 270 electoral college votes sign on to the compact, all the signatures agree to give all their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The Electoral College would technically still exist but be a non-factor. It would be merely a vestigial entity only to rubber stamp the popular vote winner.
Currently the National Popular Vote is halfway towards their goal. They already have eight states, plus DC, with 132 electoral votes signed on.
18 Comments
Where has he been hiding out during the global warming fiasco.
Is he going to do the same disappearing act after he makes some money off the NPV?
The idea of this country was one person/one vote.
The electoral college has eliminated that.
Additionally, we now have some states making their electoral college votes “proportional” while in other states it’s winner take all.
That further kills one person/one vote.
This country will not be one person/one vote as long as the Senate exists. The smaller States are overly represented. A Senator from the Dakotas reps far fewer people than one from New York or California. It is why they will not go for eliminating the Electoral College.
He had a chance to make a difference and elected not to fight for the 99% in 2000. Another member of the US aristocracy whose presence won’t be missed if he would just go away.
It’s $1 one vote.
Changing the electoral college or the senate will not change the fact that money determines who gets POTUS job or any of the other power (if there is any left except for passing out corp welfare and dismantling human welfare) in D.C.
Yep.
That’s why the House exists. The Senate puts each state on equal footing regardless of size while the House says that larger states get more representation.
Any serious attempt to change this is like chasing a rabbit. There is absolutely zero chance to change the electoral college. To make a change would require 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment and there are not enough states that think they are being shortchanged in the process. It would be a much more useful to find a cause, perhaps climate change, where some positive outcome is possible.
O no! Not before THIS election, Al! Do you want Mint Rmoney to win?
NPV hasn’t been in the news a lot lately. Awhile ago I had cooked up a few questions, and kind of filed them. I couldn’t find answers browsing online then. . .
(1) What impact does Congress have on interstate compacts? Do compacts have to pass muster there before they take force? If so, then in the case of 270 electoral votes-worth of states signing on to NPV, would that guarantee (practically speaking) that the corresponding votes in Congress would follow suit so it will fly? But if there’s dissonance there, how many votes are allowed to be taken and is there a time limit to consummate the NPV campaign before the current initiative expires? That is, a similar situation as with a Constitutional Amd’t.
(2) Currently eight states have signed on. Are they all (or even any of them) bound to follow the NPV procedures for assigning electors yet? Even though the compact, itself, may not be operative yet are some of those existing signers still committed that way internally?
(3) What sort of enforcement issues might crop up? Suppose a state decides to leave NPV too close to an election? Or what is to be done about rogue electors should any appear — does the compact specify a remedy, or would that remain an in-state problem as it would be now?
Interesting debate. Not gonna happen this century.
Yep #2
The constitution calls for one representative per 30,000 of population meaning the house has been brought by big money. That would be 10,000 + legislators .
Getting rich and fat and running ( waddling ) after as many broads as he can get his paws on. We’ll have Presidential elections by popular vote at just about the same time Citizens U. is over turned and the average temp. in the US in winter is 75 degs in Chicago.
I was wondering when this issue would pop up! Every presidential election period seems to conjure this mantra, only for it to completely disappear after the election. Please don’t look behind the curtain!
Hey. If that is a recent picture of Al Gore, he isn’t fat. Somebody call Atrios.
it will never happen, but i can’t think of anything better than marginalizing the knuckle draggers that live in fly over country.
I also wonder about I&R states, especially those which have an I&R process protected in the state Constitution.
So suppose the state legislature signs on to NPV legislatively and it’s signed by the Gov. (I think that’s the way it passed here in Mass). Could that law encumber the Constitutional provision for I&R?
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
Imagine, for example, an electorate initiates a withdrawal from NPV by way of a Constitutionally protected I&R process. Suppose the withdrawal would occur within a timeframe not allowed by the NPV compact? Or, would the I&R process even be allowed to be invoked at all?
Would a resulting conflict there have to be resolved by a state supreme court, or would it end up at SCOTUS?
It seems an unlikely scenario, I realize, but fodder for thought nonetheless.