Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Editorial

A step toward ditching outdated Electoral College

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:37 AM PST

Font Size:
 
 

Washington is poised to become the third state to enter a pact aimed at skirting the Electoral College and electing presidents by popular vote. The state Senate voted 30-18 Monday to hand all of Washington's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. For instance, if in Washington candidate "B" received the most votes, but candidate "A" won the popular vote nationally, Washington's Electoral College votes would go to candidate "A."

But don't look for any immediate change. Washington would continue awarding its electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote until enough states join the pact to deliver at least 276 electoral votes. Only Maryland and New Jersey, with a total of 25 electoral votes, have entered the agreement. Washington would add 11 more electoral votes, for a total of 36. Two hundred and seventy electoral votes are needed to be president elect.

To amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College requires a two-thirds vote of Congress and ratification by the states. If the most vote-rich states joined this pact, as few as 13 could deliver the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote.

We take some encouragement from the fact that lawmakers in 44 states are debating whether to join this end run around the Electoral College. The college has come under more criticism since the 2000 presidential election, in which the loser in the popular vote won office with a majority of electoral votes. Thomas Jefferson was one of its first critics.

Republican supporters of President Bush, who won that election with 543,895 fewer votes nationally than former Vice President Al Gore, tended to dismiss much of the criticism as sour grapes. The 2004 presidential election should have helped bridge the partisan divide. It very nearly produced the mirror-opposite of the 2000 election. With just 60,000 more votes in Ohio, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., would have won that state's electoral votes and the presidency, even though Bush bested him by more than 3 million ballots in the national popular vote.

This isn't a new occurrence. It happened in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected, again in 1876 (Rutherford Hayes) and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison). The Electoral College marginalizes voters of all political parties. The system allots each state electors equal to the number of representatives and the state's two senators and was designed so that one region could not entirely control the outcome. In all but two states - Maine and Nebraska - the presidential candidate winning the state's popular vote takes all of its electors.

The winner-take-all aspect of the college shrinks presidential elections to a just a few so-called battleground states. Worse, it appears to make some votes count for less than others and leads to voter apathy.

mad in CR wrote on Feb 20, 2008 8:23 AM:

" A better way to apportion the votes in WA state would be to give the winner of each Congressionaly district that elector's vote and the majority vote to the two senatorialy votes.

That would more fairly represent the votes of WA state.

Any real change in the Electoral College will make it so campaigns will be run through the main stream media with stops in New York, Chicago, L.A., and a few other major cities. There would be no need for any whistle stop campaign speeches.

We already have the problem here in WA state. If you live in Ferry County you almost never see a state wide candidate. Even here in Cowlitz County we rarely ever see state wide candidates campaigning.

I say, leave the Electoral College alone unless you change the winner take all and allow the Electors to vote who won in their Congressional district. "

Is everyone mad in Castle Rock? wrote on Feb 20, 2008 10:01 AM:

" If we are to elminate the electoral college we can go to straight direct election. The mad castle rock is just trying to steal some electoral votes from conservative eastern Washington or parts of California. TDN is right about one thing though and it is the same issue as Bush v Gore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not being observed with the electoral college. Changing to direct elections would take a constitutional amendment and do you really think Rhode Island, Delaware and Vermont would like to go to a direct election? I was reviewing the Bush v Gore decision online last evening and we will never have a democracy again until we start electing democrats so we can put real judges on the supreme court. The two that ratface appointed are just political hacks and they weren't even there when the court shredded the constitution in 2000. Remember this in November because Justice Stevens is 86 years old or something. "

I agree with mad in CR wrote on Feb 20, 2008 10:18 AM:

" TLDN is in need of an elementry U.S. history lesson, as it is still stuck on stupid! "

gatoraid wrote on Feb 20, 2008 11:40 AM:

" I was going to post here but "Mad in CR" stole my thunder. Before you criticize the Electoral College system, read your history and understand the sheer beauty of the Electoral College and how it protects us from the evils of a "Democracy" where the mob rules. What the Washington legislature needs to do is enact a similar system in our state so that we are not subservient to the masses in our three largest counties. "

Legislature lacks judgement wrote on Feb 20, 2008 11:55 AM:

" Another example of what kind of people are running this state. Either they are conspirators to overthrow the government or they are completely ignorant of the importance and intellect of the Electoral College. Sad, sad, sad. "

Hauskapoika wrote on Feb 20, 2008 1:19 PM:

" It might be a good idea for everyone to read a summary of what the Electoral
College really is before condemning or praising it.
htttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College. (Copy and paste to your address bar) Then, check a little further, and you will find the
electoral college concept goes back in time even before the USA was founded.
This is not to say that because the concept is old, that it is right or wrong. Just have a look, and think about it before you write about it. "

Flippycanaryious wrote on Feb 20, 2008 1:32 PM:

" I have real concerns about zealots who say we can never have democracy until we elect democrats who will place real judges on the Supreme Court. Zealots, from both parties want you to vote ONLY for candidates from their party - but that is wrong because it says, "vote for the party - not the issues or the
candidate's stance on the issues." Besides, if everyone voted for only one party, there would BE only one party - just like North Korea, Cuba, China, or other communist and dictatorship countries. Both parties are guilty of trying to legislate from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices should ONLY be chosen to interpret what the laws aay and mean - NOT to make or favor laws from the court, or to favor issues democrats or republicans favor. We have the 3 branches of government as a check and balance system, so we do not need a one-party system, nore do we need judges making laws from the courts. "

Gatoraid is just wrong wrote on Feb 20, 2008 2:12 PM:

" There is no brilliance to the electoral college. There is a two party system and the candidate has to pass through a nomination process. The founders never anticipated the parties and thought that most elections would end up in the house. Do you call that brilliance? I call it pretty damn cynical. As for your fear of democracy I think that opinion says a lot more about you than democracy. As for Flippycanaryious I just ask you to read the Bush v Gore decision and tell me they made a just ruling that was not just politics. I have no faith in the court anymore. History will prove me right. "

yep wrote on Feb 20, 2008 2:21 PM:

" The popular vote wins everything else, why not the same for the President? "

Electoral College Doesn't Work wrote on Feb 20, 2008 2:26 PM:

" RIght On TDN!!! The US Senate already gives states with small populations balance against larger states. Therefore, the Electoral College is redundant. Like it said in the editorial, the College doesn't work because it sidelines most states and usually gives Florida, Ohio and Missouri all the focus. Washington gets locked up as a "Blue State" and we sit on the sides. Also, with the Electoral College, there is no individual "Right To Vote" (Bush v. Gore 2000). It's up to the state legislatures to determine which manner to appoint electors. Our legislature should appoint electors to the winner of the national popular vote - Republican or Democrat. "

Nomanon wrote on Feb 20, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Flippycanaryious said that BOTH political parties are guilty of trying
to politicize the Supreme Court - there was no mention of whether Flippycanaryious thought Bush vs. Gore was fair or not. Flippycanaryious only said that the courts should not make laws or favor either party or party's positions. However, if you really want to see if the courts were favoring Bush or Gore, study the actual case, and I believe you will find a real surprise. Did the court REALLY favor George Bush? Was there a contradictory ruling and bias on the court by some justices that actually favored Al Gore? Read the whole case, it's history, the arguments, and the THREE rulings in the case. Then, read what the Miami Herald said what would have happened if the case had not gone to court, and George Bush had his way, and what would have happened if Al Gore had his way - ANOTHER SURPRISE. It isn't really fair, or ethical, to pick and choose our arguments to suit our political fancies. "

woah-woah-woah wrote on Feb 20, 2008 9:58 PM:

" Mad in CR, you just convinced me. End-running the electoral college would really cut down on whistle-stop speeches? That would be great! Where do I sign!? "

The court has to legislate from the bench. wrote on Feb 20, 2008 10:41 PM:

" The court didn't legislate from the bench on the Dred Scott decision and you got the civil war. The court didn't legislate from the bench on the Pressy v Ferguson and you get separate but equal. The constitution is a living document and it has had to change with the times. THAT MEANS LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. Looking back don't you wish the court would have legislated from the bench when it came to Japanese internment? I can think of ten more examples of issues where the U.S. should be ashamed of itself and the court dropped the ball. Some of you people have been watching too much Fox News because that's where you get the garbage about the Constitution is set in stone. Nomanon I read the cases last night and the court ordered the recounts to stop and said they couldn't restart them because there wasn't enough time. WHAT! AFTER YOU ORDERED THEM STOPPED? Pure politics, the case should have been decided by Florida Supreme Court anyway, elections are a state matter. It would have been too if the U.S. supreme court would have liked their decision. PURE POLITICS. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals