Richard Winger proposes a constitutional amendment abolishing Electoral College - and so does Howard Dean
Meanwhile, Time Magazine hits the stands shortly, apparently with an interview in which Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean calls for abolishing the Electoral College. See this report, in which Dean is quoted "It's unrepresentative of where the American people are."
I should note that I strongly believe both major parties have every ability to win a national popular vote -- indeed the Republican track record is quite good in the last 40 years, including their big landslide wins in 1972 and 1984 that outstripped any Democratic vote in the national popular vote. Direct election is a voter-centered reform -- one that gives every voter an equal say, which sure makes sense to me in a representative democracy.
########### FROM RICHARD WINGER:
Since this list has journalists and people who have contact with the national major party campaigns, I hope to propagate the idea that Senator McCain and Democratic members of Congress ought to work together to propose a constitutional amendment that would rework Article Two, Section One.
The proposed amendment should delete the provision that U.S. citizens who are not "natural born" cannot be president. This should be attractive to Republicans, since it would free up John McCain to choose Arnold Schwarzenegger for vice-president, should he wish to do this. It would also remove the nagging ambiguity about McCain's place of birth.
The proposed amendment should also provide for a direct popular vote for president. I would be in fear of the country's stability if we were to have another presidential election this year in which the person who places 2nd in the popular vote should get the most electoral votes. A tie in the electoral college is also a possibility.
Congress could pass such an amendment in the next few months, if leadership of both parties wanted it. State legislatures that are not meeting could be called into special session, to consider ratifying the amendment.
The amendment could provide for a run-off if no one receives a majority of the popular vote. The amendment should be worded to allow for flexibility as to the details, and should not necessarily exclude the possibility of using IRV. The amendment should provide that Congress has the authority to write detailed election rules for the general election for president.
Even if this proposed amendment can't be implemented in time for the 2008 election, at least if we do suffer the misery of another election like 2000, the hope that it would never happen again would do much to dampen the destabilizing effect.
The Republican Party needs to decide whether it believes that it is has an inherent advantage in today's electoral college system, and whether it would rather cling to that tactical advantage or come out in favor of "one person, one vote." Huffington Post has again written about the possibility that the 2008 election will result in Obama getting more popular votes but McCain getting a majority, or a tie, in the electoral college.
Comment on Richard Winger proposes a constitutional amendment abolishing Electoral College - and so does Howard Dean
Current Discussion
-
Posted by Rob Richie, 06/01/2008 (2 years ago)
-
By the way, we aren't a representative democracy. We are a democratic republic. Howard Dean is wrong on everything else that he gets his hands on; its not surprising that he would support something as foolish as a nation-wide popular vote for President and Vice-President.
Posted by Mike Mills, 05/30/2008 (2 years ago) -
The Electoral College should be strenghtened. I propose that , here in Louisiana, the ballot law be changed to elect elctors independtly from thier respective parties. The popular vote is a dangerous deviation from our tradition of wise deliberation and thoughtful choice. We should be identifying and then electing our best and brightest people to, in turn, elcet our President and Vice-President. I don't want a popular vote when I consider the moral condition of our current population, their intoxication by pop culture and the possible illegal immigrant mix into the voting population. The arguments against the popular vote are far more valid today then they were 230 years. I'll debate this against any and all who are willing to test me on this. Right now, 'm starting a move to amend the Louisiana constituation to disassociate elecotrs from commitment to particular party candidates. Instead , a series of caucuses and primaries would be used to elect potential electors. Several may be required, and it would be heated, but the best, brightest and most cosmopolitan people would be elected. They may publically annouce thier association, but their selection and adoption directly by the political parties on the ballot would be prohibited. I honestly can't think of why anybody would support a move to a popular vote. I don't want what's popular, I want what's right. Who would the Popular vote be voting for anyway?? Only the major party candidates?? Why?? Don't we have little enough choice already? Do we really know enough about all the potential candidates to make a rational decision?? You guys keep thinking in terms of the major and few minor parties.... Let's expand beyond that; an independent Electoral College would allow popular vote on the state level, as it does now. but the elction should be put in the hands of our best people, who have the experience and fortitude to be independent and withstand political pressur efrom the parties, while being guided by the good ideas that come from both.
Posted by Mike Mills, 05/30/2008 (2 years ago) -
I'm sticking around -- our country has a rather long history of people working to make it better. Our framers also wanted states to establish electoral college rules that were in the best interest of their state and the nation. That's why I suspect they would embrace the current Electoral College reform proposal the National Popular Vote plan. Certainly the current system makes most states "throwaways," as David Broder calls the two-thirds of states that the presidential candidates will ignore in a general election under the current rules. Note that Republicans can be elected statewide in Michigan in a popular vote even while losing Detroit. Ronald Reagan could win close to 60% of the popular vote in 1984 without winning the big cities. One-person, one-vote is a system I am happy to stake my reform hat on...
Posted by Rob Richie, 05/23/2008 (2 years ago) -
One Person, One Vote, doesn't seem to be here in Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean wants to right the rules as the election goes along, or should I say what ever may benefit the Party as it goes along. Our framers did not want the minorities to be silenced or large populations like New York or Los Angeles to come along to decide an election. We are 50 unique states, and should alway's keep and protect state rights. If you don't like something, move. This country offers the freedom to leave anytime you want as well.
Posted by Jeff, 05/23/2008 (2 years ago)
Mike, Thanks for your comments. I think a democratic republic means having a representative democracy. We certain use popular vote elections for every other office of import in the United States. Note that our founders established a requirement that every single Member of the U.S. House must be popularly elected -- even for vacancies. They also saw teh House as a particularly important part of the government -- the entity to declare war, initiate appropriations and initiate impeachment, for example. Note that having better elections for president has no bearing on separation of powers and federalism.