It’s Time to Junk the Electoral College
We don’t need an amendment to do it.
by Jonathan Soros
Jonathan Soros is the deputy chairman of Soros Fund Management and a supporter of the National Popular Vote.
Jonathan Tivadar Soros is the son of Annaliese Soros and billionaire financier George Soros
The Wall Street Journal
In his election-night victory speech, Barack Obama said he would be a president for all Americans, not just those who voted for him. But as a candidate he didn’t campaign with equal vigor for every vote. Instead, he and John McCain devoted more than 98% of their television ad spending and campaign events to just 15 states which together make up about a third of the U.S. population. Today, as the Electoral College votes are cast and counted state-by-state, we will be reminded why. It is the peculiar mechanics of that institution, designed for a different age, that leave us divided into red states, blue states and swing states. That needs to change.
The Electoral College was created in 1787 by a constitutional convention whose delegates were unconvinced that the election of the president could be entrusted to an unfiltered vote of the people, and were concerned about the division of power among the 13 states. It was antidemocratic by design.
Under the system, each state receives votes equal to the number of representatives it has in the House plus one for each of its senators. Less populated states are thus overrepresented. While this formula hasn’t changed, it no longer makes a difference for the majority of states. Wyoming, with its three electoral votes, has no more influence over the selection of the president or on the positions taken by candidates than it would with one vote.
We often forget that the power to appoint electors is given to state legislatures, and it is only because they choose to hold a vote that Election Day is at all relevant for us. Nowhere is a popular election constitutionally required. And, as the 2000 election reminded us, the winner of the popular vote is not guaranteed to become president.
The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president.
Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
Fortunately, a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Rather than dismantling the Electoral College with an amendment, we can use the mechanisms of the Electoral College itself to guarantee popular election of the president.
To understand how the proposal works, one needs to understand two basic principles. First, that state legislatures are basically unfettered in how they choose to appoint electors. And second, that groups of states can enter into binding agreements with one another in the form of so-called interstate compacts. There are many examples of such compacts, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the interstate agreement that guarantees a driver points on a Virginia driver license when he or she speeds in Maryland.
Under the proposed National Popular Vote compact, state legislatures would agree to choose electors who promise to support the winner of the nationwide popular vote. For example, if a Republican were to win the overall national popular vote, even if New Yorkers favored the Democrat, New York’s Electoral College votes would go to the Republican. The compact will go into force when states representing 271 Electoral College votes have entered into it to guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will become president.
It is ironic that the most common objection to the National Popular Vote compact is the suggestion that it is antifederalist. In fact, interstate compacts lie at the very core of federalism: individual states combining their powers to solve a problem. In this case, they would be joining forces to allow their citizens to act as one nation in the selection of their president.
The National Popular Vote compact has already been enacted by four trailblazing states — Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii — and has been introduced in 41 others. It’s time that the rest of them got on board.
Wild Thing’s comment……..
OMG!!!!!!!!
The Constitution is no longer in line with our expectations regarding the role of the people in selecting the president.
Yet several previous attempts to eliminate the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment have failed, scuttled by the difficulty of the process itself and the tyranny of small-state logic.
The libs hate it because they haven’t figured how to steal electoral votes yet.
If the Electoral College was abolished, the small States would become irrelevant in Presidential elections. Each ticket would solely focus on the States which it is sure to win. That would likely lead to secession movements in most, if not all, of those States. To abolish the Electoral College is to destroy the States’ role in all future Presidential elections.
I think ole commie Jonathan Soros son of communist George Soroso is a bit worried about all of these citizenship lawsuits.
The Electoral College is one of many, many safeguards against tyranny contained in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a target of the left.
Soros nice try. Our forefounders put that in place to keep the likes of you out of our government.
If you have time check this out about othe Democrats strong desire to get rid of the Electorial College ( article dated 2000)
Hillary Clinton vs. James Madison
Like Hawaii 50, Barrett 50. First off the states should withhold ceding electoral college votes until Obama produces proof of citizenship and the states prove Obama isn’t in the tank with the Chicago mafia. We know he was bought by the Communists and Soros was the mastermind and prime fundraiser.
What is Soros afraid of now?
His puppet is obviously in for an easy win, so why does he want to get rid of what is going to save his whipping boy?
But, if it were different, he’d want it to stay.
Yep, BO needs to produce that valid birth certificate. If everyone else had to, so does he.
No ifs, ands or buts about it. You wanted the job, now do what you’re supposed to.
I don’t need an asshole in the White House. We’ve had too many of those. We need a man and BO just isn’t. He ain’t got the balls to answer that 3 am phone call and figure out on the spot what he needs to do.
This whole charade is about avoiding another 2000, where Gore won the popular vote and Bush got the Electoral Vote and presumably get more democrats elected to Congress and the Presidency.
The Left is convinced Bush stole the 2000 election and wanted to get rid of it then, and of course this has been their mantra for a lot longer than that. Clinton never won a majority, thanks to Ross Perot Bush lost and clearly would have won had perot not run.
So by eliminating the Electoral College, the democrats can manipulate all the real ballots, like Minnisota and as they did in Ohio. This would ensure a democrat majority for years to come.
What they are aiming at is a huge Chicago like machine throughout the country where if a democrat runs he is almost assured of the win.
Mark, it’s interesting how the left keeps insisting Bush stole the 2000 election becasuse he didn’t win the popular vote. I wonder how come they never bring up the fact that JFK didn’t win the popular vote either. The popular vote went to Nixon in 1960.
Damn, I didn’t know George Soros had any offspring. Like father like son. Another wealthy commie.
In the next four years we are going to see a concerted attack on many parts of the US Constitution. The Constitution will be presented as outdated and irrelevant. Politicians wanting more power for government will push for a weakened Constitution. The MSM will strongly support these changes. Sadly, the same type of brain dead that voted for Obama will also be easily influenced to support this push toward socialism.
It is going to be a difficult battle to save the Constitution.
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 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 states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
What the U.S. Constitution says is “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.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, 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 winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be “mob rule” in presidential elections, but whether the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.
The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York’s use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming–both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
As of 2008, the National Popular Vote bill has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Evidence as to how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run can be found by examining the way presidential candidates currently campaign inside battleground states. Inside Ohio or Florida, the big cities do not receive all the attention. And, the cities of Ohio and Florida certainly do not control the outcome in those states. Because every vote is equal inside Ohio or Florida, presidential candidates avidly seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns. The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate in Ohio and Florida already knows–namely that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the state.
Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from national advertisers who seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. A national advertiser does not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because a competitor makes more sales in those particular states. Moreover, a national advertiser enjoying an edge over its competitors in Indiana or Illinois does not stop trying to make additional sales in those states. National advertisers go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located.
Hey mvy that would be just dandy, then obama and Acorn could manipulate the vote in all 57 states. And the democrat cheating would be on such a grand scale no one could tell the difference. Then the dead could vote in all the states, twice if possible. And if the democrat candidate was behind Acorn could then send out its minions, and vote a second and third time if necessary.
No thank you I like it just the way it is.
If the electoral college is outdated and illogical, so is The Senate. Why should Rhode Island have two Senators and California only two, when the population disparity is so large? For the same reason, to distribute power among cultures and local need, circumscribe the power of intemperate mobs and populations.
…and any argument to the contrary is BS. If you can explain away the electoral college in some specious way, then you need to also explain away bi-cameral legislatures with different periods of office and different compositions.
Barack Hussein Obama acts and gets away with the law not applying to him. So, what makes anyone think that at the end of four years that he will leave the White House? Obama, as Idi Amin Dada in Uganda, will just declare himself dictator for life and the Kool-Aid drinkers including the MSM will say, “Yea verily!”
Jack, I agree he is owned to the max by those people and he loves it too. I read his mom was a memeber of the CPUSA. I didn’t post it because I would need more facts, but it is possible.
Lynn, I guess it is not enough for Obama to win, Soros want so also destroy our Constitution too. sheesh
I agree with you Lynn, Obama is not what I would call a man.
Mark, I know your right and this really makes me sick.
“What they are aiming at is a huge Chicago like machine throughout the country where if a democrat runs he is almost assured of the win.”
BobF, I didn’t know that about Kennedy. That is interesting, so once again the left only complain if it suits them.
Tom, LOL same here I never even thought about Soros having kids or even being married.
hahahaha I only have thought of him as a THING. hahahha Not even a human being which he still isn’t.
mvymvy, good grief. No No No and No to all your comments.
mvymvy, you see this is why I seldom let you all from the left in here. You have nothing to say I need to hear or want to hear. Only different ways to mess with our awesome country and who the heck needs that.
But letting your comment (s) through sometimes that is my little way of saying I am for free speech. LOL Hope you enjoyed it mvymvy.
Mark, they sure love ACORN don’t they.
Rhod,…..”If the electoral college is outdated and illogical, so is The Senate”…..Exactly, and good to see you. 🙂
Les, I am really afraid of that. That once he gets in there he will not leave. He does not want to obey any of our rules now so it will be even worse as president.
Bush did not steal the 2000 election. The Goreons / Sorelosermen, failed to win Tennessee OR Arkansas (Gores and Clintons states). A Tennessee OR Arkansas win and Florida’s 25 electoral votes would not have mattered. On Dec. 16th, 2000, the Supremes awarded Florida to W so BUSH – CHENEY wound up with the following electoral vote score:
Bush – 271
Gore – 266