If the U.S. were to abolish the electoral college, then the restrictions that territories experience against voting in this election would disappear. Switching to this standard system would not likely create an adverse result. Every vote matters, commented Senator Elizabet Warren (D-Mass) in an early campaign stop in Mississippi in 2019, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.. However, in the five presidential elections of the 21st century, two ended up with the winner of the popular vote losing the Electoral College. Americas auto industry auto industry auto industry At least in part because its located mostly in swing states, like Michigan and Ohio, states whose electoral votes he needed to win. In August, a panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appealsruleddifferently in a case raising similar issues. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. A supporter of President-elect Joe Biden holds up his cellphone to display the electoral college map, outside the Philadelphia Convention Center on Nov. 7. It provides for separate votes for president and vice president and specified that those individuals must be from different states. Its possible the Supreme Court will ultimately decide who gets to decide how individual electors vote. But there is something called the National Popular Vote Compact. As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. See: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/21/can-the-electoral-college-be-subverted-by-faithless-electors/. The current structure limits Americans from pushing in this direction even though candidates tend to visit swing states more often. What are the positive arguments in favor of replacing the existing electoral system with a national popular vote? Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. In fact, lets tally up all the votes cast for president between 1932 and 2008. What I learned is it doesnt have to be this way. Is the way Americans choose the president undemocratic and unfair? Maine Department of Administrative and Financial Services, The Electoral College is a ticking time bomb, Its time to abolish the Electoral College, Two cheers for the Electoral College: Reasons not to abolish it, according to the Congressional Research Service, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/21/can-the-electoral-college-be-subverted-by-faithless-electors/, Policy lessonsand surprisesfrom the Reimagine Rural podcast, Justice Thomas, gift reporting rules, and what a Supreme Court code of conduct would and wouldnt accomplish, Why is federal spending so hard to cut? Spend some time moving states into the Biden and Trump circles and make notes about what you notice and wonder. But specifics vary. In his video, Mr. Wegman offers counterarguments to what he calls myths about the Electoral College. Because the Electoral College is based on the structure of state populations and representation in the House, some people have a vote that carries more weight per delegate than others. The chances of a recount would increase dramatically with election. The amendments Fully overhauling the way the president is selected would take a Constitutional amendment, which would require the votes of two-thirds of. In addition to the NPVIC discussed above, there are two variations on this theme that could reduce the odds that someone could win the presidency without winning the national popular vote. An example of a state closely split by congressional district is Florida in 2016, where Trump won in 14 of them and Clinton won in 13. When you know that one state will vote the same way in every election, there is no need to visit that place. Jacob Levy, of McGill University, disagreed with that argument. First, there's the Constitutional problem. There are millions of Republicans in deep-blue states, like Massachusetts and California. Abolishing the Electoral College seems to be the next logical step in that process. In this extraordinarily strange election year, debating the Electoral College might seem an odd pastime when so many other issues concern us. Today, 48 states use winner-take-all. The Electoral College is outlined in Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. But the reality is, right now neither the small states nor the big ones have the voice they should. The general threshold that an election result must reach to trigger an automatic recount is a difference of 0.5% of the vote or less. The Electoral College is not going to be changed, and there are far more urgent and promising topics for reform of our presidential selection system. That means if you live in a rural area, your vote may count more toward who gets to be the eventual president. That could have happened even though Biden won the popular vote by 7,060,087 (and counting)a margin even larger than the margins won by George W Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2012. But really, scholars say, consensus is constructed through thousands of small acts over generations. #Marianne2024 . Remember what we said back in Myth No. This means that every election, 80 percent of American voters, roughly 100 million people, get ignored. We survived. While people were moving to the coasts, especially California, the Electoral College stayed the same. The tribalism and mob rule, of which the Founders warned would be realized, and the voices of smaller states would become marginalized. There are over 300 million people currently residing in the United States, but only 538 people actually get to choose who gets to be the president. These states currently total 196 electoral votes, although after the 2020 census is completed, projections suggest a net loss of two seats, lowering that number to 194. The Electoral College consists of an elector selection, a group of people who will meet and vote for President and Vice President based on the results of their states election. Its also the only place where the District of Columbia functions as a state since the 23rd Amendment allocates 3 electors to it. It probably reduces the cost of presidential campaigns by confining television advertising to the battleground states (and spares the rest of us the tedium of endless repetitive ads). While politicians continue to put major focus on highly-populated urban cities of many states, such as Cleveland, Ohio, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Electoral College pushes candidates to address issues in states as a whole and not just in metropolitan regions. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. What do you think of Mr. Wegmans arguments? 3. Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center 2) The Electoral College ensures that different parts of the country, such as Iowa and Ohio, are involved in selecting the president, rather than just the most populated areas. Instead, theyre voting for their states representatives in the Electoral College, who will then vote for the president. Of the 700 attempts to fix or abolish the electoral college, this one nearly succeeded In 1969, Congress almost approved a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college,. And while Electoral College winning/popular vote losing presidents are formally and technically legitimate holders of the office, the perception that a broken system is anti-democratic and anti-majoritarian can have wide-reaching, penetrating, long-term consequences for the health of a democracy. For instance, in 1900 New York was the biggest state in the union with 7,268,894 people and the state with the median population, Louisiana, had 1,381,625 people. Here are the yea and the nay. And the reasons people think we need to keep the Electoral College the way it is, theyre all wrong. While there are two different means to amend the founding document, this country has always used the same route: a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by the ratification of 3/4ths of the states. Britannicas ProCon.org lists three reasons: 1) The founding fathers thought the Electoral College was the best method for electing the president.2) The Electoral College ensures that different parts of the country, such as Iowa and Ohio, are involved in selecting the president, rather than just the most populated areas.3) The Electoral College guarantees certainty, whereas a popular vote system might lead to no candidate getting a majority. Some of the most important framers, including James Madison and James Wilson, wanted to write a direct popular vote into the Constitution. After reading the article and watching the video, what questions do you have for Mr. Wegman? Save Our States, The Status of National Popular Vote, https://saveourstates.com/threats/the-status-of-npv (accessed April 17, 2020). TheNational Archives reportsthat over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College without any becoming law. The Constitution provides no express role for the states after appointment of its presidential electors, the 10th Circuit panel said, adding, Once appointed, (electors) are free to vote as they choose.. That probably promotes a more national and less regional vision. The two parties have chosen the same year in which to nominate a person whom large numbers of Americans, probably a majority, regard as unfit (though not for the same reason). In fact, there is already a movement brewing among states to agree to award their electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. It would only come into effect when it could guarantee that outcome. I wrote a whole book on the subject. In the history of the United States, there have been five elections where the eventual winner didnt receive a clear majority of the vote. And, as our colleague Bill Galston has written, the Electoral College continues to be a ticking time bomb. In the 2020 presidential election a shift of just 45,000 votes in three states, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona could have shattered Americans belief in the legitimacy of their political system by creating a tie in the Electoral College and sending the election to the House of Representatives. Even if all 25 of the states that Mr. Biden won in 2020 were to ratify such an amendment, nine additional states that President Trump won would need to ratify it as well. It can be fixed. When Americans are polled about the Electoral College, most of them say that they want it to disappear. The great problems with our presidential selection system today stem from the haphazard way we choose the two major party presidential candidates. List of the Pros of Abolishing the Electoral College 1. Recurring debt ceiling fights will only be solved by budget reform, Amend the Constitution so the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Four of the electors came from the state of Washington. It doesnt have to be this way. He disliked the practice so much he called for a constitutional amendment barring it. The only difference is that in this unique structure, the voice of the minority can actually shout down the desires of the majority. That is, the compact does not go into effect until there is a critical mass of states for it to be effective. It is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. This design promotes the two-party system. The winner-take-all method is nowhere in the Constitution. In the U.S., 65 percent of adults think whoever wins the popular vote should hold the nation's highest office, according to an Atlantic/PRRI poll last year. The framers of the Constitution set up the Electoral College for a number of different reasons. Its complicated, outdated, unrepresentative in a word, undemocratic. Here, again, there are three main points to make. And while the founding fathers implemented this voting process as a way to "preserve the sense of the people" in other words, to go against the popular vote's wishes if the elite few chosen to be electors felt that the winner was unqualified or unfit most states now abide by a "winner-takes-all" method of distributing votes that renders the original purpose moot. This spring, numerous candidates for president expressed support for either abolishing or changing the Electoral College, which ultimately picks the U.S. president. Gary Gregg, who leads the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, says that if today's system over-privileges rural states, a national popular vote would be just as unfair in the opposite direction. Then the 2020 census will be valid for the 2024 and 2028 elections. Almost no one would adopt an Electoral College today if we were starting from scratch. Does this interactive influence how you feel about the Electoral College? First, and most obviously, such a system would conform to the dominant democratic value that has prevailed in American politics ever since the one-person, one-vote reapportionment rulings of the early 1960s. So what would happen if we got rid of the Electoral College? Redirecting to https://m.startribune.com/one-clear-result-of-the-2020-election-at-last-let-s-abolish-the-electoral-college/. The winner of the Electoral College vote is usually the candidate who has won the popular vote. Another 15 legislatures with varying degrees of Republican control would also need to ratify such an amendment for the Electoral College to be removed. But its logic, its distortion of the democratic process and its underlying flaws will still strongly influence the conduct of the election. Its how we run every election in the country, except the most important one of all. George W. Bush won the Electoral College in 2000 even though he received 0.5% less of the popular vote against Al Gore. Residents of places like Puerto Rico and Guam would have their votes be counted in the final total, and these locations consistently vote for one party. Our 230-year-old jerry-built system for picking the president, known as the Electoral College. To this day, people are still arguing that Al Gore was the real winner and debating whether the recount in Florida was accurate the state whose electors propelled Bush to the top. And because they created it, its a sacred work of constitutional genius. In the history of the United States, there have been six presidential elections that would have qualified for this issue and three of them have occurred since 1968. And even when that doesn't happen, Wegman sees another problem with the . Fully overhauling the way the president is selected would take a Constitutional amendment, which would require the votes of two-thirds of the U.S. House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states. Given that a change would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures, it is not going to happen. Today about 1.3% of those employed in the United States work directly in agriculture, and they manage to feed the entire country and beyond. Why did President Obama spend so much money bailing out the auto industry? Most Americans, by a wide margin, believe the Electoral College should be abolished. But the Constitution and the courts have allowed the states some leeway to make changes to how their Electoral College representatives are chosen. But the court has not tackled to what extent states can enforce such a pledge. The founders fought like cats and dogs over how the president should be chosen. The reasons for the Electoral College may not be relevant any more. 6. Its just basic fairness. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery. The Constitution is silent on whether states or the electors themselves ultimately can decide which candidate gets the electors vote, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed that issue in the handful of cases it has considered related to the Electoral College. Would the federal government get into the business of administering the elections, or leave that up to state and local officials, as it does today? Even though proponents of the Electoral College want it to stay so that every state can have a specific say in the outcome of the election, the candidates are already starting to behave in the same ways that people fear they would when targeting a majority population groups. It's called the national popular vote movement, and it's already been passed into law in many states, totaling 196 electoral votesthe states include big ones like California and New York and small ones like Vermont and Hawaii. You may have heard this one in high school. [2] The compact would then be 43 Electoral College votes short of going into effect. Thats when the Founding Fathers crafted a compromise between those who argued for the election of the president by a vote of Congress and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Because Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, yet was the clear victor in the ultimately definitive electoral college, the strange, disproportionate nature of electoral. In 2016, the results were even more dramatic. This is clear in polling on the topic. If the remaining states with Democratic control of the legislature (Maine, Nevada, and Virginia) were to sign on, it would add an additional 23 Electoral College votes. But as people moved and the economy changed so did that ratio. There were two additional votes for Sanders that were invalidated in Minnesota and one for Kasich in Colorado. The way it gets implemented is the result of dozens of state laws, which evolved over time as the country settled into a two-party system. One of the ways that states are considering a way to go around the Electoral College is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In recent years, a new scheme has emerged that claims it can bypass the seemingly insurmountable impediment of a constitutional amendment process but have the same result of nullifying the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Compact (NPV). But reforming the Electoral College does not rank high among our national problems. But experts say reforming this practice isn't likely anytime soon for a number of reasons. Stanford University. On September 18, 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 338 to 70 to send a constitutional amendment to the Senate that would have dismantled the Electoral College,. It also means the road to any kind of reform is fraught with political potholes, particularly when the removal of such a system clearly benefits one party at the expense of another. This scenario is very different from what happened in 2000 when Gore and Bush were separated by less than 1 percent of the popular vote. That means the major party that can maintain its base could win elections without a clear majority. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public. It channels presidential politics into a two-party system, which is superior to multiparty systems where fringe factions can exercise too much leverage. But if youre a voter in the United States, theres a really good chance your vote doesnt count the way you think it does. First, there's the Constitutional problem. In part, that is because theElectoral Collegeis constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. Only Rutherford Hayes, with a 3% difference, won the electoral college despite being in the minority. As a result, Republicans and Republican state governments are incentivized to maintain the current system. It creates 50 individual contests. It is no secret that the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all suffered, from the outset, from efforts to imply that there was something improper and unworthy or even suspicious in their elections. Having this structure go away would encourage more third-party development. Changing or eliminating the Electoral College can be accomplished only by an amendment to the Constitution, which requires the. Popular vote is a direct vote. Still, there would be some major changes to our elections if we abolished the Electoral College. The following table shows how this would have changed the outcome in the two contested elections of the 21st century and includes 2004 for comparison. They do not matter because they have any special civic characteristics. The places where there are more people become the top priority, especially if there is a chance to swing some votes. But swing states distort our national priorities, even when the president wins the popular vote. Reagan would almost make a clean sweep in 1984 as well, taking 525 of 538 electoral votes and only losing Minnesota and DC. Do you agree with Mr. Wegman that we should change how the Electoral College works to ensure that the popular vote chooses the president? As we all know only too well, in practice this archaic system means that the person who wins the most votes may not win the election. But heres the important part. In part, that is because the Electoral College is constitutionally mandated, and abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment. In his recent Op-Ed The Electoral College Will Destroy America, Mr. Wegman provides further evidence to support his claim that the Electoral College is unfair: The Electoral College as it functions today is the most glaring reminder of many that our democracy is not fair, not equal and not representative. Seventy percent of Americans between the ages of 18-29 said that the president should be chosen through a popular vote model, while just 56 percent of those over the age of 65 agreed. Trump made a similar argument earlier this week, warning that "smaller states & then entire Midwest would end up losing all power.". Enslaved people couldnt vote, but they were still counted toward the slave states representation in Congress. In this video excerpt from our Oct. 22 panel, Mr. Wegman argues that states should join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a plan to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia wins the presidency. Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992 with only 43% of the vote, and then in 1996 with 49.2%. But it's possible the candidate with the most votes from the public won't be the winner. It also prevents candidates from going into states where the electorate typically votes for the other party. The Constitution originally stipulated that the top vote-getter chosen by these electors would become president and the individual with the second-most votes would be vice president. The compact requires states to pass laws that would award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. When enough states join in this interstate compact, itll mean that the popular-vote winner will always become president. Paul Krugman, my Opinion colleague, wrote Thursday that "the idea that the economy is going to pose a huge problem for Democrats next year isn't backed by the available data.". Beto O'Rourke Announces His Run For President In 2020, Moderate Democrats Under Pressure As Party's Left Grabs Attention. Younger voters also tended to support abolishing the Electoral College. There are also circumstances where a majority of electors might not be available, which would throw the results of the election into the House of Representatives. It is within a states authority under Article II, Section 1 to impose a fine on electors for failing to uphold their pledge, the court said in an 8-1 opinion. The only states that matter to either party are the battleground states especially bigger ones like Florida and Pennsylvania, where a swing of a few thousand or even a few hundred votes can shift the entire pot of electors from one candidate to the other. Theyre swing states. So if the results of most presidential elections tend to reflect the choice of the people, why do we still have the Electoral College? Including prescription drug benefits and all seniors at every income level. But they spend almost no time talking about issues that matter to millions of voters elsewhere, like public transportation in New York or climate change in California. Gronke asks. Do you think any of these arguments, or others, are convincing reasons for preserving the Electoral College as it stands now? 326 Galvez Street https://saveourstates.com/threats/the-status-of-npv, https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular-0. However, it is possible to win the presidency without winning the popular vote. And yet we have generally accepted it for centuries on the assumption it serves an important purpose. As Americans look at their election processes, a complete review of the pros and cons of abolishing the Electoral College is useful when taking this unique structure into account. Source: Daily Kos Elections. Based on your understanding, do you believe the Electoral College is democratic? To understand why, lets start from the point we make above: the Electoral College system currently benefits Republicans, as two Republican presidents in the last 20 years have been elected despite losing the popular vote and that nearly happened a third time this year. 2. This ensures that smaller rural and industrial communities will have their issues addressed by those seeking office. Researchby the National Association of Secretaries of State shows that 29 states and the District of Columbia require presidential electors, chosen through political party processes in each state, to cast their vote for the candidate they were selected by popular vote in that state to represent. "And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.". There are currently 538 electors up for grabs in an election, which means a majority of 270 is necessary to elect the President. In each case, the number of faithless electors who exercised that behavior would not have had a meaningful impact on the outcome. *** For the purposes here, all electoral votes in a given state were awarded to the proper winner, thus attributing faithless electors to the proper candidate. This issue exists in the Electoral College when the rural states face off with the urban ones. Democracy is, at its core, about fair, equal representation one person, one vote. But the Electoral College is worse than merely useless. The three-fifths clause became irrelevant with the end of slavery (thankfully! It gives each state in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct electors equal to its representation in Congress. 260, February 19, 2020, p. 9, https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular-0. Lauren Wesley Wilson Is Making WHCD Weekend More Inclusive, Dylan Mulvaney Wanted To Be An Actor, Not An Activist, Olivia Munn & John Mulaney's Meet Cute 8 Years Ago At A Wedding Is Relatable, 10 Times Tom From 'Succession' Was Actually Mr. Darcy, Get Even More From Bustle Sign Up For The Newsletter. The politicians are tapping into what's become a popular position with many voters, especially Democrats. Warren says she wants to get rid of the Electoral College, and vote for president using a national popular vote. For almost the first half century of the republic, presidential candidates were chosen by the caucuses of the two parties in the House and the Senate. Support for direct popular election. Hillary Clinton won. A party system was instituted really to fulfill that old function of the Electoral College's, which is to narrow people down and get responsible people to be candidates for the presidency. This process stopped the process that was used in England to select a Prime Minister. Third, a national election might provide a cure for the delegitimation of presidential authority that has afflicted the last three presidencies. That fall, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon defeated . The main problem with the Electoral College today is not, as both its supporters and detractors believe, the disproportionate power it gives smaller states. Could Washington administer a national recount in the event of a close result? Hamilton believed that it would prevent the Office of the President from falling into the lot of a person who was not endowed with the requisite qualifications to serve the American people. It would stop the requirement to redistribute the electoral votes. Not one was a first-rank president, but their selection did not seriously injure the democratic character of our system. And so each Electoral College vote in a small state like Delaware or Wyoming is worth more than an Electoral College vote in a big state like California. In 2000 Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote against Governor George W. Bush by 543,895. Presidential elections have little if anything to do with the subject, even when some candidates claim to be running against Washington..
Yakutat Lodge Fishing Report,
Dr Coco March 21 Day Detox,
Articles W
