Homestead mailing list

[Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>]

Under the Electoral College system of appointing Presidents.  Even when 
Electoral Colleges votes coincide with the popular vote, millions of 
Americans are disenfranchised by a winner (or loser) take all system.  
Election results and control of government should reflect the proportion 
of the popular vote received----even by that professional loser, Nader.



                
        


   Abolish the Electoral College


Published: August 29, 2004

        
        ARTICLE TOOLS

Email This Article 
<http://ea.nytimes.com/cgi-bin/email?REFURI=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html&position=> 
	E-Mail This Article 
<http://ea.nytimes.com/cgi-bin/email?REFURI=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html&position=> 

Printer Friendly Format 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=> 
	Printer-Friendly Format 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=> 

Most E-mailed Articles <http://www.nytimes.com/gst/pop_top.html> 	Most 
E-Mailed Articles <http://www.nytimes.com/gst/pop_top.html>

        


        

Making Votes Count 
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/making-votes-count.html?pagewanted=all>


READERS' OPINIONS

. 	Forum: Join a Discussion on Today's Editorials 
<http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/editorialsoped/todayseditorials/index.html>

        


        TIMES NEWS TRACKER
        
        
 Topics         
Alerts  

	Elections 
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=des&v1=ELECTIONS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ELECTIONS&rt=1%2Cdes%2Corg%2Cper%2Cgeo> 
	


        
                
	Presidential Elections (US) 
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=des&v1=PRESIDENTIAL+ELECTIONS+%28US%29&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=PRESIDENTIAL+ELECTIONS+%28US%29&rt=1%2Cdes%2Corg%2Cper%2Cgeo> 
	


        
                
	Electoral College 
<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=org&v1=ELECTORAL+COLLEGE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ELECTORAL+COLLEGE&rt=1%2Cdes%2Corg%2Cper%2Cgeo> 
	


        



When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this 
week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George 
Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. 
Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its 
electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New 
York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes 
Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also 
makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than 
crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is 
equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry 
beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still 
walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when 
George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al 
Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first 
time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the 
voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which 
thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and 
has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should 
be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every 
election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the 
Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular 
vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look 
upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral 
College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets 
three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - 
means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two 
electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are 
reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other 
consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the 
Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states 
take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their 
attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are 
hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at 
Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, 
than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 
million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are 
concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to 
the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come 
up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as 
Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for 
a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.

Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules 
governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if 
things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates 
they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, 
a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of 
electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - 
one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the 
District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. 
There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could 
occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of 
Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for 
Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role 
in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of 
small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to 
support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are 
already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than 
looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than 
making every vote count.

/Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at 
nytimes.com/makingvotescount <http://nytimes.com/makingvotescount>./