Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

analysis

Book Tour Shows Palin
Hitting a Nerve

'Going Rogue' phenomenon may foreshadow something bigger

Nov 22, 09 2:46 PM CST
Matt Taibbi

Palin: Our First WWE Politician

Pick an asshole, any asshole, and she'll rock the house

Nov 22, 09 10:44 AM CST
editorial

NYT to Blankfein:
Your 'Apology'
Is Bull

Editorial board schools Goldman CEO in true meaning of 'sorry'

Nov 22, 09 4:53 PM CST
the big plan

Beck Will Host Conventions
to Educate America

He's shifting toward political organizer, plans big DC rally

Nov 21, 09 5:06 PM CST
TALK SHOW ROUNDUP

McConnell:
Dems Proceed
at 2010 Peril

Senators hit the Sunday talk shows after health vote

Nov 22, 09 11:15 AM CST
Eyes on 2010

Lincoln
Swings to
Center of
Health Debate

Dems come calling as GOP eyes her seat in 2010

Nov 22, 09 1:03 PM CST
Palin Pulls in Big Bucks
—for Democrats

'Going Rogue' boosts Dem fundraising to new high

Nov 21, 09 6:50 AM CST
who let the paranoids out?

46 Years After Kennedy, the Virus of Hate Is Back

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert panders to dangerous paranoids

Nov 21, 09 9:08 AM CST
Debt-Happy US Faces Payback Time as Rates Rise

Cost of debt to skyrocket $500B in next 10 years

5 hours, 19 minutes ago
NO COMMUNION FOR YOU, MY SON

RI Bishop Disses
Kennedy Over
Pro-Choice
Stance

Spat over Patrick's position on abortion escalates

Nov 22, 09 8:23 AM CST
First State Dinner to
Reveal Obama A-Listers

Mad scramble for invitations

11 hours, 6 minutes ago
Jim DeMint Becomes Hill's Top Tea Partier

South Carolina senator throws weight behind conservative insurgents

5 hours, 1 minute ago
Billboard Links Obama to Jihad

Colo. car dealership wants this opinion heard

Nov 20, 09 8:42 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

OPINION

Sneak Attack on Electoral College Gains Ground

By Harry Kimball| Posted Jul 17, 09 1:42 PM CDT|

(Newser) – Opponents of the Electoral College are making progress on an end run around the institution with the goal of setting up a system that would decide the presidential election solely on the popular vote, Tara Ross writes for the Weekly Standard. “Formally eliminating the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment would be unhealthy for the country,” Ross writes. But the National Popular Vote campaign's “efforts to skirt the constitutional amendment process is even worse.” And it could be halfway to its goal.

The NPV has gained the support of legislatures in states representing 43% of the 270-vote Electoral College majority needed to elect the president. Though gubernatorial vetoes knock that number down to 23%, the Constitution appears to reserve the right of awarding votes to legislatures. If NPV succeeds, the states would abide by a compact that “does not so much as designate a threshold that must be attained for a winning plurality,” Ross writes. “A presidential candidate could win with only 15 percent of votes nationwide.”

[Images (3)]

[Quotes (1)]

Indiana elector Owen Morgan of South Bend hands in his ballot as the Indiana members of the Electoral College gathered to cast their votes at the Statehouse. (AP Photo)

Pages carry a box of the Electoral College votes to the House Chamber to be certified. (AP Photo)

Graphic shows states won in the presidential race with the final electoral college vote count. (AP Photo)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Devastating ramifications would follow any elimination of the Electoral College, but NPV's attempt to do so by skirting the constitutional amendment process creates unique logistical difficulties. - Tara Ross

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.23.09

Books Are Bad for You

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

34 comments

VIEWING:

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Jul 17, 09 2:20 PM CDT

If Ck does not like it, it's probably a good idea. I've been for this for a while now.

IN RESPONSE:

calkino
Jul 17, 09 2:30 PM CDT

How can you be a liberal AND a fascist? "Liberal" is presumably left, "fascism" is decidely right.

+10

IN RESPONSE:

Reader64481089
Jul 17, 09 2:54 PM CDT

@ Fondue, exatly the correct choice. If she says turn left you have two choices, keep going straight or take a sharp right. @ Calkine, a thousand times CK has had numerous people attempt to educate the unenlightened but the light may be on but nobody is home for class. and last but not least @ godawgs, it truly does seem the logical choice to honestly give each person a voice, no matter what a vote would count for something and not be discarded upon the whim of someone who didn't eat the proper cereal or whatever lame excuse that might pop up.

IN RESPONSE:

DanB
Jul 18, 09 10:32 AM CDT

Corona_king tells me he is a BUTT, as in cigar butt! He also speaks from his butt. This guy is truly a Sick, sore loser. OK now, you wasted cigar butt, STFU.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

PaleRider
Jul 18, 09 1:38 PM CDT

@calkino, Look the term up in Websters, there is no political party attached to the word, but the definition is most undoubtedly more of a Liberal Philosophy in this country than a Conservative one without any doubt.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

GreekChorus
Jul 18, 09 9:23 PM CDT

@calkino: Benito Mussolini (who one might expect to have understood fascism) wrote: "If classical liberalism spells individualism, fascism spells government." Now "classical liberalism" is generally equivalent to modern (American) libertarianism, not what is commonly referred to as "the left" today. Given that those who currently identify as "liberals" in the US today are very much for government solutions to most domestic problems, it is consistent with Mussolini's definition of fascism.

| 0 minutes ago

godawgs
Jul 17, 09 2:04 PM CDT

We should get rid of the electoral college and go with a straight popular vote. I hope that this thing passes, so then you know that it is the voice of people who elect our leaders for good or bad. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

ksu92
Jul 17, 09 3:05 PM CDT

Bad Idea. Big states with big populations would always pick the winner. And given the near monolithic population of inbread, neocon bible thumpers that make up Texas, we would end up with an endless string of right-wing dictators just like CheneyBush. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Jul 17, 09 3:54 PM CDT

Right now a small state like Alaska has about 3x the power per vote than a large state like California. The EC already warps influence.

IN RESPONSE:

tran_tor
Jul 17, 09 4:34 PM CDT

True , perhaps, that Alaska's voters have a little more weight, but they also are affected by votes from people in Florida, who could vote for federal laws that are great for them, but bad for Alaska. I think the founding fathers were right to balance rights between states and population. This is reflected in the House and Senate too. Is that so bad?

IN RESPONSE:

riffran
Jul 18, 09 4:15 AM CDT

look up population by state...Cali a decidedly liberal state..(and look at the mess it is in ) has the top billing.....and as for inbred....your family tree does not fork

| 0 minutes ago

donnz
Jul 17, 09 3:11 PM CDT

Instinctively I dislike The Representative Republic ( having someone vote for me / but doesn't have to ) Opposed to a paper ballot of one registered vote per each registered voter. (ie) Albany / instead of putting the issues on the ballot, & letting the citizens decise who shoulld or should NOT get raises. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Mad
Jul 17, 09 3:13 PM CDT

Still don't quite understand that over 1/2 million more Americans voted for Gore, yet Bush won. I took Civics, I know HOW it happened, just don't understand WHY. The EC became obsolete with the coming of electricity and especially now with the computer Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Omaha_Intelligencia
Jul 17, 09 3:56 PM CDT

As I already addressed CK's "Liberal Fascism" idea, I'll avoid that here. I will say that the EC serves a definitive purpose of screening the elective process from mass hysteria, eg electing an unqualified candidate, say a celebrity, who will ruin the country, much like Arnold Schwarzenegger did to California, where he was elected by....you guessed it popular vote! Reply

IN RESPONSE:

NewserScooter
Jul 18, 09 1:01 AM CDT

OR Franken?

IN RESPONSE:

Nwambe
Jul 18, 09 2:09 PM CDT

In fairness, in Canada we do not have an Electoral College, and we have, as you put it, avoided the 'mass hysteria' of 'electing an unqualified candidate'. We've split our country by district. Voters from each district votes for a representative from a political party, and the most votes wins a district. The leader of the party with the most representatives wins the right to lead the country. Quite simple, and the elections are over within three months.

| 0 minutes ago

YoungsterSGV
Jul 17, 09 5:33 PM CDT

OK GODAWGS IS DEFIANTLY AGENT OF THE CIA POLLY CO-INTEL HIS DEMOCRACY (MOB RULE) constitution amendment bullsh*t when benjamin franklin was by a woman outside the constitution convention "sir what have you given us?" Benjamin Franklin replied A REPUBLIC mam' IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. the founding fathers did everything in there power to keep us from a democracy. Its not about a popular vote but the rule of LAW! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

chas_m
Jul 17, 09 6:14 PM CDT

Corona_drinker: The story doesn't mention it, but this measure is more strongly supported by Repubs than Dems. I'm no fan of the outdated (and was never one of the founders' best ideas) Electoral College, but a system that would give as little as 15% of the popular vote the presidency is insane. As it is right now, you only need 50% of those who actually vote (or about 25% of the general adult population) to win, reducing that any further would guarantee us a endless string of extremist presidents like the last one. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:13 PM CDT

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. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. 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. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:16 PM CDT

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, everywhere, 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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded. Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:17 PM CDT

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%. see www.NationalPopularVote.com Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:19 PM CDT

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com Reply

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:19 PM CDT

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors. Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states. In 1789, 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). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. In other words, 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, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in 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 abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it. What the current 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." Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:20 PM CDT

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. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. 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. Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:20 PM CDT

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes. Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red" states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states: * Texas (62% Republican), * New York (59% Democratic), * Georgia (58% Republican), * North Carolina (56% Republican), * Illinois (55% Democratic), * California (55% Democratic), and * New Jersey (53% Democratic). In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states: * Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican * New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic * Georgia -- 544,634 Republican * North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican * Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic * California -- 1,023,560 Democratic * New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004. Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:21 PM CDT

Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than a plurality of the popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes. Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement. Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

mvymvy
Jul 17, 09 7:22 PM CDT

After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States. Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved. Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Silverbow7
Jul 18, 09 5:35 PM CDT

Thanks for the facts. It's hard to make good choices if all you have are your emotional responses to guide you.

| 0 minutes ago

TerrifiedCitizen
Jul 17, 09 8:22 PM CDT

The electoral college tradition seemed okay until a very popular and heavily scrutinized campaign got newbies introduced to the convoluted way in which we elect presidents. When the idea sunk in that an unpopular candidate, in theory, could still be elected, it seemed absolutely incredulous to many who understood it for the first time. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Fondue
Jul 17, 09 8:36 PM CDT

So, after reading the actual article I see what the problem is with the NPV plan. As mentioned in the newser summary “A presidential candidate could win with only 15 percent of votes nationwide.”, however the article says more specifically "NPV's compact gives the presidency to the winner of the "largest national popular vote total." Note that it says the "largest" total, not a majority." I like doing away with the EC, but this is not a plan I could support at all. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

metalworldorder
Jul 18, 09 9:32 AM CDT

This may be a stretch, but if you got rid of the electoral college, then the argument could be made that you only need the house of representatives. If that's the case, then forget Wyoming, Rhode Island, Vermont and some of the more western states because their populations don't even fit in one city of California. I think the EC can be a little goofy, what with choosing electors, then they vote--and as someone said before, people pretty much just campaign in battleground states and certain districts to carry the votes--but it's not that bad of a system. It's a little odd, but this is still the land of the free and the founding fathers did a pretty good just of trying to keep representation equal. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

metalworldorder
Jul 18, 09 9:34 AM CDT

Meant to say "pretty good job." I gotta check for typos more often...

IN RESPONSE:

SPH
Jul 18, 09 12:25 PM CDT

You are correct.......

| 0 minutes ago

PaleRider
Jul 18, 09 1:46 PM CDT

If you eliminated the EC, but then put into place safeguards that made sure that organizations such as ACORN could not register the "Dallas Cowboys" to vote in Nevada along with thousands of dead people, the idea would look slightly more appealing. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 34 comments »

electoral college • US Constitution • state legislature • governor • presidential election • National Popular Vote

from our news partners

Jessica Simpson Calls Perez Hilton 'Sad'
(3 hours, 18 minutes ago)
Today's Best Celebrity Twitters for 11/23
(3 hours, 19 minutes ago)
Robin Thicke Has Baby Names All Picked Out
(4 hours, 27 minutes ago)
Sexual Hijinks Abound in Adam Lambert AMAs Performance
(4 hours, 43 minutes ago)

Doctors say rarely-performed "hemicorporectomy" procedure can add years to life...
(16 minutes ago)
Musicians on the road: the insanity, the groupies, the parmesan-crusted...
(48 minutes ago)
Citing huge demand and turnout, NYC health authorities happily confirm...
(1 hour, 6 minutes ago)
Half of drivers age 18-34 admit texting on the road;...
(1 hour, 33 minutes ago)

Trailer: JCVD In Universal Soldier: Regeneration
(1 hour, 25 minutes ago)
Video: James Cameron And His Ego Visit 60 Minutes
(2 hours, 2 minutes ago)
Zemeckis Auditioning John Lennons For His Yellow Submarine Movie
(2 hours, 31 minutes ago)
Clark and Ellen Griswold To Return In Super Bowl Ad
(3 hours, 1 minute ago)

Associated Press

Ukrainian opposition head's lead shrinks
(Nov 12, 09 8:44 AM CST)
Date set for Croatian presidential election
(Oct 30, 09 10:38 AM CDT)
Taliban violence threatens presidential election
(Oct 29, 09 8:34 PM CDT)
Michigan school board urges governor, state Legislature to reduce cuts to education
(Oct 27, 09 9:29 AM CDT)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »