How do you kill the Electoral College?

[Dan Reilly The Great]

I know there was a similarly themed thread about a month and a half ago, but it merely dealt with arguments for or against the EC, my purpose is to ask how would the Electoral College be abolished in the United States? I know it's harder said than done since there have been several instances where the EC proved to be undemocratic or impractical and nobody got rid of it, but there has to a be a way somewhere along the line in which the electoral college could have been abolished.

A lot of people say that it is important to the smooth running of the election, and that the founding fathers wanted it that way, but so what? The founding fathers supported slavery and limited elections to rich white landowning men, or do you think we should reinstitute those practices in order to keep with tradition? Anyways I digress, is there a way for a POD to happen at some point to allow for the passage of a constitutional amendment which abolishes the electoral college and replace it with a more simplified democratic and practical system.

 

[xchen08]

A lot of people say that it is important to the smooth running of the election, and that the founding fathers wanted it that way, but so what? The founding fathers supported slavery and limited elections to rich white landowning men, or do you think we should reinstitute those practices in order to keep with tradition?

Umm, almost none of the founding fathers, certainly none of the major ones supported slavery. Some may have been hypocrites for opposing slavery while not freeing their own slaves in their own lifetimes, but there were no Calhouns or Alexander Stephens among the Founding Fathers. Further, they did not limit elections to rich white landowning men. The Constitution did not set limits on the vote. That was all done by the states. Not all the states had property or race qualifications that would rules out most men. There was nothing stopping a state in 1790 from giving the vote to everyone over 18.

Now that we've gotten your misconceptions out of the way, the how is simple: constitutional amendment. There is that odd law making its way through the states that would effectively eliminate the EC by the states agreeing to vote their votes for the winner of the popular election, but the law is of questionable constitutionality, and would likely be struck down once it has enough states to take effect. As for a POD, the best bet is either in the Progressive era where there were some serious efforts at rationalizing the government, or in the wake of one of the failures of the EC.

 

[MNP]

National Popular Vote Compact

Frankly I hate this, I think it would hurt Democrats, but if anything is going to kill the EC it's going to be this way: making it irrelevant. This is much likelier than an amendment.

Note: I don't think an election by popular vote would hurt Democrats, I think this particular method of neutering the EC will.

 

[Atreus]

In 1969, Birch Bayh and Emmanuel Celler attempted to ammend the electoral process for a system where the president and vice-president would be the candidates with the highest percent of the national vote, as long as that exceeded 40%. If that failed, the two highest vote-getting tickets would compete in a runoff election.

The bill seems to have had a fair bit of support, with about 30 (of 38 required) legislatures in favor and ratification in the house, but the bill was killed by a southern fillibuster and Nixon's ambivelence. This is probably your best opportunity to get the requisite changes in the 20th century.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I know it's harder said than done since there have been several instances where the EC proved to be undemocratic or impractical and nobody got rid of it, but there has to a be a way somewhere along the line in which the electoral college could have been abolished.

Several instances? Its always worked as well as it should and does.

One can modify how the electorates are proportioned so there are no 'winner take all' states, but the Electoral College works!

 

[Berra]

By a bomb. It's just so many of them, it would be hard to shoot them all.

Would be a interesting pod btw.

 

[lothaw]

National Popular Vote Compact

Frankly I hate this, I think it would hurt Democrats, but if anything is going to kill the EC it's going to be this way: making it irrelevant. This is much likelier than an amendment.

Note: I don't think an election by popular vote would hurt Democrats, I think this particular method of neutering the EC will.

Woah, I'd never seen that before. First thing that went through my mind was, that's a scary way to give 51% of the electorate complete control of the Presidency.

 

[Christopher Marlowe]

easy
all it needs is Al Gore being more popular with the people, or having a more competent man in his place
public outcry to his winning the popular vte but losing the presidency causes the end of the electoral college

 

[xchen08]

Woah, I'd never seen that before. First thing that went through my mind was, that's a scary way to give 51% of the electorate complete control of the Presidency.

It's almost certainly unconstitutional and will be struck down if it ever takes effect. The only real way to get rid of the Electoral College is through constitutional amendment, though you can effectively eliminate the Electoral College's odder distortions if all the states start distributing their votes based on the proportion of votes won in that state.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

easy
all it needs is Al Gore being more popular with the people, or having a more competent man in his place
public outcry to his winning the popular vte but losing the presidency causes the end of the electoral college

When I came into the thread, I was thinking a combination of this and the NPVC. So, we have more of an upcry over Gore's loss, and the NPVC or some equivalent turns up in 2001. It gains massive popularity in states voting blue in the election. By 2003, we have the OTL NPVC states, California, New York, Florida (which passed it after the embarassment of the 2000 election), New England (minus NH), Oregon, and Pennsylvania. This is 232 EVs right there, out of the 270 needed. With that sort of support, and the inital increased impetus, we could see a slow trickle of smaller states. New Mexico, Colorado, Arkansas, Nevada each had it pass one house. At that point, it just takes one or two more states to push it over the magic 270 number. A few more might help, just to guarantee it'll remain over 270 after future censuses, but aren't really that necessary. Not too difficult a POD, especially since in a lot of states, the state legislature passed it, but it was vetoes by the governor. Technically there'd still be an EC, but it wouldn't be at all relevant anymore.

It's almost certainly unconstitutional and will be struck down if it ever takes effect.

Nah. Cheap way of getting around the constitution, but technically the states choose the process by which their electors are picked.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

[xchen08]

Nah. Cheap way of getting around the constitution, but technically the states choose the process by which their electors are picked.

Not true. The states can appoint the electors, but they cannot order the electors to vote for someone who did not win that state. They can proportionally divy up the votes based on how many popular votes a candidate got in that state. They can do as Maine does and give the electoral votes to the winners in their respective congressional districts while giving the 2 extra to the state winner. What they cannot do is give all their electoral votes to the loser in that state. That would run afoul of the Constitution's guarantee to a republican form of government and fair elections.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Not true. The states can appoint the electors, but they cannot order the electors to vote for someone who did not win that state. They can proportionally divy up the votes based on how many popular votes a candidate got in that state. They can do as Maine does and give the electoral votes to the winners in their respective congressional districts while giving the 2 extra to the state winner. What they cannot do is give all their electoral votes to the loser in that state. That would run afoul of the Constitution's guarantee to a republican form of government and fair elections.

It doesn't say that. It says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," not "in such Manner except..." It goes perfectly well with fair elections (and republican form of government, but republicanism has nothing to do with elections... do you mean federal?). If someone is elected by a majority of the people in the US, it's fair for them to obtain the office.

This is a state's rights issue, and not something the federal government can (legally, constitutionally) mess with.

 

[xchen08]

It doesn't say that. It says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," not "in such Manner except..." It goes perfectly well with fair elections (and republican form of government, but republicanism has nothing to do with elections... do you mean federal?). If someone is elected by a majority of the people in the US, it's fair for them to obtain the office.

This is a state's rights issue, and not something the federal government can (legally, constitutionally) mess with.

What? It goes perfectly well with fair elections to give all of a state's electoral votes to the loser of the election in that state? Consider if there were no compact. Could a state legislature pass a law giving them the power to give their votes to whomever they please? Strictly speaking, it seems that the Constitution would say yes, and legislatures once did act as such, but it's obvious that it would be struck down now. The existence of the compact changes nothing for the laws in each particular state, since the compact is not a Federal law, and the states are not sovereign entities capable of entering into binding treaties with other states.

 

[False Dmitri]

What? It goes perfectly well with fair elections to give all of a state's electoral votes to the loser of the election in that state? Consider if there were no compact. Could a state legislature pass a law giving them the power to give their votes to whomever they please? Strictly speaking, it seems that the Constitution would say yes, and legislatures once did act as such, but it's obvious that it would be struck down now. The existence of the compact changes nothing for the laws in each particular state, since the compact is not a Federal law, and the states are not sovereign entities capable of entering into binding treaties with other states.

When the Constitution was written, the people didn't vote for Electors at all. The standard MO was for state legislators to choose them. One by one, states passed laws mandating popular elections for President - this gradual switch allowed for a man like Andrew Jackson to be elected. The Constitution says that states may apportion their electors in whatsoever way they want. If a state wants to, it can pass a law granting its electors to whichever candidate can lift the heaviest pig. And you're misreading the "Republican form of government" bit, which anyhow refers to the way the states are governed - so Massachusetts can't decide to create a royal dynasty, regardless of how much they might want to. The "republican" clause has nothing to do with electing the President.

Learn your history before spouting out such opinionated statements.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

What? It goes perfectly well with fair elections to give all of a state's electoral votes to the loser of the election in that state? Consider if there were no compact. Could a state legislature pass a law giving them the power to give their votes to whomever they please? Strictly speaking, it seems that the Constitution would say yes, and legislatures once did act as such, but it's obvious that it would be struck down now.

No. This isn't arbitrary. It's not "whomever they please." There is a perfectly valid reason for the Compact.

The existence of the compact changes nothing for the laws in each particular state, since the compact is not a Federal law, and the states are not sovereign entities capable of entering into binding treaties with other states.

The Compact is, in the end, not technically an interstate treaty. It's state law. That's not the same thing as a treaty with other states, and thus the appropriate section of the Constitution (don't remember the exact section off the top of my head, don't feel like looking it up) doesn't apply.

 

[xchen08]

When the Constitution was written, the people didn't vote for Electors at all. The standard MO was for state legislators to choose them. One by one, states passed laws mandating popular elections for President - this gradual switch allowed for a man like Andrew Jackson to be elected. The Constitution says that states may apportion their electors in whatsoever way they want. If a state wants to, it can pass a law granting its electors to whichever candidate can lift the heaviest pig. And you're misreading the "Republican form of government" bit, which anyhow refers to the way the states are governed - so Massachusetts can't decide to create a royal dynasty, regardless of how much they might want to. The "republican" clause has nothing to do with electing the President.

Learn your history before spouting out such opinionated statements.

Please read my post. I stated outright that the Constitution strictly speaking allows the legislature to assign its electors to the champion pig lifter. But there is no way such a law would not be struck down now. My "misreading" of the republican clause is no more a misreading than the Supreme Court's "misreading" of interstate commerce. It's the natural evolution of the U.S. constitutional framework.

No. This isn't arbitrary. It's not "whomever they please." There is a perfectly valid reason for the Compact.



The Compact is, in the end, not technically an interstate treaty. It's state law. That's not the same thing as a treaty with other states, and thus the appropriate section of the Constitution (don't remember the exact section off the top of my head, don't feel like looking it up) doesn't apply.

Exactly. It's not technically a compact at all, since states have no power to enter into such compacts. It is legally speaking, no different than assigning the electors to the champion pig lifter.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

Exactly. It's not technically a compact at all, since states have no power to enter into such compacts. It is legally speaking, no different than assigning the electors to the champion pig lifter.

No, no, no! It's completely different. As I pointed out, this isn't some completely arbitrary delegation; votes are handed out in a still-democratic fashion. It's democratic in a different manner from now, yes, but it's still democratic. I know that right now, my vote absolutely will not count. Of the two major parties, I'm personally more likely to vote Republican than Democrat (depending on the candidate, anyway; I'm happy voting for a third party if we see neocons or fundamentalists). But I'm a New Yorker, and I know my vote will end up just counting for the Democrats. My existence is actually helping the people I'm voting against, since higher population = higher electoral vote in New York = more guaranteed Democratic EVs (obviously one person won't make a difference in any situation, but that's not the point... there are many others like me). With no electoral college, my vote could be part of an essential swing bloc, either going for libertarian third parties or the Republicans. So with the Compact, we see an actually democratic electoral vote distribution.

I'm so mad and angry at this thread and your horrible, disagreeable position that I'm leaving for the night!

Or I'm just sleepy. I forget.

 

[xchen08]

No, no, no! It's completely different. As I pointed out, this isn't some completely arbitrary delegation; votes are handed out in a still-democratic fashion. It's democratic in a different manner from now, yes, but it's still democratic. I know that right now, my vote absolutely will not count. Of the two major parties, I'm personally more likely to vote Republican than Democrat (depending on the candidate, anyway; I'm happy voting for a third party if we see neocons or fundamentalists). But I'm a New Yorker, and I know my vote will end up just counting for the Democrats. My existence is actually helping the people I'm voting against, since higher population = higher electoral vote in New York = more guaranteed Democratic EVs (obviously one person won't make a difference in any situation, but that's not the point... there are many others like me). With no electoral college, my vote could be part of an essential swing bloc, either going for libertarian third parties or the Republicans. So with the Compact, we see an actually democratic electoral vote distribution.

I'm so mad and angry at this thread and your horrible, disagreeable position that I'm leaving for the night!

Or I'm just sleepy. I forget.

He. Believe it or not, I totally agree. Some sort of mechanism to give the "flyover" states a bit more say than their strict population would indicate would be welcome, but I too think the Electoral College really needs to go. In it's current form, it actively discourages voting. As I said, some mechanism to increase the weight of very low population areas is needed, but if no mechanism can be found, flat popular vote would still be better than the current system. I'm just pointing out that the easiest method for getting rid of the college is unconstitutional, so we need to go about it the hard way.

 

[Solomaxwell6]

He. Believe it or not, I totally agree. Some sort of mechanism to give the "flyover" states a bit more say than their strict population would indicate would be welcome, but I too think the Electoral College really needs to go. In it's current form, it actively discourages voting. As I said, some mechanism to increase the weight of very low population areas is needed, but if no mechanism can be found, flat popular vote would still be better than the current system. I'm just pointing out that the easiest method for getting rid of the college is unconstitutional, so we need to go about it the hard way.

I don't think it's unconstitutional. The way you're saying, SCOTUS will look at the Constitution thinking of the intent, not the actual binding legal phrasing. But with the Compact, they'll look at the binding legalities, rather than the intent. I doubt they'd split it like that; either they'd go exact Constitutional phrasing, in which case they don't have the right to butt in and it's Constitutional, or they'll consider the intent, which is to make America more democratic, and decide it's a worthy enough cause. Or, of course, a mix (some judges might go for one, some for another).

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

No, no, no! It's completely different. As I pointed out, this isn't some completely arbitrary delegation; votes are handed out in a still-democratic fashion. It's democratic in a different manner from now, yes, but it's still democratic. I know that right now, my vote absolutely will not count. Of the two major parties, I'm personally more likely to vote Republican than Democrat (depending on the candidate, anyway; I'm happy voting for a third party if we see neocons or fundamentalists). But I'm a New Yorker, and I know my vote will end up just counting for the Democrats. My existence is actually helping the people I'm voting against, since higher population = higher electoral vote in New York = more guaranteed Democratic EVs (obviously one person won't make a difference in any situation, but that's not the point... there are many others like me). With no electoral college, my vote could be part of an essential swing bloc, either going for libertarian third parties or the Republicans. So with the Compact, we see an actually democratic electoral vote distribution.

I agree on that one and I fall on the other side of the political spectrum, imagine a california republican, he's gotta figure that there is little to no chance of the state going red, plus chances are one of the candidates will have conceded before you even get a chance to vote(this almost actually happened to me last election day)