More Stupid Electoral College Ideas

This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. A couple of professors came up with a “weighted voting system” that would preserve small state influence while shifting towards popular votes counting. You can read a rundown here.

The inventors scoffed at the current proposal where some states choose to select all of their electoral votes based on the national popular vote, and the idea of a pure popular vote because it would “never happen.”

And their proposal, using some kind of formula? What do these guys think this is—Japan? It’s too complicated.

For better or worse, our system makes it nearly impossible to change the Constitution when the country is so electorally divided.

On the one hand, I’ve never thought that the integrity of our country required states to have anything to do with anything, especially nation-wide elections. On the other hand, since they do no change is likely.

It’s baked in the cake. It wasn’t–as alleged–to save “small” states. It was about slavery, and they didn’t walk it back when they had a chance in the 1860s.

Too bad. Until then, keep campaigning in Ohio and leave Alaska out of it.

One thought on “More Stupid Electoral College Ideas”

  1. The simple beauty of the National Popular Vote bill is it would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal, without the need for complicated math or a constitutional amendment. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All 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 states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 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 National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 20 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.See Susan


Comments are closed.