July 8, 2008 - Houston, TX.
The Electoral Fairness Project today proposed a new amendment to the United States Constitution that would abolish the Electoral College and require the President and Vice President of the United States to be directly elected by the popular vote.
Proposed Amendment:
"The Electoral College shall be abolished and the President and Vice President of the United States shall be elected directly by the people of the United States.
All votes shall be counted in such a manner as the various states deem necessary, with the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes being elected to the Presidency, with his or her chosen Vice President."
The Electoral Fairness Project will be launching a nationwide grass-roots campaign, acquiring signatures on both electronic and paper petitions, and lobbying elected officials from the municipal level to the White House. Says EFP Political Director Bob Henline, "We live in a country where all citizens equally share the right to vote, to voice their opinion
on how to govern this nation. However, we still use electoral methods that discourage voter participation and dilute the voice of the people. The first Constitutional Amendment of the 21st Century should reiterate America's commitment to real and lasting democracy: election of the President by popular vote."
Media Contact Information:
Bob Henline, Political Director
Email: b.henline[at]electoralfairnesscouncil.com
Phone: (866) 393-4186
Fax: (435) 579-1794
Web: www.electoralfairnesscouncil.com
There is a VERY good reason why our Country was not founded as a direct democracy, that being primarily that direct democracies invariably become oligarchies once the majority realize that they can vote largess to themselves at the expense of the minority. The system you propose would have the same effect, and would place the voting power immovably in the hands urban population centers at the expense of citizens who live in less populated rural areas, resulting in a complete lost of political interest in those areas. I could think of a few other reasons, I'm sure, but this alone is enough to make me question the wisdom of such a plan.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I'm just posting the press release cause they sent it to us. I am neither supporting nor opposing such a movement.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I live in NYC. The city is largely democratic and more people live in it than in the rest of the state, which is largely republican. If the Electoral College were abolished the votes of the entire rest of the state would count and the Presidential Candidate of NY would not be chosen solely by the inhabitants of NYC.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...if the majority of your State's population is concentrated in its cities (and it is to the tune of roughly 92% of the population being urban), then the simple demographic reality is that that the urban population will always dominate in any situation where the interests of that urban center run counter to that of the 8% minority that lives in the rural areas. That is exactly the kind of disparity that the current system is designed to impair.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
NY is a special case, I think. There are other cities in NY besides NYC (Rochester, Albany, etc), and then plenty of people that live in rural areas. But because NYC is the largest city in the United States, with over eight million people, it's not exactly the case of the urbanites in NY having the most vote, because the urbanites of the other cities wouldn't have any say, because their numbers just can't add up to those of NYC. There are only a few million other urbanites in the rest of New York State.
This isn't the case with most other cities in the US, because the closest one in population to NYC is LA, and they only have 3-4 million people. Plus, California has San Diego and San Jose on the top ten populous cities list, with more as you expand the number on the list (Texas is similar, with Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio all on that list). So if the other inhabitants of California wanted to overpower LA, it wouldn't be too difficult. That's not the case with NYC.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I would contend that in general the concerns of the various urban population centers align pretty closely and often in stark contrast to the interests of rural communities. That New York can overpower even other urban areas in that State only demonstrates an even more severe illustration of the potential problem. The problem isn't as extreme in California, but even their 68% of the population lives in the Greater Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay and Riverside-San Bernardino urban centers. When viewed overall, roughly 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas (based on the 2000 census) while only 20% live in rural settings. Such a disparity would quickly lend itself to a total lack of representation for rural citizens if we adopted a direct democracy.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Which is why I said NYC is a special case.....
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Bigger areas will count more anyway, especially if they have a largely uniform party alliance. The point is that if there was no electoral college, the rest of NY would have a say.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...than they ever would under a directly democrat system. Direct democracies lend themselves to certain abuses, and the total domination of the minority...any minority for that matter...is a certainty that is strongly supported by history. The idea of the electoral college is the same that prompted our founding fathers to create this country as a Constitutional Republic, which was in part to ensure that there was a level of control--a speed-bump if you will--between the state of our Government and the will of the mob.
TTFN,
Blackout
The mob is the mother of tyrants. ~ Diogenes
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I have no trouble with an essentially Republican government. I just don't really see the need for this particular mechanism. I understand the purpose of it and why it might of been useful at one point, but I don't really see the purpose now.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
The Constitution delegates the power of how its representatives to the Electoral College are chosen the the Legislature of EACH state.
Most states have chosen to have their delegates to the Electoral College chosen on a "winner take all" basis. This means that if the Democrats win 51% of the popular vote they get to choose 100% of that states slate of delegates to the Electoral College.
A very few states have there delegates to the Electoral College chosen on a "proportional" basis. If the Democrats win 60% of the popular votes then they get to choose 60% of the slate of delegates and the Republicans (and maybe other parties) get to choose the other 40%.
Maine has a hybrid system which is somewhere in between winner take all and proportional representation. I think it is very sensible.
New York has a "winner take all" system. This is what causes the problem which you are describing of having the rural votes "not count". If you are concerned about the rural parts of the state having their votes counted, there is no Constitutional Amendment required. You simply need to get your state legislature to change from "winner take all" to "proportional". The Constitution already has delegated the power to the State of New York to fix this problem. This change would result in the majority of New York's electoral college delegates being chosen by Democrats and a minority being chosen by the Republicans. Everybody's vote would count.
Wow .... twice in a month.
Fortunately there is little reason to worry about this Amendment moving very far forwards in the process because the Constitutional Amendment process is a very high hurdle.
First, it has to be approved by a 2/3rds vote in BOTH houses of Congress. It is easy to see it passing in the House of Representatives because each states number of Representatives is determined by the census with larger urban states having many more Representatives then smaller states. My State of Wyoming only has one. It is much more difficult to see how it gets past the Senate because each State has two Senators with small states being just as powerful as big states. (This is part of the same genius balancing act between big and small that gave us the Electoral College). It only takes the Senators from 17 small States to block this Amendment which would clearly be against their State's best interests.
Second, if it almost inconceivably made it past the Senate, the Amendment would move out to the States where it takes 3/4ths of the States (38) to ratify it before it goes into effect. It would only take 13 to block it. Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, Nevada, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho are all about 98% certain votes against. It is hard to imagine most of the Southern States voting to hand over political power to New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida and Texas. These would effectively be the only states that mattered in the Presidential race. There would probably even be some small New England States that voted against like New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Maine. I'd put the chances of getting 3/4ths of the states to ratify such an amendment at nil.
I totally approve of this Amendment effort. It gives the liberal rable something constructive to do that will never pass and keeps them out of other mischief.