As we inch closer to the 2008 presidential election we're going to be hearing calls, primarily from Democrats, to eliminate the electoral college. Every politician who has ever or will ever claim to be proponent of eliminating the electoral college is merely posturing and is completely unserious. Most recently, from the link above, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh has said the following:
Q: Why do you think we should abolish the Electoral College?A: "I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."
Of course, in 2004 that same President went on to get more votes than any other presidential candidate had ever received, which completely undermines the Senator's assertion of what is "appropriate". In any event, as I wrote nearly three years ago, the Constitution will never be amended to remove the electoral college. It's simple mathematics.
The amendment process requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to make the proposal, and this proposal must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Since there are currently 50 states in the Union, all it takes is 13 states to bury a proposed amendment.Under the electoral college system, states with low population have a number of electoral votes disproportionate to their size, and their populations clearly have a significant interest in maintaining this power. Wyoming's 3 electoral votes give the state 0.558% of the total 538, even though its population of 498,703 is only 0.173% of the total population of the country (288,368,698). Wyoming's electoral power (and representation in Congress, incidentally) is more than 3 times higher than it's population should warrent under a purely democratic system. As a result of this math, every state that possesses a number of electoral votes below the median would be harmed by the elimination of the electoral college, and so no such amendment could ever pass.
Half of the 50 states have populations below the median, by definition, and it only takes one-quarter of the states to scuttle an amendment. No state legislature will ever take positive action to reduce it's influence on federal policy, and so the electoral college is here to stay.
MW said: "Of course, in 2004 that same President went on to get more votes than any other presidential candidate had ever received, which completely undermines the Senator's assertion of what is "appropriate"."
It doesn't undermine anything. More people voted in 2004 than ever.. and Bush wasn't the only one who set records for number of votes. More people voted for Kerry in 2004 than who voted for Gore in 2000.
Aside from that, what do you think *should* be done with regards to the electoral college, if anything?
Not quite, MW. You can read here about a plan that would be a de-facto elimination of the Electoral College. Because the Constitution allows each state to assign its electors any way it chooses, a critical mass of states could pledge to assign its electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In theory this could be achieved if as few as 11 of the most populated states sign on.
adamj: So, what you're saying is that the Electoral College is flexible enough to execute a majority-win policy, right? Is that good or bad?
What might be even more fair and realistic is for each representative to vote for the candidate that wins in his or her district, instead of his or her state. Currently, some states divide the votes, but not all.
Considering only on the issue of fairness, I would personally like to see per-district representation with Instant Runoff Voting (also here).
It's not quite that simple. While there is a plan afoot to make irrelevant the vote of the people in a state, it's not a 100% certainty that such a slate would be accepted by the Congress. All it takes is 1 Senator and 1 Representative to throw the election into chaos by disputing the slates and you can bet that there are small state delegations aplenty who would do it. The question then becomes would any members of the big state house delegations break ranks to side with the small staters. There's a good chance that they would, either because they believe in the old system or just to gain partisan advantage.
adamj: I've read about that proposal, but it's ridiculous. The state legislature assigns electors, and no state legislature as a whole is going to go against the majority will of the state.
Just to be clear, I am not a supporter of the proposal. I just read about it here, via GeekPress. (It is a great article about the practical uses if AI, btw.)