LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Gore Vidal and Mr. Fish - Exclusive Truthdig Gifts for the Holidays
 
November 22, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

To Each His Own Nuke

Bailout or Bust: How to Save the Big Three From Themselves

Stephen Colbert Gets Vetted

John McCain Battles Jackson Browne in Court

Not a Scratch on That Glass Ceiling

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
To Each His Own Nuke

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
Views from a Window book cover

Views from a Window

by Gore Vidal
Very Fine, Collector's Copy $100 NOW $75

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

The End of the Electoral College as We Know it?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Jun 1, 2006

The California Assembly passed a measure to pledge the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote (as opposed to giving its Electoral College votes to the winner of the California popular vote).
This would come into effect only if enough other states passed similar measures. But if it happens, it will mean the end of the Electoral College as we know it.

L.A. Times:

SACRAMENTO — Seeking to force presidential candidates to pay attention to California’s 15.5 million voters, state lawmakers on Tuesday jumped aboard a new effort that would award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide.

As it is now, California grants its Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state. Practically speaking, that means Democrat-dominated California spends the fall presidential campaign on the sidelines as candidates focus on the states — mostly in the upper Midwest — that are truly up for grabs.

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

Link

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Gary Coutin, April 11, 2007 at 7:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Sir,

It is very simple. All men are created equal.  Therefore, the weight of the vote of all men is equal.  Therefore, the candidate with the most votes wins the election.  These are the principles behind every election in the United States EXCEPT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.  Why is this election different from all other elections???

Abraham Lincoln said that the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was the supreme law of the land.  The Republicans of that time agreed.  See the Party Platform of 1856 and 1860.  Republicans have led the effort to abolish the Electoral College.  Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Oliver P. Morton, Henry Cabot Lodge, Everett Dirksen, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon supported an end to the Electoral College.  Even George Bush (Sr) voted for direct elections. 

Are the “Republicans” of today even “republican” at all???  The Electoral College is a relic of feudalism.  The Electoral College of the Holy Roman Empire was a device of the aristocracy to choose a King.

Gary Michael Coutin
gmcoutin2000 at yahoo dot com

Report this

By john harris, June 3, 2006 at 11:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

hey i got an idea,make the candidates write an essay,do it in such a way that they cant cheat(like an s.a.t test)then make the raw,unedited version available to ALL voters..just think of the kinda shit ol’dumbya would have written…

Report this

By Konnie, June 2, 2006 at 5:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

How about spliting the electoral college vote of each state by the percentage of votes received, instead of winner take all.  Wouldn’t that solve the problem?

Report this

By Brad, June 1, 2006 at 8:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ll say it’s about time. I did some math, last election and realized someone’s vote in Wyoming was worth about 14 times more than mine here in Washington state.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, June 1, 2006 at 8:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Pardon my naivete, but it seems to me the ONLY fair way to run an election in a democracy is to ENSURE two things: each individual gets only ONE vote, and, whichever candidate gets the most individual votes, wins first place.

In my utopia, other candidates who attract a relatively “significant” number of votes, regardless of party affiliation, are in some meaningful way engaged in government. If 50,000,000 people vote for Joe and 49,999,999 people vote for Mary it doesn’t seem fair to me that Joe wins all the marbles and Mary is never heard from again.

Nothing is quite as dispiriting as to realize that it doesn’t matter how you vote… the system is rigged from the beginning enabling cunning or connected candidates to win even if they don’t get a majority of the votes. That’s not democracy… I don’t know what it is, but it’s not democracy.

And as far as financing political campaigns is concerned some system needs to be devised whereby votes cannot be “bought.” The representatives in governments of the people are far too important to be selected on the basis of slick ad campaigns, hype and blanket media blitzes. All candidates’ values, visions and ideas need to be fairly heard by all voters.

As I said, I live in my own mental utopia… the real world is unfair, biased and corrupt. Somehow I just can’t get used to it and shut up.

Report this

By Dick Manoukian, June 1, 2006 at 6:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, but there is no doubt that the California Assembly is onto something with their approach to the Electoral College.  An evaluation of alternative approaches to the Electoral College is long overdue.  Presidential candidates believing in the Red/Blue formula spend the majority of their campaign time and money in about fourteen to sixteen states that can swing the election their way.  Just think how many visits to Pennsylvania President Bush made prior to November 2004.  Ohio and Florida also were frequent campaign stops for both candidates.  What about the other thirty five or so “token states” that hardly saw either candidate.  A new formula must put all fifty states into play so that each and every vote counts.  I guarantee it will not only lead to better campaigning but voters who believed their state outcome was assured will show more interest and voter turnout will increase.  A true sign of a healthy democracy.

Now if we can only do something about REAL campaign finance reform.  Hmmmmm!!!!!

Report this

By mrblu45, June 1, 2006 at 4:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

About time! What a great idea! And neither BushCo nor anyone else can stop this from happening, if a few other states will only follow suit.

Report this

By RC, June 1, 2006 at 12:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Good.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.