Our apologies for not having Constitution Day material here at Postmodern Conservative. I can amend things a little by reporting on the talk held at Washington and Lee University, where the esteemed presidency scholar Michael Nelson spoke. His talk was a general review of what the convention accomplished and why, but the most interesting moment was his answer to an audience member’s “What about the Electoral College?” question.
He began by saying that our experience in 2000 revealed a serious practical barrier to getting rid of the Electoral College: if a national popular election were to be nearly tied, say, a difference of some 10,000 or fewer votes, all the legal and practical nightmares we faced with deciding things in two or three counties in Florida would extend to thousands of counties nationwide. So, if we don’t isolate recounts the way the Electoral College tends to, anything near a tie might result in the long wrangle/crisis of a disputed election.
Nelson mentioned quite briefly, however, that we might overcome that practical problem by instituting a popular vote for the presidency done the way we do the House, district-by-district and winner-take-all. I guess he’s thinking we could just use all the House districts as they stand.
And he clearly indicated that if that reform, or another, could still “isolate recounts” in a popular vote tie, he would be for it. He pointed out the dismaying fact that even in this close race, there are only about eight states where your vote is likely to matter, and hence, where Obama and Romney are really campaigning.
He’s got a point there. I don’t worry about the Electoral College, nor fret about its less than perfectly democratic character, but I’m not attached to it either. I could go for this district idea.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:40 am
What did he say regarding gerrymandering? Winner take all politically drawn districts seems more problematic and less representative than the electoral college. I imagine he addressed that criticism somehow though? Thanks.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:28 am
Great question, CharlerK. I have contacted Prof Nelson for more details of the proposal he has in mind, but his sharing of it at the talk was quite brief.
And certainly one could argue that the districts, drawn up by certain race-counting principles and by calculations of partisan advantage, gives you at least as much representational quality as those one or two states who divide their electoral votes by some formula.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:51 am
I agree that the fact that the election is conducted in the few battleground states and nowhere is a formidable objection to the election college as it now functions. And we have to add, of course, that it doesn’t function the way the Framers intended anyway.
September 18th, 2012 | 9:09 am
CharlerK raised the objection that I was thinking of. I think Nelson’s solution would probably still result in periodical frustrations of the national popular vote, and would likely do so more often than the current system due to the way the Congressional districts are drawn.
And it loses the chief advantage of the Electoral College which is, of course, FEDERALISM. I still think it’s a good thing that states matter in the Presidential election, even if it’s just a few. I like everything I’ve read by Michael Nelson, but I’ve been convinced by my old teacher Michael Uhlmann that the Electoral College is actually a pretty great system
September 18th, 2012 | 9:25 am
One of the great principles of the Democrat Party is that votes must be counted and re-counted until the Democrat Party candidate wins.
September 18th, 2012 | 9:27 am
This has always been the clear answer to the 2000 fiasco, if one insists on “something must be done!” which is always a dangerous notion. No one doubted who won each FL district, after all–the Gore campaign was just looking to boost their take in certain districts they won by huge margins, hence the Bush v. Gore SC decision (assuming I have my legal history right). The farcical recount (where the various species of chads were always to me clear signs of massive vote fraud) would have never happened, the pointless switching to electronic voting wouldn’t be happening, etc., etc., etc.
September 18th, 2012 | 9:53 am
Again again again, the utility of the electoral college is that it can function as a tabulation convention in a political order where suffrage regulations vary from state-to-state. Absent the electoral college, we would have to enact a national system of elections administration. Provincial and local administration contains the effects of vote fraud and is thus to be preferred.
And all of this is an unnecessary distraction. Our real problem in 1968, 1980, 1992[!], and 2000 [!] was that we had no mechanism to intelligently process the votes of those preferring 3d party candidates. Ordinal balloting is what would ameliorate this, not excising the electoral college (though some adjustments to the latter are in order).
September 18th, 2012 | 10:58 am
It seems that even some conservatives should gather on the lawn in front of Constitution Hall and repeat the following: “The United States is not a democracy. It is not a democracy.”
The Founders were wary of the excesses of democracy and sought to establish institutions in such a way that the common good could be preserved and not endangered by temporary, momentary enthusiasms of a majority.
We are a constitutional, representative republic with divided powers—and those powers were to be limited. Limited in such a way that even a majority would not be able to use the levers of government to oppress a minority. Does the majority rule? Yes, but within limits.
In addition, we settle our civil affairs (or at least try to) through representatives rather than resorting to direct popular voting. Representatives are elected by their discreet majorities; but once elected they apply their own judgment to the issues. But even there, the legislature is divided into two houses; each having its own rules, agendas and timetables. It is a slow, cumbersome system; but the Founders intentionally designed it to be.
Thus we get to perennial issue of the Electoral College. “Let’s get rid of this relic of the past”, we hear. Well, a little history lesson of the past. To restrain the tendency of larger, richer and more populous states to overwhelm the voices and interests of the smaller states, the Founders made some mechanisms in which the small states had equal votes to those of the large states. The Electoral College is one such institution.
One thing to consider: If the presidency was won by direct popular vote, all the campaigning by the candidates would concentrate on four or five of the largest states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois with perhaps Pennsylvania and Ohio not far behind. Smaller states—especially those with populations under three million (such as Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Wyoming) could safely be ignored. In other words, most of the nation would become “fly over country” as the candidates soar in their jets to go from campaign stop to campaign stop in the “important” states.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:06 pm
The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.
The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:12 pm
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 National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree that, at most, only 6-12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. At most, 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning could be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states – that include 9 of the original 13 states – are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
September 18th, 2012 | 12:18 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.
Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II). The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections and requires each state to treat as “conclusive” each other state’s “final determination” of its vote for President.
There is nothing incompatible between differences in state election laws and the concept of a national popular vote for President. That was certainly the mainstream view when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment in 1969 for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. That amendment retained state control over elections.
The 1969 amendment was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale.
The American Bar Association also endorsed the proposed 1969 amendment.
The proposed 1969 constitutional amendment provided that the popular-vote count from each state would be added up to obtain the nationwide total for each candidate. The National Popular Vote compact does the same.
Under the current system, the electoral votes from all 50 states are comingled and simply added together, irrespective of the fact that the electoral-vote outcome from each state was affected by differences in state policies, including voter registration, ex-felon voting, hours of voting, amount and nature of advance voting, and voter identification requirements.
Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote compact, all of the people of the United States are impacted by the different election policies of the states. Everyone in the United States is affected by the division of electoral votes generated by each state. The procedures governing presidential elections in a closely divided battleground state (e.g., Florida and Ohio) can affect, and indeed have affected, the ultimate outcome of national elections.
For example, the 2000 Certificate of Ascertainment (required by federal law) from the state of Florida reported 2,912,790 popular votes for George W. Bush and 2,912,253 popular vote for Al Gore, and also reported 25 electoral votes for George W. Bush and 0 electoral votes for Al Gore. That 25–0 division of the electoral votes from Florida determined the outcome of the national election just as a particular division of the popular vote from a particular state might decisively affect the national outcome in some future election under the National Popular Vote compact.
The 1969 constitutional amendment, endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, then-Senator Bob Dole, and then-Senator Walter Mondale, and The American Bar Association and, more importantly, the current system also accepts the differences among states.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:20 pm
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
The Electoral College does not give small states equal votes to those of the large states. Delaware has 3 electoral votes. California 55.
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!
Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
Of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.
In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).
September 18th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
The 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
September 18th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
Thanks everyone–some fine comments here, from the detailed to the pithy. But oldgulph’s info-chocked second comment here is the one that should give Michael Nelson pause about the district idea.
Feel free, oldgulph, to outline your version of national popular vote for us if you wish. However, what gives a conservative like myself the jitters, is that a lot of what you’re saying underlines Art Deco’s point that we’d need a national election administration to make the thing work. While I am not so convinced by the general Federalism arguments for the College, such would be a real hit to Federalism, and it’s enough to make me think we should let sleeping dogs lie.
As for the “third parties” issue, the necessary amendment could make the threshold for going to Congress less than the majority-of-electors mark.
September 18th, 2012 | 1:49 pm
I like the EC because it thwarts the consolidators on the Eastern seaboard and in other nasty places where these people are known to assemble.
The phrase used above, “A national popular vote…” gave me the vapors and nearly required the wife to take me the emergency room.
God bless the Electoral College!
September 18th, 2012 | 5:30 pm
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:53 pm
As for the “third parties” issue, the necessary amendment could make the threshold for going to Congress less than the majority-of-electors mark.
Not at all. A desirable amendment might look something like this.
1. Voters in each state (or antecedently determined section thereof) would be a presented with a paper ballot on which were all of the candidates who so qualified according to state law.
2. The voter then rank orders his choices. (And if he so chooses, can just mark his first preference and not bother about his subsequent preferences).
3. Authorities in the counties thereof tabulate the first preference of all voters and report them to the state board of elections or like authority. The state board certifies this tabulation.
4. All candidates receiving fewer than 2% of the certified 1st preference votes are eliminated and the ballots redistributed among their 2d preferences, if any. The results are reported and a new certification made.
5. The ultimate candidate is eliminated and his ballots distributed among the 2d preference marked on each (or, in some cases, the 3d preference; what ever is the highest preference among candidates remaining.
6. Step 5 is repeated until there is one candidate standing. That candidate is the state’s first preference. The last candidate eliminated is the state’s 2d preference. The penultimate candidate is the state’s 3d preference and so forth. We thus understand the whole state to have cast an ordinal ballot with the candidates who received more than 2% of the 1st preference votes rank-ordered.
7. Each state is assigned a quantum of electoral votes equal to the number of citizens resident therein over the age of 25.
8. Each state’s ordinal ballot is given a weight equal to that state’s number of electoral votes, as if so and so many millions of voters had cast an ordinal ballot with just this configuration.
9. The weighted ordinal ballots are then tabulated as above to produce a winner.
–
The secondary utility of the scheme above is that it obviates any need for a Congressional ballot, it eliminates the office of elector and the ritual of 538 party wheelhorses casting pro-forma ballots in state capitols the 3d week of December, and it allows territories like the Virgin Islands to participate without the distortion that would ensue if you had to assign them 3 electoral votes.
States which meet certain demographic criteria could be sectioned and the electoral votes assigned to the section thereof rather than the state as a whole.
One proviso: given that you will be engaging in multiple rounds of tabulation, there would have to be a national rule that posted ballots had to be in the box on election day morning, with the rest tossed.
September 19th, 2012 | 11:52 am
I want to point out something thus far overlooked. The president is not meant to be representative of or electorally acountable to the people. Our Constitutional system of government is not designed for and will not work with a democratically-elected, majoritarian president. Here is why: an elected president will serve his or her constituents, just like a Congressional representative. Except, the executive enforces laws instead of making them. The chief executive will have the electoral incentive to enforce the laws with prejudice and partiality, to give favors to voters in exchange for votes. That sort of interest-representation is unavoidable in Congress, but it is lethal to the impartial and equal administration of the law which is the task of the executive branch. The Electoral College is meant to separate the people from the president to prevent the exchange of preferential treatment for votes. Sadly, the Electoral College mostly fails, but a direct election at any level (national or by districts) would be worse. So, strengthen the Electoral College; do not weaken it. I wrote a pamphlet explaining this position in greater depth, if anyone is interested.
September 19th, 2012 | 2:10 pm
Under the current system, policies important to the more than 200 million citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a “safe” state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a “swing” state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida’s shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states – like comprehensive immigration reform, water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues,
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
“Maybe it is just a coincidence that most of the battleground states decided by razor-thin margins in 2008 have been blessed with a No Child Left Behind exemption. “
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640104577440803786176064.html#articleTabs=article
Six heavily current heavily traveled Cabinet members, have made more than 85 trips this year to electoral battlegrounds such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a POLITICO review of public speeches and news clippings. Those swing-state visits represent roughly half of all travel for those six Cabinet officials this year.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D956A81F-3573-4902-BD5D-E0CCAB867CF6
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact