The future of GOP support for the electoral college
“We should respect the wisdom of the framers.” When it came to devising a way to elect the president, they weren’t so wise. Their system led, in 1800, to an election in which Thomas Jefferson and his own running mate, Aaron Burr, tied in the Electoral College. That flaw had to be fixed with a constitutional amendment, in 1804.
Stanford historian Jack Rakove, an authority on the Constitutional Convention, has written that “the framers did not reject popular election because of a fear that the people might fall prey to a demagogue. They worried instead that in a provincial society, citizens would never be well enough informed to make an effective choice without multiple and expensive rounds of elections.”
They expected most presidents to be chosen by the House of Representatives because no one would get a majority in the Electoral College. So much for their infallibility.
“The Electoral College is a pillar of federalism and state sovereignty.” False. The strength of federalism is the existence of states and their control over many spheres of government. The Electoral College allocates votes among states but doesn’t confer any power on them. Canada lacks the Electoral College, and its provinces enjoy more power than our states.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Go to proportional representation and give the winner of the majority of the states electoral vote an extra vote for the state as whole. I still believe states should have a say on electing the national president (the only national office).
milemarker2020 on November 15, 2012 at 10:16 PM
OT: Petraeus to testify he knew Benghazi was terrorist attack “almost immediately”, per CNN.
The Count on November 15, 2012 at 10:21 PM
They also have a state-controlled public broadcaster, nationalized health care, and has one French-dominant province threatening to secede every 15 years or so.
Myron Falwell on November 15, 2012 at 10:23 PM
I think what they should do is make it like Nebraska and Maine. A candidate is awarded a electoral vote for each congressional district they win in the state. And the candidate that wins the most districts in the state gets the 2 senatorial electoral votes. In event of a tie, the candidates split the senatorial electoral votes.
Either, do it that way, or each state is given 1 vote.
ConservativePartyNow on November 15, 2012 at 10:24 PM
I really don’t care about it. It works well enough that going through the effort of an amendment is pointless. If you think that it’s a problem of “just a few states” deciding the election, be careful what you wish for – a direct election will reduce that down to a few cities.
JeffWeimer on November 15, 2012 at 10:27 PM
I could go for that. It would require 50 different efforts to change it, of course.
JeffWeimer on November 15, 2012 at 10:31 PM
I agree. This would be a much better way to select the president. Remember: When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, horses were the fastest way to send a message. I think that nowadays, we can do a little better.
RoadRunner on November 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Don’t be stupid, of course the GOP will continue to support the EC.
dczombie on November 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM
As a biased resident of Nebraska, this is what I endorse. It expands on the intent of the Electoral College in giving many more people a voice. It would give voice to millions of basically disenfranchised Republicans in California (and Democrats in Texas) and I think that’s a good thing. It would allow far more states to really be involved in the process, instead of just 5 or 6 swing states. Something tells me that neither the people living in swing districts in solidly red/blue states nor the beleaguered residents of Ohio would have a problem with that. It’d be a logistical nightmare for campaigns trying to figure out how to efficiently advertise, but to say I don’t care is an understatement.
Unfortunately, it’ll never happen because all the states would have to sign on to it, and the Democrats will never go for it because it significantly neuters their urban GOT(dead)V machines.
LukeinNE on November 15, 2012 at 10:46 PM
This makes the most sense. When both parties fail to visit “safe” states it really isn’t good for anyone. Meanwhile swing states suck up the goodies that will buy their votes. Right, Ohio?
Of course, Dems would hate this, particularly when you see all the red districts out there. They like how the cities decide the entire state in places like PA, IL, CA.
goflyers on November 15, 2012 at 10:48 PM
As has already been said, end “Winner takes all” and we’re good.
Rogue on November 15, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Chapman is the resident liberal hack on the Chicago Tribune’s editorial page. Move along everyone.
Old Fritz on November 15, 2012 at 10:49 PM
From GOP 2012 platform:
Then again, that was 2012. I hear 2013 is coming soon. Could be a rumor.
lester on November 15, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Okay so who here in CA knows how to get a Prop started to make this happen?
Seriously.
MikeknaJ on November 16, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Not so much for the red districts but because it would automatically destroy their mega-shares that they immediately claim from CA and NY.
MikeknaJ on November 16, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Someone who’s smarter than me and good w/ the maps should sit down and break down the ’12, ’08, and ’04 electoral maps and see what the final EC counts would look like if we did it proportionally like Nebraska.
MikeknaJ on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM