Slashdot Mirror
Iowa Seeks To Remove Electoral College
Zebano writes "Since changing the US constitution is too much work, the Iowa senate is considering a bill that would send all 7 of Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election. This would only go into affect after enough states totaling 270 electoral votes (enough to elect a president) adopted similar resolutions."
If the popular vote truly counted, that would be a very compelling reason to register and/or go out and vote.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Finally us white aristocratic land owners won't be the only ones electing the president!
Uh, sending all their votes for a single candidate is the OPPOSITE of removing the electoral college. It makes much more sense to award them proportionally if your goal is to mitigate the problem of its existence. The fact that you can win some states and avoid others is what makes it a problem in the first place - the electoral college is basically a system for ignoring the needs of most of the nation based on geographical boundaries, and as far as I can tell was designed to make it easy to game the system. Only FOUR times in history (IIRC) has the EC actually ever overridden the popular vote. One of those times was GWB (well, the counted popular vote, which is known to have been intentionally gamed, but let's put that aside for now.) If the other times the electoral college actually had an effect were like this time, then it is pure evil and must actually be destroyed.
It's long past time for a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college. Let's decide to be a democracy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If Iowa adopts this measure, it would be noteworthy, but the summary seems to imply that this is a new idea or something unique that Iowa is considering. It is not. See the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Backers of this idiotic scheme have been pushing it for years.
The problem is, the "national popular vote" is anything but uniform. Liars like to claim Al Gore "won" the popular vote, but that is a false claim; he had less than 1% difference, and the average error rate of voting machines across the US is somewhere between 2-3%. If you go by the actual vote and work with the number of counties where there were voting irregularities and counting irregularities, there's a major question of how many votes anyone had.
In other words: voting equipment is not perfect. This is why we have recounts.
Now, can you imagine the scale of someone having to do a national recount based on the fact that Gore's supposed "win of the popular vote" in 2000 was under the threshold to trip an automatic recount in every single state that has such a law?
We apportion the votes by state for two reasons:
#1 - The US is supposed to be a union of self-sovereign states. The Federal government is supposed to have only a limited set of powers, with each state independently deciding the rest of the issues for itself. Yes, this has been eroded badly away in recent decades, but it's still true.
#2 - The logistics of holding a "national recount" are simply not possible. Recounting a state alone is bad enough (look at the Dem vote fraud efforts for Franken and the "targeted recounting" of counties, which magically has more votes than voters in several Dem-heavy districts trying to steal the Senate election).
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
Okay, I understand that only 2% of Slashdot readership has a clue why the electoral college even exists. And I realize that most people won't even rub two brain cells together before responding and saying that this is a great idea ("This is a great idea! Now there's a reason to vote!").
However, part of me honestly hoped that a state like Iowa, which is filled with people who are convinced they really are the most important people in the country, would be able to do the math to realize that following a straight popular vote gives Iowans less power and that if the country would depend solely on the popular vote, Iowa (and most other small midwest states) would be completely marginalized.
Well. At least that increases the chances of gay rights bills getting passed.
As a former history major and a election junky I think the move to kill the electoral college is a stupid move for several reasons. I personally like the Nebraska solution (house districts go to the candidate winning the district, senate votes go to overall winner in the state).
With California, NY, and a few other states becoming huge, with even more illegals etc why would we want to make sure that candidates only have to promise goodies to city dwellers on the coasts?
We are talking about stripping something that harkens back to the "representative republic" nature of the starting of our country in favor of pure democracy.. Pure democracy gave us TARP 1, the Porkulus bill, Tarp2 etc..
I'm getting the idea that just because GW wasn't a very good Republican, we're now willing to give up our federal system? We're not a tiny, little homogeneous European country; we're a huge friggin' landmass with diverse wants and needs. Keep power as close to home as possible.
--Jim (me)
On what grounds?
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Any interstate compact needs congressional approval.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
The Electoral College was created because communication was so poor.
No, the electoral college exists because the Founding Fathers(tm) understood that most people count as complete and total idiots, and that idiots of a given bias will tend to group together.
Take the Fundies as a good example - They vote, and they all vote the same way. If you counted the popular vote, they would have considerably more influence than they do now; Instead, by lumping together in a handful of states, you end up with the winner of those states getting a good 70-90% of the vote, but that does their actual candidate no better than winning a mere 51% of the vote.
Stop verbing nouns. Or nouning verbs in this case.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
First, as to the whole "people pay attention to it" argument, I certainly haven't seen that. Did anyone pay attention the last couple elections -- were, what, 35 states clearly going one way or another anyways, so they only paid attention to the so-called "swing states." Now, that may give some states extra pull when they are close, but when a state like ND, Wyoming, and Montana aren't -- they are essentially ignored.
Second, and this is the most important reason in my mind, it discourages people from voting. On many occasions, I have heard people mention how it was pointless for a liberal to vote in ND, or alternatively, for a conservative to vote in Minnesota.
I side with the Founding Fathers on this issue. The common man, even 200+ years later, is not educated enough, or even intelligent enough, to make an informed decision about who should lead the US.
All you have to do is watch the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and catch his, I believe its called Jay Walking now but I recall it as "The Great American Pop Quiz", quiz of the common man on the streets of NYC to see that the vast majority of Americans have NO business selecting who should lead the US.
Read the federalist papers.
The founding fathers questioned the education level NOT the intelligence of the people.
Education for elections is 100% based on communication. When it takes 6 months for a message to get from one side of the country to another you can't expect people to really know what is going on.
Well, one thing I can assure you is that your vote will NOT count in Iowa, should this bill pass into law.
Your vote will count in Iowa, as long as you don't vote there.
--
Oh, wait.
I think you guys missed the last bit: "This would only go into affect after enough states totaling 270 electoral votes (enough to elect a president) adopted similar resolutions."
So, until enough other states have similar resolutions, Iowa votes will be counted exactly the same way as they are today. When (if) Iowa is joined by enough other states that together their electoral votes will dominate those of the remaining states, then you'll have a president elected by popular vote. Even in the holdout states, votes will still count: they're part of the popular vote that Iowa and friends will be evaluating.
Well... I am no English expert, in fact it is my 2nd language (Âprimero Español amigo!) but I found the sentence:
"This would only go into affect after enough ..."
Very strange... is it that confusing "effect" vs "affect" for native English speakers? for me they mean completely different things "afectar" vs "efecto"
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
That is the current popular beleif but you really should read theFederalist Papers.
It IS true that SOME founding fahters felt that only land owners had enough connection with the country to make good decisions, there was a significant minority that wanted universal (male) sufferage from the begining. The compromise is that the states got to decide who voted.
While some Founding Fathers felt the people were idiots, most were concerned about the ability of farmers to get information rather than the ability to tihink about it.
Remember even at our founding we had some of the best education in the world AND they new it.
We had the highest literacy rates.
We had very little religious fundamentalism compared to Europe.
We had easily the highest political participation in the world.
Even at the begining the US citizens were acknowledged as being the most "sane" of any western country....too bad we haven't stayed that way.
Fortunately, ignoring the Constitution is very easy — as long as you have "bipartisan support". And no, I don't mean the Guantanamo and the like, which are, actually, arguably legal (however distasteful).
A lot more profound example is the requirement, that all the government can only use "gold or silver coin" as means of payment (Article 1 Section 10):
When the US abolished gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became "fiat money", all State tax-refunds, welfare payments, salaries of the State-employees, etc. became unarguably unconstitutional.
And yet, chances are very good, dear reader, you read about the issue here for the first time in your life... Now, I don't claim the economic acumen to argue whether or not Gold Standard was (or would be?) a good idea. But I have that "ideological rigidity" to be disturbed by a violation of the Constitution, that is so blatant and yet so ignored...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The FF's didn't really trust the people to do the right thing.
And you do? "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it." (Agent K, Men in Black)
I've seen nothing in my ten years of being involved in politics that convinces me this isn't true. The vast majority of people in this country just vote for the person in the same party as them. The vast majority of those who aren't in a political party just vote for the person with the most name recognition because "he's experienced and doing a good job". Why do you think politicians make such an effort to bring pork (preferably the kind with photo-ops and construction signs that have their name on it) back home?
Democracy sucks. It really shouldn't have been allowed to get beyond the House of Representatives and the Lower Houses of the State Legislatures.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes. Rural areas should not be held hostage by urban ones just because they happen to have more votes. This is the entire point of the US Senate and Electoral College.
So by your reasoning if there was a national (winner-take-all) vote for president, people who live in rural areas should have 1.5 votes (or some number >1.0). Your reasoning seems to be that they are a minority so they should have disproportionate power since they are otherwise vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. If that is the case, why just use being rural as a minority status worthy of having ones vote count more than others? How about we also give 1.5 votes to the disabled? African Americans? LGBT people? Left-handed people? People with type AB-negative blood? Gingers?
I personally speak with my representative at least once a year.
What's your point? I've met my representative twice in the last year but that doesn't change anything I said about gerrymandered districts or the fact that the overwhelming majority of them are re-elected, oftentimes by such lopsided margins that the election really is a formality.
I live in a district that is very republican...yet my representative is a Democrat, Jim Marshal.
Kudos for you. Most of us aren't that lucky. Here's a short list of reforms off the top of my head that I would like to see with regards to the House of Representatives:
1) No more gerrymandering. Districts should be drawn in a non-partisan way that ideally respects (within the limitation of having to have them mostly the same in population) existing political and/or geographical lines. My community is regularly sliced into pieces to add more Republicans to this district and more Democrats into that district. The net result of this is that we have no voice in Washington and serve only to further the agenda of the respective political parties.
2) Representatives or those running for the position shouldn't be allowed to accept donations from those who reside outside of their district.
3) End the primary system. I'm not sure yet what I'd replace it with but surely we can do better than a system that's tailor made for the most partisan members picking those who get to stand in the general election? Maybe just let everybody who can meet a certain threshold (the signatures of 10% of the total number of people who voted in the last election?) be on the ballot. Then provide for run-off elections if nobody gets 50%+1 or use instant run off voting.
4) End the centralization of power around the leadership and seniority system in the House. I should be able to fire my Representative without worrying about my community getting dicked over because the new guy has no seniority. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry about whether or not something that's in the best interest of my community also has the approval of the leadership.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Iowa isn't going to award all 7 of its votes to the winner of the election in Iowa. That would be "winner take all" as you're complaining.
Instead Iowa will give its 7 electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes *nationwide*. But ONLY if enough states adopt the measure.
That would mean that the candidate with the most votes nationally would always win the electoral vote.
So it's "winner takes all" in the sense that the winner wins, instead of sometimes losing like in recent history.
What the hell are you talking about?
51% of the people of the country vote one way, and 100% of the people of Iowa vote the other way, Iowa's votes go to someone who no one in Iowa voted for. How the hell does that make sense to you, and how the HELL do you equate that with the relative "value" of a vote?
Ok, let's take your scenario: 51% of the popular vote in the US goes to one candidate, but Iowa mysteriously manages to vote 100% for the other candidate.
In the current system, Iowa's electoral votes go to the candidate who lost the popular vote. But, *depending on the distribution of votes in the other states,* that candidate may win OR lose. Now, here's the kicker: they can win or lose WITHOUT IOWA. Iowa has 7 electoral votes. Candidate needs 270 votes to win. That means they need to take just 11 states: Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, and California. In the 2008 election, those states made up 54% of the popular vote. If a candidate won exactly 51% of those 11 states, they can be elected president with less than 28% of the popular vote.
And without Iowa.
If you *lose* all the biggest states, you have to win in 40 states plus the District of Columbia to be elected. Those states account for 49% of the popular vote, and you need less than 25% of the total popular vote to get elected by them. At least some of that is from Iowa, though.
Iowa has no voice as it now stands. Not only that, but in LARGE states that tend to be foregone conclusions, many voters don't have a say... if you're going to vote for the republican candidate in California, why did you even get out of bed this morning?
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
"no voting system is fair if there are more than two candidates"
Our system was originally designed to be able to handle more than two political parties vying for votes. Our founding fathers warned against letting our system become bi-partisan.
Look where we are now. If you think restricting the number of parties helps a voting system, you're very wrong, and us Americans are the perfect example to prove that.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The States can change the constitution. If enough...two thirds I believe, agree on an amendment it becomes law. The Federal government only has as much power as the States give it. The problem is that the two party mafia system means that the State Legislatures have more interest in supporting their party than the interest of their people. And then there's the corporate interests.....
If that were true than it would have been mandated that each state's electors vote as pledged and that they be selected en-block by the side that got the majority of votes in that state.
Neither of those things is mandated. The original concept was that the election of a president was too important to be left to the people and was a decision which should be made by a select group of leaders, the electors. It was never intended that they be pledged at all. It was never intended that presidential candidates would even EXIST. As envisaged people would vote for electors on the ballot whom they thought would be the best people to decide who should be president.
Factually it barely worked something like that in the first few elections and certainly since the days of Andrew Jackson it hasn't even remotely worked that way, but that WAS the intent.
I would also assert that the fact that a winning candidate GENERALLY will win a large number of states does not 'enhance their mandate' either. It isn't first of all true (you can be president by winning 51% of the vote in only around 13 states). Secondly nobody pays any real attention to the electoral college. I seriously doubt that what the vote is in the EC has any significant effect on perceptions of the population as to the strength of a given president.
What makes presidents powerful is the fact that there is a two party system. That itself is perhaps partly a result of the EC, but it is more a result of the whole state by state nature of the election of Congress and the internal rules of the Senate and House. In fact those rules and the actual rules formulated by the states on how elections are run have far more material impact on the way this country is governed than anything else.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson