** Adjusted Maine to act as one state rather than separate EV districts. The current system for electing a U.S. president traces back to 1787. This design promotes the two-party system. Thats when the Founding Fathers crafted a compromise between those who argued for the election of the president by a vote of Congress and the election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. 3) The Electoral . Sometimes one party does better for a few election cycles. 3. That is not to say the Electoral College is without its advantages. #Marianne2024 . Nebraska and Maine already award some of their electors to the winners of the congressional districts. Based on your understanding, do you believe the Electoral College is democratic? Donald Trump was open about ignoring the pleas of the safe blue states like New York when they were suffering the most from the coronavirus pandemic. US election 2020. It no longer serves the intended job. 7. Do you think that more states or all states should join the compact? Three happened in the 19th century; none in the 20th century and two in the 21st century. Its no wonder the candidates fixate on issues that matter to specific groups of voters in swing states, like fracking in Pennsylvania This is my 13th visit. or prescription drug benefits in Florida. In a polarized political environment, such an institutional structure remains entrenched. Gronke notes, however, that there would be major administrative challenges if the U.S. ever got to the point of switching to a national popular vote. Hillary Clinton won. Given that a change would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures, it is not going to happen. Why? https://saveourstates.com/threats/the-status-of-npv, https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-electoral-college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular-0. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. Two hundred years after James Madisons letter, the state winner-take-all rule is still crippling our politics and artificially dividing us. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In each case, the number of faithless electors who exercised that behavior would not have had a meaningful impact on the outcome. The current system is weighted too heavily in favor of celebrity appeal, demagogic displays and appeals to narrow special interests. 2023 BDG Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Residents of places like Puerto Rico and Guam would have their votes be counted in the final total, and these locations consistently vote for one party. 2. Our votes would count the same wherever they were cast. Changing or eliminating the Electoral College can be accomplished only by an amendment to the Constitution, which requires the. They are simply party loyalists who do not deliberate about anything more than where to eat lunch. In 2016, the results were even more dramatic. Do you agree with him that the winner-take-all system that most states use for the Electoral College is undemocratic and unfair? We need to think hard, and quickly, about how to reform three aspects of the presidential nomination process: the debates, the primary elections and the conventions. Third, a national election might provide a cure for the delegitimation of presidential authority that has afflicted the last three presidencies. Mr. Wegman argues that reforming the Electoral College isnt a partisan issue its a fairness issue. Most people in America want the Electoral College gone, and they want to select a president based on who gets the most votes nationally, polls say. But swing states distort our national priorities, even when the president wins the popular vote. Is the way Americans choose the president undemocratic and unfair? The correct number is 102. We should be talking about other things. But heres the important part. ## For the purposes here, all electoral votes in a given state were awarded to the proper winner, thus attributing faithless electors to the proper candidate. Bible Commentary Bible Verses Devotionals Faith Prayers Coloring Pages Pros and Cons, 7 Uplifting Prayers for Desperate Situations, 50 Biblically Accurate Facts About Angels in the Bible, 50 Most Profitable Youth Group Fundraising Ideas for Your Church, 250 Ice Breaker Questions for Teen Youth Groups, 25 Important Examples of Pride in the Bible, Why Jesus Wept and 11 Lessons from His Tears, 25 Different Ways to Worship God and Praise the Lord. "And places where there are more people become more important when you're counting votes.". By Michael W. McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, director of the Constitutional Law Center and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. In 2000 Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote against Governor George W. Bush by 543,895. These arent small states. It was replaced by party conventions, which eventually were replaced (almost) with strings of single or multiple state primaries and caucuses. As the Washington Post has shown, the four most populous states, California, Texas, Florida and New York are all dramatically underrepresented in todays Electoral College. What happens if a candidate with electoral votes dies or becomes Reagan would almost make a clean sweep in 1984 as well, taking 525 of 538 electoral votes and only losing Minnesota and DC. To understand why, lets start from the point we make above: the Electoral College system currently benefits Republicans, as two Republican presidents in the last 20 years have been elected despite losing the popular vote and that nearly happened a third time this year. It gives each state in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct electors equal to its representation in Congress. Most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all the votes of a states electors to the presidential candidate who obtains the most votes in that state. Moreover, the electoral college method preserved the two compromises over representationthe three-fifths clause and the big state-small state compromiseand guarded against a fracturing of votes for many candidates, which they thought might occur once George Washington was no longer available as a nationally respected consensus candidate. The voices of small states, like Rhode Island and Wyoming, would be drowned out. Most Americans would breathe a sigh of relief, I believe, if we had a system capable of choosing the U.S. equivalent of Theresa May instead of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. A split of electoral votes has occurred once in each of these states. If, say, environmental sustainability or abortion or the Second Amendment is your dominant concern, it does not matter whether you live in Wyoming or California, Pennsylvania or Delaware. 2? And because they created it, its a sacred work of constitutional genius. The truth is . Republicans especially worry about tipping the balance away from their party. This system allows minorities to have a bigger microphone for their concerns as well. In most cases this should prevent the popular vote loser from becoming president. John Locher/AP In the history of the United States, there have been six presidential elections that would have qualified for this issue and three of them have occurred since 1968. Switching to this standard system would not likely create an adverse result. But the court has not tackled to what extent states can enforce such a pledge. /content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/october-2019/q--the-electoral-college--is-it-open-for-interpretation-by-the-c, Trade, Sports & Professional Associations, Affordable Housing & Community Development Law. There were two additional votes for Sanders that were invalidated in Minnesota and one for Kasich in Colorado. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery. The effect is to erase all the voters in that state who didnt vote for the top candidate. In the interactive diagram The Battleground States Biden and Trump Need to Win 270, you are able to build your own coalition of states to see how either candidate, President Trump or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., can win the election. The winner of the Electoral College vote is usually the candidate who has won the popular vote. This has happened five times in American history. "There's no realistic chance of a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College," said Jacob Levy, a professor of political theory at McGill University. Warren says she wants to get rid of the Electoral College, and vote for president using a national popular vote. Of the 700 attempts to fix or abolish the electoral college, this one nearly succeeded In 1969, Congress almost approved a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college,. And this year, who knows? Electoral vote totals will equal 538. Places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan. What I learned is it doesnt have to be this way. This reflects how uncommon it is to reach the Oval Office without winning the popular vote; it has only happened four times in United States history. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College. The first is easily dismissed. Instead of having a regional focus that incorporates specific campaigning elements, there would be a national campaign instead. I wrote a whole book on the subject. Presidential electors are not more qualified than other citizens to determine who should head the government. No amount of campaigning will change that. The Electoral College is not going to be changed, and there are far more urgent and promising topics for reform of our presidential selection system. Ive spent the past few years obsessively analyzing the Electoral College, trying to understand the concerns of the founding fathers, doing the math from different elections. It is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. That line garnered one of her largest roars of applause for the evening. This is clear in polling on the topic. Democracy is, at its core, about fair, equal representation one person, one vote. A presidential candidate who doesnt receive a majority of the votes can still win the Electoral College to get into the White House. Do you agree with Mr. Wegman that we should change how the Electoral College works to ensure that the popular vote chooses the president? Warren says she wants to get rid of the Electoral College, and vote for president using a national popular vote. It is a process that allows the people to choose who serves in the White House instead of throwing it into Congress. Interestingly, the congressional caucus system is very close to the system the British used to replace Prime Minister David Cameron. Having the person who loses the popular vote win the presidency will seriously undermine the legitimacy of our elections. Having a state-based system for electing both houses of Congress should be adequate to that task. It is true that the Electoral College no longer serves its original purposes, and that it creates a grave risk that a candidate not favored by a majority of the people will, from time to time, be elected president. Despite California having millions of more people living in the state compared to Wyoming, the weight of a vote is 30% less. The founders fought like cats and dogs over how the president should be chosen. It took time for people to learn what was happening in the nations capital. Spend some time moving states into the Biden and Trump circles and make notes about what you notice and wonder. But dont forget, Bush won the popular vote four years later by three million votes. Take the Electoral College, Americas system for picking the president. "The game will not be any longer to be a [politician who is] liberal but be able to appeal to a rural Ohioan," he said. In fact, lets tally up all the votes cast for president between 1932 and 2008. Some of the most important framers, including James Madison and James Wilson, wanted to write a direct popular vote into the Constitution. First, there's the Constitutional problem. 7. Why? And while the founding fathers implemented this voting process as a way to "preserve the sense of the people" in other words, to go against the popular vote's wishes if the elite few chosen to be electors felt that the winner was unqualified or unfit most states now abide by a "winner-takes-all" method of distributing votes that renders the original purpose moot. Note: A previous version of this post stated that awarding 2 electoral votes per state (plus D.C.) to the national popular vote winner would form a baseline of 138 votes. When Americans are polled about the Electoral College, most of them say that they want it to disappear.