A Better Way to Hold a Presidential Election

Reader Comments
Back to blog

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 30 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all method is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

toto of PA 2:09PM March 02, 2011

The Electoral College reflects the fact that the STATES created the Federal Government, not the other way around. We've already made the mistake of changing how Senators are chosen, much to our sorrow, so let's not make that mistake again.
Leave the EC as it is and instead, let's work on repealing the 17th Amendment to move back toward our constitutional roots...

Papa of TX 11:23PM March 01, 2011

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 bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted 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.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 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. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, like West Virginia. 2012 campaigning would 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. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
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. It does not abolish the Electoral College. 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.
When the bill comes into effect, all the Electoral College votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

toto of PA 2:56PM March 01, 2011

Elimination of the EC would make the presidential election a popularity contest in only mega urban areas controlled by political machines.
The Electoral College was specifically designed to keep smaller states, West Virgina, Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin engaged in the election process and to give them a voice in national politics.
The Founding Fathers were brilliant men who designed the Electoral College system of government that has withstood the test of time and it works.
In California the Congressional District Electors Initiative #10-0024 is now collecting signatures to select Electors by CD to strengthen the Electoral College system.

TonyAndrade of CA 12:48PM March 01, 2011

Ballot access restrictions make an valid expression of voter preference impossible. Given the system is already rigged to exclude some candidates, just do an honest count of the rigged election and proceed with travesty.

D Frank Robinson of OK 10:37AM March 01, 2011

Gary Howell is worried about WV and other small states becoming irrelevant - one can see rather clearly on a map at onepersononevote.org that most small states don't receive little to no attention from candidates now. As examples, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Delaware, and Rhode Island didn't receive a single candidate visit. And despite donating millions, none of those states received more than just a few thousand dollars in candidate advertising. Even Howell's home state of WV received just 1 visit. And while donating over $1.2 million to candidates' campaigns, only $722,000 was spent back in WV. Where does it all go? States like FL and OH which had 27 and 20 visits each and received $29 million and $17 million respectively in ad spending. Most states large or small are being marginalized by a winner-take-all system our founders never intended or wanted.

Tres of NY 3:12AM March 01, 2011

Contrary to popular belief, the current Electoral College system is not the system the Founders intended. Nor would they approve at what the system has evolved into: a vehicle for special interest. The winner-take-all Electoral College only serves to elevate the needs of niche special interest groups that happen to reside in swing states over the concerns of Americans elsewhere. Why should people in Florida get their agenda privileged over people in Georgia? There is no reason, except that Florida is a "Swing State" and is therefore targeted not only by advertisements, but by political favors. Not only does the current system unfairly privilege the few, it also depresses civic engagement in the so-called spectator states, which happen to comprise over 3/4 of the country.
For the sake of our Democracy, we need to return to basics: one person, one vote.

Greg Comlish of MD 3:21PM February 28, 2011

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 in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group 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 smaller 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%, VA -- 74%, and WV – ‘81%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, OR – 76%, and WA -- 77%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

toto of PA 12:01PM February 28, 2011

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. 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. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign,, when 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 (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
A shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,000,000 votes.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

toto of PA 11:59AM February 28, 2011