Joe Rothstein: It's Time for The U.S. to Graduate From The Electoral College

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, USPolitics.einnews.com

July 9, 2008

A Zogby poll released the other day turned up a 273-160 electoral college lead for Barack Obama over John McCain. In the same poll Obama had only a slight lead (6 points) in the popular vote.

So, according to the more than 46,000 who responded to Zogby's questionnaire, the presidential race is fairly close among individual voters---but a virtual landslide victory for Obama in electoral college votes.

I can't think of better evidence than this for the abolition of the electoral college.

...Unless you consider the 1992 presidential election, where Bill Clinton beat George Bush by 5 million popular votes and 200 electoral votes.

...Or 2000, where Al Gore was the choice of most voters but lost the election.

This year could well be a repeat of 1992 when the public showed only a 5 point preference for Clinton over Bush, but did so in a way that resulted in a Clinton electoral college landslide. Or, as many 2008 scenarios project it, we could revisit 2000, with a popular vote win by Obama, but a McCain presidency based on electoral votes. That could happen if Obama crushes McCain in populous states like California, Illinois and New York, but loses narrowly in smaller competitive states.

Why do we continue to put up with such nonsense? There's not another country in the world, except for Zimbabwe and other dictatorships, that would tolerate a system that makes it possible for losers to win and close votes to be considered landslides.

The electoral college not only is undemocratic, but the system also is an insurmountable hurdle for any third party movement. Ross Perot won nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992 and didn't get a single electoral college vote. All those who bought into Perot's message about the risks of trade globalization were essentially disenfranchised. That's what will happen this year to those who will vote for Bob Barr and his Libertarian platform or for Ralph Nader. Early polls show that Barr and Nader combined are drawing 10%+. Except for spoiler potential, that support won't count.

Compounding the unfairness of the electoral college itself is its winner-take-all system, which insures that voters who give 49.9% support to a candidate in any given state get no recognition in the final tally.

The Republicans made a half-hearted try earlier this year to allocate California's electoral votes by congressional district. Win a district, win those votes. That system has been in place for years in Maine and Nebraska. If Republicans had succeeded in getting the measure on the California ballot it almost certainly would have passed.

While proportional allocation would have been fair for California it would have been decidedly unfair in the context of a national election, where 47 other states maintained winner-take-all.

During the past 200 years of U.S. constitutional history more than 700 proposals have been submitted to Congress to change the electoral system. Florida's Senator Bill Nelson introduced a bill to abolish the electoral college just a few weeks ago. In 1979, the U.S. Senate actually voted to get rid of the electoral college, but fell far short of the two thirds needed to get a constitutional amendment rolling through the states.

The major roadblock toward moving toward the popular election of U.S. presidents is the irrational myth that small population states need it. If candidates were not vying for electoral votes in a state such Delaware, for instance, they would ignore Delaware completely because the state produces so few popular votes. Ignore Delaware and the presidential candidate ignores Delaware's particular needs and issues. Right?

Actually, wrong.

Delaware's voters, like those in bordering Pennsylvania, will make their presidential choice based on the economy, jobs, health care, education, transportation, war and peace and the perceived character of the candidates. Furthermore, the experience of the last few elections has been that most small states have been voting predictability for the Republican or Democratic candidate. With few exceptions (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico) this has created a narrow electoral battleground comprised of 15 to 20 states (Florida, Ohio, Missouri, etc.), few of them "small."

The small state argument is pretty thin in the electronic age, where most general election campaigning comes through wires, wireless devices and satellites.

Probably the best opportunity to move away from the electoral college will be to do an end run around it. Many states are pursuing a plan to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Maryland, Hawaii and New Jersey already have agreed to the abide by the "National Popular Vote" plan, which needs no constitutional amendment. (See nationalpopularvote.com). The plan has also been approved by one house or another of Arkansas, California, Colorado, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The popularity of this plan in state legislatures is driven by the reality that in poll after poll, 70% or more of the U.S. public says it wants to go to ditch the archaic electoral college system and elect the president by popular vote.

After the debacle of 2000, the weeks of uncertainty over who won that election, the contorted outcome based on a one-vote Supreme Court decision, and other injustices inherent in the electoral college system, it's time to say good riddance.

Joe Rothstein, editor of US Politics Today, is a former daily newspaper editor and long-time national political strategist based in Washington, D.C.

See all previous articles by Joe Rothstein here.