Nelson: Absolish Electoral College

As the Congress was ratifying the results of the Electoral College today, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was filing legislation to abolish it.

Scratching a long-time itch, Nelson filed a bill seeking a constitutional amendment to do away with the college, which chooses the U.S. president based on vote tallies within individual states. (For the record, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama prevailed over Arizona Sen. John McCain, 365 to 173. But you knew that.)

Nelson, a vocal if somewhat quixiotic advocate for election reform, said the Electoral College is archaic and the president should be chosen via popular vote.

"It’s only been a few times in our history, most recently in the 2000 election, that the candidate who lost the popular vote won the Electoral College and became president, but that shouldn’t be allowed to happen again,” Nelson said. “We need to honor the concept of one person, one vote.”

Prospects for the measure, which would need ratification of two-thirds of the U.S. states, are dim.

*

Comments

Sen. Nelson, The Electoral College ensures that the populous, urban areas of our country don't have more of a voice than the more rural areas, thus fulfilling the promise of one person / one vote

Looks like Obama's going to hit the ground running. I sure hope he's successful in counteracting the failed conservative policies that have ruined our nation.

Without the electoral college, there would have been no Bush in 2000. Without Bush, no national disaster. Can you imagine?

WHich policies exactly? You mean the ones where we forced banks to loan money to people who can't afford to pay it back? Stuff like that?

If Gore had won, he wouldn't have made his movie and saved the planet. Talk about a disaster!

Bill Nelson is a bafoon.

I thought the Electoral College is where I'd go to learn for to wire an electronic voting machine?

If Gore had won, we'd be well on our way to saving the planet. Bush WAS a total disaster.

3:26 - Doesn't the electoral college also allow candidates to target their spending in swing states where they can get the most bang for their buck, thereby discounting smaller and therefore "less important" states?

What about inconsistencies in how states choose electors?

I think Bill is hot!

3:35 I doubt he'll focus on that - it was realtively insignificant compared to the massive deregulation and irresponsible tax cuts that were the real cause of the Great Bush Depression of 2008.

"... thereby discounting smaller and therefore "less important" states?"

Classic... just freaking classic! Hey, let's cut out the darkies, jews, and fags next!

... dope

3:49 - how did you jump to that conclusion? Talk about Dope...

I think we need to hear from Katherine Harris before we make any rash decisions.

Signed,

Jeb, George Sr., Babs, and the tard

3:39. It's buffoon.

Went to school during the Jeb! years, did you?

4:02 Nelson was asleep at the while while Insurance commissioner. He is a major reason for the insurance nightmare here in Florida. He was bought and paid for by the Insurance industry years ago.

Sen. Nelson -

Go away. I don't want New York, Chicago and California deciding every single election.

The Founders would have taken you to the woodshed had you introduced such stupidity. They knew well the danger of democracy. That is why we live in a republic of States.

How on earth do you protect the rights of the individual with mob rule?

The Founders protected us from a tyranny of the majority, and that is as it should be.

If you can't understand this, then you sir, are not qualified to be dog catcher.

why wouldn't this be ratified?

wes allison ain't so bright...

4:07 would make a great nazi

The Electoral College is the main reason FLorida has been politically relevant, which directly increases Nelson's power as a Senator and his ability to do good things for FLorida, and he wants to get rid of it? Pure genius!

but, 4:10, we continually prove how stupid the voting public is.

3:39 scored a 20 on the FATC Testmum.

[Inside the SOE]

Please… Florida is as politically relevant as its empty suit Governor. The Electoral College is an out dated scam. But it really doesn’t matter anyway; “we” haven’t actually “elected” anyone for years now. The new Electronic Corporate Appointment System took care of that.

"4:07 would make a great nazi"

How so?

It is easy to tell who wins an argument when someone calls their opponent a Nazi...

4:02 (3:39): Your FCAT score dropped another point. It's "asleep at the wheel."

Charlie Crist for education commissioner!

"but, 4:10, we continually prove how stupid the voting public is."

Exactly. We need to only look at who will soon be in power.

The American Idol generation has doomed us all...

Please... Dubya couldn't even spell American Idol.

4:22 American Idol - isn't that on FOX???

Methinks you should just give up now and plead the 5th.

I think he should just put the 5th down, and lay off the crack while you're at it.

Those of you who voted for the moronic George W. Bush
have no grounds to criticize the good judgement of anyone else. Eight of years of that train wreck, and look at the mess our nation is in. And you dingbats dare to criticize Obama even before he is sworn in.

Do we want to "absolish" or do you mean abolish?

For the record in '76 Nixon prevailed over McGovern 520 to 17. In '80 Reagan prevailed over Carter 489 to 49 and in '84 Reagan prevailed over Mondale 525 to 13. "But you knew that."

What's your point.

[Consevative Woman]

4:46, I did vote for our President twice. Let me preface this by saying how disappointed I am in the Republicans in Congress (and in the White House) for losing their conservative ways and spending and acting like Democrats.
I am grateful to our President for keeping America safe after 9-11. I, unlike you on the rabid left, chose not to Monday morning quarterback how the war should have been run.
Show me one war that was run perfectly without any problems. Enough said.

The President did not cause the meltdown in the market. Both sides of the hill have there hands dirty in this. To try to place the EVERYTHING in our that has gone wrong, is misguided and naive. Remarks like that shows the world you have very little knowledge of how the market works or how government runs.

I voted for McCain only because he the lesser of two evils. It is amusing to me that the left DEMANDS absolute devotion to Obama yet when Bush took office (and the next 8 years) the left treated him like the anti-Christ.

I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt, BUT based on his cabinet picks (Clinton III) and his proposed policies, I see our country going further into debt and open to more attacks.

[Fred]

For the record, 4:58p, Nixon ran against McGovern in 1972.

I thought Nixon burned all the records?

[TRUE BLUE]

A better idea would to allocate 1 electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional District and 2 votes to whoever is the popular vote winner in the State. This would be the best of both worlds and even the smaller states would be protected.

[mvymvy]

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule 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.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

[mvymvy]

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of the winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

The National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers in small states, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

[mvymvy]

The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas (62% Republican),
● New York (59% Democratic),
● Georgia (58% Republican),
● North Carolina (56% Republican),
● Illinois (55% Democratic),
● California (55% Democratic), and
● New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
● Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
● New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
● Georgia — 544,634 Republican
● North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
● Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
● California — 1,023,560 Democratic
● New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.

Under a national popular vote, a Democratic presidential candidate could no longer write off Kansas (with four congressional districts) because it would matter if he lost Kansas with 37% of the vote, versus 35% or 40%. Similarly, a Republican presidential candidate could no longer take Kansas for granted, because it would matter if he won Kansas by 63% or 65% or 60%. A vote gained or lost in Kansas is just as important as a vote gained or lost anywhere else in the United States.

Although no one can predict exactly how a presidential campaign would be run if every vote were equal throughout the United States, it is clear that candidates could not ignore voters in any state. The result of a national popular vote would be a 50-state campaign for President. Any candidate ignoring any particular state would suffer a political penalty in that state.

[mvymvy]

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Under a national popular vote, every vote is equally important politically. There is nothing special about a vote cast in a big city. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties know that they must seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the state in order to win the state. A vote cast in a big city is no more valuable than a vote cast in a small town or rural area.

Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate won 100% of the votes in the nation’s top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

[mvymvy]

people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.

The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

[mvymvy]

Dividing a state's electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person's vote equally important to presidential campaigns.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts.

The district approach would not cause presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race is competitive in only 3 of the state's 53 districts. Nationwide, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the present deplorable state-level winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states (including North Carolina and California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, seven-eighths of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

[mvymvy]

Quoting Laura Kirshner of Washington, DC
. . . The NAACP voted recently to endorse a national popular vote for president. Here's why:
The influence of minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. In 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%.
Battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.

Safe red and blue states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These "spectator" states receive no campaign attention, visits or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.

witout Bush, the U.S. may have had four 9/11's by now

without Bush, the U.S. may have had four 9/11's by now

Yeah, Bill, those rich white slave owning fools, you know, our Founding Fathers, didn't know what they were doing. Adams, Jefferson and Frankin write it, Bill Nelson gets to use an eraser on it?

While we are at it, let’s get rid of the rest of that crummy document.

Think of the possibilities: Obama, Pelosi and Reid appointed for Life!

No guns, 100% Employment (Govt Jobs) No Political Dissent, No more elections! Peace in the Middle East! Muslims are no longer hell bent on killing every non-believer; Global Temperature Constant; Free Porn; No more Hurricanes or 9/11. A vial of Viagra in every Pot and Pot in every vial of Viagra.........

Ya think?

with Bush, the U.S. had 9/11.

nuff said

8:42 - Because Clinton ignored the warning, we had 9/11

but nice try!