New York Times Editorial on the Electoral College The Electoral College remains a deeply defective political mechanism no matter whom it benefits, and it needs to be abolished. Yesterday’s Times contained its quadrennial howl calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. (The Tarnish of the Electoral College - NYTimes.com). I confess, I don’t know if the paper really calls for the college’s elimination every four years, but it should. The editorial admirably goes through the reasons for its abolition. At heart, the college is undemocratic—with real consequences. Reforming or eliminating is not just an abstract need driven by “mere” democratic principles. It should be reformed because it grossly distorts governance. Yet, people have been calling for the college’s demise almost since the beginning. A large majority of the American public has favored its elimination for the last 50 years at least. And we have never gotten close to the goal.  There’s one initiative underway that seems to have some promise. It circumvents rather than eliminates the college. The National Popular Vote is an interstate compact, whereby states sign on committing to allocate their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national vote, rather than of that state’s vote. Once a group of states that cumulatively have 270 college votes sign the compact, it will go into effect. And voila, the winner of the national popular vote will automatically become President. (Check out the website for more information on how the compact works). Right now the Compact has about 134 votes under its belt. So it’s halfway there. If you want to read more about how the college works and arguments pro and con, you can check out this very nice excerpt from the book in slideshow form produced by Newsbound. Image of 1824 Electoral College tally which propelled John Quincy Adams to the presidency over Andrew Jackson. Adams almost certainly lost the popular vote. Source: National Archives
Pop-upView Separately

New York Times Editorial on the Electoral College

The Electoral College remains a deeply defective political mechanism no matter whom it benefits, and it needs to be abolished.

Yesterday’s Times contained its quadrennial howl calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. (The Tarnish of the Electoral College - NYTimes.com). I confess, I don’t know if the paper really calls for the college’s elimination every four years, but it should.

The editorial admirably goes through the reasons for its abolition. At heart, the college is undemocratic—with real consequences. Reforming or eliminating is not just an abstract need driven by “mere” democratic principles. It should be reformed because it grossly distorts governance.

Yet, people have been calling for the college’s demise almost since the beginning. A large majority of the American public has favored its elimination for the last 50 years at least. And we have never gotten close to the goal. 

There’s one initiative underway that seems to have some promise. It circumvents rather than eliminates the college. The National Popular Vote is an interstate compact, whereby states sign on committing to allocate their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national vote, rather than of that state’s vote. Once a group of states that cumulatively have 270 college votes sign the compact, it will go into effect. And voila, the winner of the national popular vote will automatically become President. (Check out the website for more information on how the compact works).

Right now the Compact has about 134 votes under its belt. So it’s halfway there.

If you want to read more about how the college works and arguments pro and con, you can check out this very nice excerpt from the book in slideshow form produced by Newsbound.

Image of 1824 Electoral College tally which propelled John Quincy Adams to the presidency over Andrew Jackson. Adams almost certainly lost the popular vote. Source: National Archives

The US prides itself on being a beacon of democracy - and has even fought wars to preserve and spread the concept - yet a closer inspection of its electoral process reveals a different story. The right to vote is not guaranteed by the Constitution, the candidate with the most votes can still lose, and paperwork requirements and bureaucratic bungling disenfranchise millions.

A fun BBC Magazine piece that we worked on.

BBC News - Electoral dysfunction: Why presidential losers can win the White House

Source: BBC

9 Issues, 45 Days to the Election, 2500 Followers It’s a pretty momentous day for us here at Electoral Dysfunction. Not only is our movie premiere tonite at Quad Cinema in New York, but We’ll hit 2500 followers today, and it’s 45 days til the election. To gear up for the election, I thought that in addition to our usual assortment of newsy, silly and historical posts, I would also focus on nine voting issues leading up to the election. So every five days or so, I’ll post a little something covering these topics: Voter registration Who gets to vote Voter ID laws Voter suppression groups Why vote? The Electoral College Voting machines Voter purges Those of you familiar with arithmetic will notice that the list above only totals to eight. I’ll either make a game day decision on that final topic, or if anyone wants to suggest a topic use the comments section to let me know what you’re interested in.   Image Source: New York Public Library
View Separately

9 Issues, 45 Days to the Election, 2500 Followers

It’s a pretty momentous day for us here at Electoral Dysfunction. Not only is our movie premiere tonite at Quad Cinema in New York, but

  • We’ll hit 2500 followers today,
  • and it’s 45 days til the election.

To gear up for the election, I thought that in addition to our usual assortment of newsy, silly and historical posts, I would also focus on nine voting issues leading up to the election. So every five days or so, I’ll post a little something covering these topics:

  • Voter registration
  • Who gets to vote
  • Voter ID laws
  • Voter suppression groups
  • Why vote?
  • The Electoral College
  • Voting machines
  • Voter purges

Those of you familiar with arithmetic will notice that the list above only totals to eight. I’ll either make a game day decision on that final topic, or if anyone wants to suggest a topic use the comments section to let me know what you’re interested in.  

Image Source: New York Public Library

Monday’s Historical Image Happy Constitution Day! On this day, 225 years ago, the Constitution was signed by 39 men in Philadelphia, the first step on its path to ratification. The convention itself had convened on May 25 in Independence Hall, shown in the above World War I-era propaganda poster. So by the time the Convention delegates signed the document in September, many of them had spent more than three months debating the structure of the new American government. They spent a lot of time complaining about the hot weather, too. For our purposes today, it’s probably worth noting that they created a system of government where: only one federal office was elected via popular vote (Representatives); the President was elected by the Electoral College; and where the right to vote was not guaranteed. Although the Constitution granted Congress the power to regulate federal elections, it generally left the administration of all elections to the states. In consequence, today we have almost 13,000 election administration districts and the rules governing elections are wildly diverse. Polling hours vary from state to state; ballot design is random and often amateurish; voter registration rules are inconsistent…well the list goes on. There have been some notable efforts by the federal government to impose some base level uniformity on our voting systems: the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Voter Registration Act (1993) and the Help America Vote Act (2002). But by and large, voting systems are not subject to any national quality standards. You may be better guaranteed that your eggs will be safe to eat than you are that your democracy will work. The National Constitution Center has some nice resources for people who want to celebrate Constitution Day. Oddly, no party hats for sale on the site though. Image Source: Library of Congress
View Separately

Monday’s Historical Image

Happy Constitution Day!

On this day, 225 years ago, the Constitution was signed by 39 men in Philadelphia, the first step on its path to ratification. The convention itself had convened on May 25 in Independence Hall, shown in the above World War I-era propaganda poster. So by the time the Convention delegates signed the document in September, many of them had spent more than three months debating the structure of the new American government. They spent a lot of time complaining about the hot weather, too.

For our purposes today, it’s probably worth noting that they created a system of government where: only one federal office was elected via popular vote (Representatives); the President was elected by the Electoral College; and where the right to vote was not guaranteed.

Although the Constitution granted Congress the power to regulate federal elections, it generally left the administration of all elections to the states. In consequence, today we have almost 13,000 election administration districts and the rules governing elections are wildly diverse. Polling hours vary from state to state; ballot design is random and often amateurish; voter registration rules are inconsistent…well the list goes on.

There have been some notable efforts by the federal government to impose some base level uniformity on our voting systems: the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Voter Registration Act (1993) and the Help America Vote Act (2002). But by and large, voting systems are not subject to any national quality standards. You may be better guaranteed that your eggs will be safe to eat than you are that your democracy will work.

The National Constitution Center has some nice resources for people who want to celebrate Constitution Day. Oddly, no party hats for sale on the site though.

Image Source: Library of Congress

Tuesday’s Historical Ballot Last week, Al Gore called for the abolition of the Electoral College—more than ten years after its arcane workings cost him the presidential election. (By way of recap, Gore got about half a million more votes than George W. Bush in 2000. But because he lost Florida, all of its Electoral College votes swung to Bush, and with that Bush got more than 270 Electoral College votes and the presidency). So in honor of the Electoral College, here’s a ballot from the 1876 election, the second time (out of four) that the Electoral College sent the man with fewer votes than his opponent to the White House. In 1878, New Yorker Samuel B. Tilden won the popular vote over Rutherford B. Hayes. But Hayes ultimately became President. (It’s a long, complicated story involving rival slates of electors from several southern states and a deal cut in an honest-to-god smoke filled room….fascinating, tragic American history that laid the groundwork for Jim Crow in the South). Pretty much every effort during the last 200+ years to reform or abolish the Electoral College has foundered. There’s one attempt underway now that seems to have a little traction. It’s called the National Popular Vote. And boy, it is not easy to explain. But here goes. As you may or may not know, it takes 270 (out of 538) votes to win the Electoral College and the presidency. There’s a fun (well my kind of fun) website that lets you play around with the Electoral College vote allocation and create your own route to 270, depending on how you think each of the states will swing to Romney or Obama. It’s here. So, how do you get into this college? There’s no SAT for this one. First, each state is allocated member of the Electoral College based on its population. Thus, each state gets as many Electoral College votes as it has members of its congressional delegation. Then, each state gets two more college votes, just like it gets two Senators. After the election is over, almost every state gives whoever won the popular vote in the state all its Electoral College votes. So, if Romney wins Michigan by even one vote, he will get all sixteen of its college votes. With that background, here’s how the National Popular Vote proposal to reform the Electoral College would work. It’s an interstate compact. States that sign up for it pledge to allocate their college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not to the winner of state popular vote. As soon as enough states sign up, i.e. states with 270 or more college votes, then the compact will go into effect. Whoever wins the national popular vote, wins at least 270 Electoral College votes. It’s a clever solution, and its backers are halfway there, in other words states with 135 college votes have already signed up for it. And, no, I do not know what the college’s mascot is. Image Source: University of Virginia PS That was a simplified explanation of how the college works.
View Separately

Tuesday’s Historical Ballot

Last week, Al Gore called for the abolition of the Electoral College—more than ten years after its arcane workings cost him the presidential election. (By way of recap, Gore got about half a million more votes than George W. Bush in 2000. But because he lost Florida, all of its Electoral College votes swung to Bush, and with that Bush got more than 270 Electoral College votes and the presidency).

So in honor of the Electoral College, here’s a ballot from the 1876 election, the second time (out of four) that the Electoral College sent the man with fewer votes than his opponent to the White House. In 1878, New Yorker Samuel B. Tilden won the popular vote over Rutherford B. Hayes. But Hayes ultimately became President. (It’s a long, complicated story involving rival slates of electors from several southern states and a deal cut in an honest-to-god smoke filled room….fascinating, tragic American history that laid the groundwork for Jim Crow in the South).

Pretty much every effort during the last 200+ years to reform or abolish the Electoral College has foundered. There’s one attempt underway now that seems to have a little traction. It’s called the National Popular Vote. And boy, it is not easy to explain. But here goes.

As you may or may not know, it takes 270 (out of 538) votes to win the Electoral College and the presidency. There’s a fun (well my kind of fun) website that lets you play around with the Electoral College vote allocation and create your own route to 270, depending on how you think each of the states will swing to Romney or Obama. It’s here.

So, how do you get into this college? There’s no SAT for this one. First, each state is allocated member of the Electoral College based on its population. Thus, each state gets as many Electoral College votes as it has members of its congressional delegation. Then, each state gets two more college votes, just like it gets two Senators.

After the election is over, almost every state gives whoever won the popular vote in the state all its Electoral College votes. So, if Romney wins Michigan by even one vote, he will get all sixteen of its college votes.

With that background, here’s how the National Popular Vote proposal to reform the Electoral College would work. It’s an interstate compact. States that sign up for it pledge to allocate their college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not to the winner of state popular vote. As soon as enough states sign up, i.e. states with 270 or more college votes, then the compact will go into effect. Whoever wins the national popular vote, wins at least 270 Electoral College votes.

It’s a clever solution, and its backers are halfway there, in other words states with 135 college votes have already signed up for it.

And, no, I do not know what the college’s mascot is.

Image Source: University of Virginia

PS That was a simplified explanation of how the college works.
Many Americans are disenfranchised and some states are ignored because of the Electoral College, and it’s time to abandon it, former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday night as part of Current TV’s coverage of the Republican National Convention.

National Journal - Al Gore Calls for End of the Electoral College 

It’s an interesting development—more than a decade after Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote to George W. Bush. Gore is one of four men who lost the presidency to the mysterious, arcane workings of the Electoral College. In 1824, Andrew Jackson lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes. And in 1888, Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison.

After three botched elections in the nineteenth century, the meschuge workings of the Electoral College faded into distant memory in the twentieth century. Until the 2000 election. Most people remember 2000 for hanging chads and butterfly ballots. But, in fact, Gore won the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. And at the time, he accepted the result and did not call for reform of or abolition of the college. 

We’ll be bringing you more on the Electoral College in coming posts. 

Source: nationaljournal.com

Let the quadrennial electoral college vote predictions begin.  CNN kicked it off recently with the requisite “there might be a tie” piece.  

The likelihood that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will each net 269 electoral votes in November, instead of the 270 needed to win, is actually not so farfetched — and for close observers of the Electoral College system, a tie would set off a wave of constitutional and political mayhem that would make the 2000 Florida recount seem like a tidy affair.

It’s one of political analysts’ favorite parlor games since it demonstrates both a facility with speculative math and a talent for pointing out how crappy the future might be.

Writing an article like this with almost one hundred days left before the election is like trying to predict the length of Kim Kardashian’s next marriage.

Still, few people argue that the electoral college is really good for American democracy.  And truth be told, the college has tied once before: in 1800.  That year, Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr both got the same number of votes in the college.  It would be fascinating to know how Jefferson reacted when he learned the news.  But he prevailed and was elected to the presidency by the House of Representatives.

The second attached photo is a copy of the electoral college tally from 1800, courtesy of the National Archives.  

Source: CNN