![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reforming the Electoral College?
Jun. 1st, 2006 03:18 pmAs some of you may know, I've grown a lot more politically aware in the last 2-3 years, and have educated myself about both some basic political theory as well as tracking political trends and campaigns. So I hope no one will mind if I occasionally post on a political topic that I find particularly interesting; if you aren't interested in such stuff, just skip my posts marked with this userpic (the way I mark my weird science posts with a galaxy pic, as a sort of warning, I guess).
Anyway, the matter that sparked this post was the surprisingly rapid advance of a bipartisan initiative to reform the electoral college to make just a way of certifying the winner of the national popular vote. I remember emailing a friend of mine (when the initiative was unveiled this spring) that it was a clever method of achieving this -- it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment -- that might actually get somewhere with enough time, and that it might be a factor as early as the 2012 election.
But then I read an update of its progress, and I am astounded. Here's how it works: the whole thing depends on the Constitutional clause that gives state legislatures the power to decide how their presidential electors are selected. Almost every state has a winner-take-all standard, leading to our current "swing state" focus of each election. This initiative asks state legislatures to simply pledge their state's electors to the winnner of the national popular vote, to take effect when enough states pass similar pledges to equal a majority in the Electoral College. Like I said, clever: any states that get ignored could jump on board with no risks, and at this point that is easily most of the states.
But I never expected it to catch on so quickly. It's already past the State Assembly in CA and IL, past the State Senate in CO, and on and on. They're claiming that it will be introduced to every state's legislature by next January. That is really moving fast, and now I'm wondering if '08 is going to be a radically different election than one anyone has ever seen before.
I won't offer much analysis, but obviously a popular vote means that there are no swing states, and candidates are going to go anywhere and everywhere to get their votes. I guess one hope is that turnout will increase as people who felt their vote didn't matter take an interest. I would say that overall, this could decrease electoral power somewhat in the Southeast -- turnout in the non-swing states in this area is the lowest in the nation -- and might give urban areas a lot more attention, where it will be most cost-effective to advertise and campaign.
But beyond that, who knows? I don't think anyone does, for sure. I'm not absolutely sold on the idea of popular vote elections, but I do think that shaking up the status quo is a good thing now and then, and this reform is as easily removed as it is instituted. But please, feel free to comment or ask questions -- I'd be happy to do my best to answer them.
Anyway, the matter that sparked this post was the surprisingly rapid advance of a bipartisan initiative to reform the electoral college to make just a way of certifying the winner of the national popular vote. I remember emailing a friend of mine (when the initiative was unveiled this spring) that it was a clever method of achieving this -- it doesn't require a Constitutional amendment -- that might actually get somewhere with enough time, and that it might be a factor as early as the 2012 election.
But then I read an update of its progress, and I am astounded. Here's how it works: the whole thing depends on the Constitutional clause that gives state legislatures the power to decide how their presidential electors are selected. Almost every state has a winner-take-all standard, leading to our current "swing state" focus of each election. This initiative asks state legislatures to simply pledge their state's electors to the winnner of the national popular vote, to take effect when enough states pass similar pledges to equal a majority in the Electoral College. Like I said, clever: any states that get ignored could jump on board with no risks, and at this point that is easily most of the states.
But I never expected it to catch on so quickly. It's already past the State Assembly in CA and IL, past the State Senate in CO, and on and on. They're claiming that it will be introduced to every state's legislature by next January. That is really moving fast, and now I'm wondering if '08 is going to be a radically different election than one anyone has ever seen before.
I won't offer much analysis, but obviously a popular vote means that there are no swing states, and candidates are going to go anywhere and everywhere to get their votes. I guess one hope is that turnout will increase as people who felt their vote didn't matter take an interest. I would say that overall, this could decrease electoral power somewhat in the Southeast -- turnout in the non-swing states in this area is the lowest in the nation -- and might give urban areas a lot more attention, where it will be most cost-effective to advertise and campaign.
But beyond that, who knows? I don't think anyone does, for sure. I'm not absolutely sold on the idea of popular vote elections, but I do think that shaking up the status quo is a good thing now and then, and this reform is as easily removed as it is instituted. But please, feel free to comment or ask questions -- I'd be happy to do my best to answer them.
