Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
Electoral College Reform
Stating the obvious? Yes. But a more detail analysis is worth a look. Below, I revisit the 2000 presidential election. All data presented was current as of then.
In a true democracy, "one person (equals) one vote" applies. However, the misinformed and Republicans, often one-and-the-same, don't realize that ours is a republic, in which the "one person (equals) one vote" rule does not apply. In the U.S., the presidential election is determined through the electoral college. A state's electoral votes are loosely tied to its population.
State Population EV Candidate
WY 495,304 3 Bush
D.C. 572,059 3 Gore
VT 609,890 3 Gore
AK 628,933 3 Bush
FL 16,028,890 27 Bush
NY 19,004,973 31 Gore
TX 20,903,994 34 Bush
CA 33,930,798 55 Gore
Rhetorical question: Why do Republicans repeat their mantra "one person (equals) one vote" but remain resistant to electoral college reform that would reflect this refrain? Simple. 1 EV from CA carries the weight of about one-eighteen an electoral vote from WY. In other words, an EV cast from WY is 18.3 times more valuable than 1 EV cast from CA.
Here, let's reform the electoral college such that 1 EV' in WY = 1 EV' in VT = 1 EV' in TX = 1 EV' in CA, where EV' denotes the reformed EV value.
State EV' Candidate
WY 1.00 Bush
VT 1.23 Gore
TX 42.20 Bush
CA 68.50 Gore
Given the distribution of states won by each candidate (Bush 30 includes Florida, Gore 21 includes D.C.), the result produces a different electoral college outcome.
Candidate States Won EV' Recieved
Gore 21 284.73
Bush 30 284.61
Not only did Gore win the popular vote (not relevant), where "one person (equals) one vote" by more than 537,000, but he also edges Bush in a modified electoral college, where 1 EV' = 1 EV'.
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
I'm going out on a limb here,
but I'm for abolishing the Electoral College altogether.
Do we really need it anymore?
Your point is valid...
...but abolution will not be on the table in our lifetime. Too much resistence from the small states/Republicans.
I'm just proposing a compromise of sorts. Let the Republicans meet us half-way.
Reform.
Reform it is!
At least it would even out the electoral votes.
I saw a guy (author) on C-Span who has
written a bookcovering many possible unintended consequences
of the Electoral System.
He pointed out how the system always gives the smaller
states too much power. When this system was established
we did not have the population numbers we do now.
A person in Wyoming has astounding power over the individual
in California. It means smaller states can almost
hold veto power over our larger and more populated
states. 2 Senators irregardless of population--
Health Care can be stopped by small states when a
high majority of people want it.
Now that our population is so large and diverse, the
electoral college needs a second look and some reform.
Electoral Reform
Ever since 2000 stolen elections, the House has not been able to protest the Electoral numbers as being fraud, not counted properly, up to state standards, election official criminality, etc.
One big change would be to allow House members the ability to protest and question voting in various states without the permission of the Senate. They needed just one Senator to allow them to speak/protest stolen elections in their state at the Electoral College count but not ONE Senator of either party came forward.
That is just plain treason and should be changed in a democracy because the House members most represents the people.
I'd also require all media and parties be unable to declare a winner until all the votes, questions regarding fraud, were final. Right now they don't even finish the voting process before the media and party leaders decide for us. Our vote negated by a few.
We should require exit polls be used to indicate fraud has occurred. It always worked in the past but since Bush the process has been mostly negated. Wonder why? DA!
Take the voting media organizations (panel of ABC, NBC, etc.) out of the vote collection picture all together. It's too easy to steal elections with their power. Party headquarters can give numbers, etc.
How the electoral college system usually works
The electoral college is not rocket science. The way it has generally worked in the past is that the popular vote in each state determines how the electors in each state vote. If a candidate wins the majority in a particular state that candidate gets all those electoral votes for that state. At the end of the night whomever has the most electoral votes wins. I have heard that sometimes electors will vote the other way even though that candidate got a clear majority for that state, but in the end when its all counted up, that candidate always gets all the votes for that state. Maybe someone knows when it hasn't happened that way?
There are two problems with the electoral college that I see, one, its allows a candidate to win despite not having the national popular vote, such as was the case in the 2000 election, giving Bush the win, despite the fact the Gore had the popular vote. Second it makes large states with many electoral votes much more important to win over smaller states or states with a small population such as Alaska. Anyone who believes that somehow Bush scammed his way in needs to get over it. Bush won by the slimmest of margins, something like a 1000 votes in Florida and thus got the electoral votes for that state, giving him the Presidency. Gore did mount a challenge and the votes were counted twice, still showing Bush with a small lead.
In the end the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner in accordance with the Constitution that said a winner must be declared by Christmas time. The only thing that I have heard so far from anyone on this that I find credible is the anomalies with certain counties about certain peoples votes not getting counted or ballots being thrown out. Despite all this Bush got a clear majority in his second term, so in the spirit of not being a sore loser, kudos Bush, see you in hell, we will win the next time around. I suggest everyone get over it, and move on like me. This constant bickering over it just really isn't getting us anywhere and is making us look stupid. If anything all were really doing is giving the Repugs an excuse to act the same way when our guys win by a slim majority.
Sincerely,
Tangent
Slim Majority?
If you believe the polls and party membership Bush did not win by a slim margin. It was stolen.
People (Democrats in the elections 2000-2006) were denied the vote, voting rolls missing, lines hours long, election official cover ups, computer voting machine problems, etc.
I love how it is always by a "slim margin" a 50/50 rule so the citizen vote is negated and the Congress/President decide for us.
If it was a slim margin, it was because the numbers were much greater than they could steal.
Declare the President by Christmas time?
As I remember they had time do to it right.
Keep it simple comes to
Keep it simple comes to mind. I'm for the popular vote. Put in laws where each district in every state is legally accountable for the votes in till they are delivered. Tally them all up and you get the straight facts. No bs attached.
If kids can hack programs what makes anyone think that these computer voting machine cant be hacked. Those same machines come from corporate America, that make huge cash donations to candidates to run. It is a shame how easily citizens go along with schemes that cast a shadow of doubt.
If you really want to adhere to the intent of the constitution
If you really want to adhere to the intent of the constitution, Democrats would repeal the rule that establishes a maximum number of 435 in the House. The constitution mandated 1 member per 30,000 citizens.
While that number may not be applicable today, we should demand that the rule which set the congress be repealed, the constitution amended and thus, the electoral college would be representative of the people and the votes.
When congress set the maximum, they in essence abolished the constitutional principle of representation and the electoral college.
In stead of Presidential elections hinging on the fate of 10 states, it would be thrown back to the population. In addition, the democratic majority of the house would be preserved for a very long time (based on demographics).
I prefer the 1 EV' = 1 EV' proxy
I prefer the 1 EV' = 1 EV' proxy to adding more do-nothing crooks to the taxpayer's payroll.