Big Sky Debate NFL Public Forum Nov 2011 Electoral College

8/3/2019 Big Sky Debate NFL Public Forum Nov 2011 Electoral College

1/93011 November NFL Public Forum: Electoral College

Big Sky Debate2011-12


2/93

B i g S k y D e b a t e P u b l i c F o r u m P a g e | 2

N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 1 : E l e c t o r a l C o l l e g e v s . D i r e c t E l e c t i o n

Table of Contents

META ...................................................................................................................... 4

THERESOLUTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 4ELECTORALCOLLEGESYSTEMDESCRIBED .................................................................................................................... 5ELECTORALCOLLEGEUNLIKELYTOCHANGE ................................................................................................................ 6

PRO ........................................................................................................................ 7

DIRECTELECTIONGOOD:GENERAL .............................................................................................................................. 7DIRECTELECTIONGOOD:DECREASESLIKELIHOODFORARECOUNT............................................................................ 8DIRECTELECTIONGOOD:INCREASESVOTERTURNOUT ............................................................................................... 9DIRECTELECTIONGOOD:EMPOWERSTHIRDPARTIES ............................................................................................... 11NATIONALPOPULARVOTECOMPACTDESCRIBED ..................................................................................................... 12NATIONALPOPULARVOTECOMPACTGOOD ............................................................................................................. 15NATIONALPOPULARVOTECOMPACTISDIRECTELECTION ........................................................................................ 17NATIONALPOPULARVOTEPLAN:SHOULDNTUSEIT;MUSTENDTHROUGHCONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENT ....... 18ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:SYSTEMISANTIQUATED .................................................................................................. 19ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:DOOMSDAYSCENARIO .................................................................................................... 22

ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:MISREPRESENTSTHEWILLOFTHEPEOPLE ...................................................................... 24ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:DIMINISHESTHEIMPACTOFSOMEVOTES ...................................................................... 27ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:DIMINISHESIMPACTOFTHIRDPARTIES .......................................................................... 31ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:INCREASESFRAUD ........................................................................................................... 32ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:FOCUSESPRESIDENTIALCAMPAIGNONAHANDFULOFSTATES ..................................... 33ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:BROADSUPPORTEXISTSFORENDINGIT ......................................................................... 37ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:THEELECTORPROCESSISBADLYDAMAGED ................................................................... 39ELECTORALCOLLEGEBAD:FAITHLESSELECTORSBAD ................................................................................................ 41A/T:FOUNDINGFATHERSSUPPORTTHEELECTORALCOLLEGE .................................................................................. 42A/T:STATE/LOCALGOVERNMENTANDFEDERALISMARGUMENTS ........................................................................... 43A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEPROJECTSMINORITIES/CREATECOALITIONS .................................................................... 45A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEMEANSMODERATION/DECREASEOFPOLARIZATION ...................................................... 46A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEMEANSLEGITIMACY/MAGNIFICATION ............................................................................. 48A/T:MINORREFORMSTHATWOULDFIXTHEELECTORALCOLLEGE .......................................................................... 50A/T:XORYSTATEISIGNOREDBYCANDIDATES .......................................................................................................... 51A/T:THECONSTITUTIONMANDATESTHEELECTORALCOLLEGE ................................................................................ 52A/T:FRAMEROFTHECONSTITUTIONWANTEDTHEELECTORALCOLLEGE ................................................................ 53

CON ...................................................................................................................... 54

SHOULDNTDEFINEDEMOCRACYASSIMPLY50%+1 ................................................................................................ 54ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:FOUNDINGFATHERSDIDNTINTENDADIRECTDEMOCRACY ...................................... 55ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:GOODSYSTEMTODEALWITHCOMPLEXPROBLEMS ................................................... 57ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:2008ELECTIONWASJUSTFINE! ................................................................................... 58ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:HASADAPTEDWELLOVERTIME ................................................................................... 59ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:FOCUSESONSTATEISSUES ........................................................................................... 60ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:DIMINISHESSECTIONALISM ......................................................................................... 61ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:FORCESCANDIDATESTOCREATEREASONABLE,DIVERSEMAJORITY .......................... 62ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:WIDENSTHEMARGINOFVICTORYOFCANDIDATES .................................................... 64ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:=STABILITYANDMODERATION.................................................................................... 66ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:CRITICSDONTUNDERSTANDCONSTITUTION/CONCEPT ............................................. 69ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:SUPPORTSTWO-PARTYDEMOCRACY........................................................................... 70ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:DECREASESVOTERFRAUD ............................................................................................ 71ELECTORALCOLLEGEGOOD:MUSTKEEPFAITHLESSELECTORS.............................................................................. 72DIRECTELECTIONBAD:THEELECTORALCOLLEGEISNTPERFECT,BUTBEATSALTERNATIVES .................................. 73


3/93



DIRECTELECTIONBAD:INCREASESTHECOSTSOFELECTIONSANDINCREASECORPORATEINFLUENCE ................... 74DIRECTELECTIONBAD:ELIMINATINGTHEELECTORALCOLLEGERISKSCHAINREACTION ......................................... 75DIRECTELECTIONBAD:WILLBRINGTHEFEAREDTYRANNYOFTHEMAJORITY ......................................................... 78DIRECTELECTIONBAD:WOULDDIMINISHCAMPAIGNINGINSTATESANDLOCALITIES ............................................. 79DIRECTELECTIONBAD:CREATESBADCAMPAIGNINCENTIVES .................................................................................. 81DIRECTELECTIONBAD:DIMINISHESSTABILITY........................................................................................................... 82NATIONALPOPULARVOTECOMPACTBAD................................................................................................................. 84

A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEMEANSTHATVOTESAREDIMINISHEDORWASTED ......................................................... 88A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEFOCUSESELECTIONSONAHANDFULOFINPLAYSTATES .............................................. 89A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEISUNDEMOCRATIC ........................................................................................................... 90A/T:THEELECTORALCOLLEGEDISTORTSTHEWILLOFTHEPEOPLE .......................................................................... 91A/T:ELECTORALCOLLEGEHELPORHURTSONEPARTYORTHEOTHER...................................................................... 92A/T:AMERICANSUPPORTELIMINATINGTHEELECTORALCOLLEGE ........................................................................... 93


4/93



META

THE RESOLUTION

The November 2011 NFL Public Forum topic is:

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.


5/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM DESCRIBED

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROCESS DEFINED-Chang '08

[Stanley; JD Candidate at Harvard Law School; RECENT DEVELOPMENT: UPDATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: THE

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE LEGISLATION; Harvard Journal on Legislation; Winter 2007; 44 Harv. J. on Legis. 205]

Selection of the President is governed by a combination of the Constitution (specifically Article II and the Twelfth andTwenty-third Amendments), state law, and customary practice. Article II of the Constitution mandates election of the

President through the Electoral College, which is composed of electors appointed by each state and the District of

Columbia. n6 The number of electors for each state is equal to the sum of the number of senators and representatives

to which that state is entitled. n7 State legislatures have complete discretion over the appointment of electors. n8 The

federal Constitution does not guarantee individuals a right to vote for Presidential electors, and only one state grants its

citizens a state constitutional right to vote for Presidential electors. n9 Despite freedom to choose the appointment

process, virtually every state assigns its entire electoral slate to the winner of that state's popular vote (the "winner-

take-all" rule). n10 Only Maine and Nebraska use the district system, which assigns an elector to the winner of each

congressional district's popular vote and two electors to the winner of the state's popular vote. n11 However, neither

has actually split its electoral slate between two Presidential candidates since instituting the district system. n12 Once

appointed, the electors meet in their [*207] respective states on the same day to cast separate ballots for President andVice President. n13

After electors cast their ballots, the Vice President of the United States, in his capacity as President of the Senate, opens

and counts the electors' votes in the presence of the House and Senate. n14 To be elected outright, a Presidential

candidate must have a majority of the electoral votes. n15 If no candidate wins a majority, the House elects the

President using the House contingency procedure. Under this procedure, the House chooses among the three

candidates with the highest electoral vote totals; when voting, the delegation from each state has one vote. n16 The

states' delegations continue to vote until one candidate receives a majority and thus is elected.


6/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE UNLIKELY TO CHANGE

ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM IS VERY RESISTANT TO CHANGE DUE TO THE DIFFICULTY OF CHANGING TRADITIONAL

INSTITUTIONS IN OUR DEMOCRACY-Anderson '05

[John B.; Former Congressman and Presidential Candidate and Law Professor at Nova Southeastern University; The

Electoral College Flunks the Test in an Age of Democracy; Human Rights Magazine; Spring 2005; page 17]

The need for constitutional change is upon us, and the task is a difficult one. The dimensions of the problem are well

defined in an article by Richard H. Pildes:

[But] democratic institutional designers rarely consider or build in the capacity for representative institutions to be

readily redesigned as circumstances change. The static considerations of power and vulnerability at the moment of

formation overwhelm any capacity to create ready mechanisms for later institutional self-revision. To make matters

worse, one of the iron laws of democratic institutions is that institutional structures once created become refractory to

change.

As specific examples in our U.S. Constitution, Pildes goes on to cite the provisions for both the Senate and the Electoral

College, and the fact that the representational basis for both is skewed. In the Senate, approximately 500,000 Wyoming

citizens have the same voting power as thirty-four million Californians. Pildes goes on to specifically argue that the

Electoral College, with its bonus of two electoral votes for each state regardless of size, illustrates a larger design defectthe Constitution's failure to include any ready capacity to modify the Electoral College structure over time through

national political processes, particularly in light of the material disincentives for individual states to change their own

allocation rules for electors.


7/93



PRO

DIRECT ELECTION GOOD: GENERAL

THE UNITED STATES MUST MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO A DIRECT ELECTION PLAN-Raskin '07

[Jamin; Professor of Constitutional Law at American University; Deformed Reform: The cure for the Electoral Collegethat is worse than what ails us; Slate; 24 August 2007;

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.html; retrieved 2 October

2011]

The current system is arbitrary, accident-prone, and increasingly untenable. On that I can agree with the Republicans

who back the California initiative. What I cannot accept is that a more convoluted system, undertaken by a single state

for transparently political reasons, is the solution. It is time for the American people to elect the president directly and

democratically. Let us give every American incentive to vote in an election in which every vote counts. Let us (finally)

agree to stop playing strategic games and let the chips fall where they may with a national popular vote.

DIRECT ELECTION HAS SEVERAL BENEFITS-Edwards '04

[George C.; Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University; Why the Electoral College is Bad for America; 2004;

Kindle Location 2160]

The Automatic, Proportional, District, and National Bonus plans all have limitations as remedies to the problems caused

by the electoral college. There remains the system that Americans use to elect every member of Congress, every

governor, and virtually every elected official in the country: direct election. Direct election of the president would elect

the people's choice by ensuring equal treatment of voters. Counting all votes equally (and making all votes equally

valuable to the candidate) would not only strengthen political equality but also provide an incentive for candidates to

clarify their stances rather than hedging them to persuade only the undecided in competitive states. Direct election

would reduce the power of sectionalism in politics and encourage candidates to focus their campaigns on the entire

nation, including racial minorities. It would also reinvigorate party competition and combat voter apathy by giving

candidates and parties incentives to turn out voters in states they cannot win as a whole. Naturally, direct electionwould eliminate all the problems caused by the selection and voting of electors themselves, and aggregating votes

nationwide would decrease the incentives for and impact of electoral fraud.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.html


8/93



DIRECT ELECTION GOOD: DECREASES LIKELIHOOD FOR A RECOUNT

US LESS LIKELY TO SEE A RECOUNT IN A DIRECT ELECTION-Plumer '04

[Bradford; Assistant Editor for the New Republic; The Indefensible Electoral College, Mother Jones Online; 8 October

2004; Gale Group Databases]

It's true, a nationwide recount would be more nightmarish than, say, tallying up all the hanging chads [paper fragmentscreated from partially punched vote cards] in Florida. At the same time, we'd be less likely to see recounts in a direct

election, since the odds that the popular election would be within a slim enough margin of error is smaller than the odds

that a "swing" state like Florida would need a recount. Under a direct election, since it usually takes many more votes to

sway a race (as opposed to a mere 500 in Florida), there is less incentive for voter fraud, and less reason for candidates

to think a recount will change the election. But set aside these arguments for a second and ask: why do so many people

fear the recount? If it's such a bad idea to make sure that every vote is accurately tallied, then why do we even have

elections in the first place?

THE CHANCE OF A CLOSE ELECTION RECOUNT FOR A NATIONAL DIRECT ELECTION IS VERY LOW-Chang '08



Supporters of the Electoral College argue that under the Electoral College, recounts and controversy associated with

close elections can be limited to one state or a handful of states, but that with a direct popular vote, recounts would

have to be national, and thus costlier and more chaotic. n137 Of course, the cut-off for any such recount would in itself

be a source of controversy. Indeed, some argue that the 1960 election, which Kennedy won with a 0.2% national popular

vote margin, should have been recounted. n138 Others argue that because voting machines have an error rate of 1% or

more, elections with margins of up to 1% are inherently problematic. n139

Yet, the low probability of very close elections on the national level makes this aspect of the NPV legislation of only

minimal concern. Since 1900, every election has had a national popular vote margin exceeding 100,000--a very high

absolute number of ballots. n140 Simple arithmetic confirms this result: a 0.1% margin translates into a much larger

absolute margin in a national vote than in a state vote. Moreover, the American people may not find very close

elections, even on a national level, troubling, having become accustomed to very close elections due to their experience

with state races.

RECOUNTS LESS LIKELY IN A DIRECT ELECTION SYSTEM-Edwards '04



Nevertheless, under a system of direct popular election of the president, recounts would be less likely. In order to

undertake a recount, there has to be the reasonable possibility that enough incorrect or fraudulent votes can be found

to change the outcome of the election. The fewer total votes in an electoral unit, the more likely it is that a close contest

may result in a small number of votes deciding the election. As we have seen, under the electoral college a few votes in

one state may be able to make the difference in swinging a large block of electoral votes and possibly decide theelection. This is what happened in Florida in aooo; the election was so close that adding or subtracting a few hundred

votes might realistically have changed the election outcome. A recount thus had a plausible possibility of altering the

outcome. If the election had been by popular vote, George W. Bush would have had to find about a thousand times as

many votes-a daunting task. It is somewhat amusing that advocates of the electoral college often argue that one of its

advantages is that it produces a swift and sure decision.' In the wake of the election of 2000, such assertions seem naive.

It is also noteworthy that throughout the protracted battle over Florida's electoral votes, the public indicated that it

would rather have a correct than a rapid decision.


9/93



DIRECT ELECTION GOOD: INCREASES VOTER TURNOUT

DIRECT ELECTION CREATES INCENTIVES FOR STATES TO GET OUT THE VOTE-Anderson '05



Other proposals have sought to move to direct election without going through the torturous amendment process. Onewas offered by Professors Akhil Amar and Vilram Amar, who point out that the Electoral College, as now configured,

neither helps small states, ensures states' rights, nor protects the concept of federalism. Indeed, electing a president by

a popular vote would provide state governments incentives to improve our democracy by finding ways to increase the

size of the vote. The Amars would, it should be pointed out, favor instant runoff voting as the optimum method for

conducting the direct popular vote. The rank ordering of candidates on the ballot could ensure that, with instant runoff

voting, it would be possible in one and the same election to conduct the count in a manner to ensure a true majority

winner. This would solve the "spoiler problem" that today confronts any candidate who chooses to run outside the

present majority party duopoly.

NATIONAL VOTE PLANS WOULD CREATE INCENTIVES TO HELP GET OUT THE VOTE-Chang '08

[Stanley; JD Candidate at Harvard Law School; RECENT DEVELOPMENT: UPDATING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: THENATIONAL POPULAR VOTE LEGISLATION; Harvard Journal on Legislation; Winter 2007; 44 Harv. J. on Legis. 205]

The United States ranks close to the bottom among world democracies in voter turnout. n119 Some scholars argue that

a direct popular election, like that proposed by the NPV legislation, would motivate more Americans to vote by ensuring

that every vote would count. n120 Some supporters of the Electoral College, however, suggest that the psychological

benefit of knowing that every vote counts will have no appreciable effect on turnout. n121

A comparison of turnout in battleground states and in safe states for the 2004 election suggests that battleground states

have higher voter turnout than safe states. Among nine battleground states, aggregate turnout was 66.3% of eligible

voters, compared with 58.9% in the other forty-two jurisdictions. n122 The disparity has increased over time. The

turnout for the twelve most competitive states increased from 54% to 63% between 2000 and 2004, while turnout for

the twelve least competitive states increased from 51% to only 53%. n123

[*223] Under the NPV legislation, candidates who currently ignore states in which they have comfortable majorities

would have a new incentive to maximize their supporters' turnout. Every candidate would also have an incentive to

pursue every possible vote, even in states that are heavily tilted toward another party. Candidates would probably

advertise on national television networks instead of on local stations, n124 so campaigns would reach even voters in

sparsely populated areas, most likely increasing the total national turnout.

POPULAR ELECTIONS WOULD INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT-Robb '08

[Brandon H.; MAKING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORK TODAY: THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE

PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE; Loyola Law Review; Summer 2008; 54 Loy. L. Rev. 419]

Another advantage to having presidential elections decided by the national popular vote is that such a system would

provide an incentive for voters in a state where they are in a small political minority to turn out to vote. Currently, aDemocratic voter in a heavily Republican state, or vice versa, may not feel like they have any reason to vote, since it is

clear which party will carry their state. In a popular election, however, the votes of people in the political minority in a

given state would still be worth casting, since it would count toward the overall result. The net effect of this is that

turnout in presidential elections may increase, which is good for the functioning of a healthy democracy.


10/93



DIRECT ELECTION WOULD ALLOW FOR EACH VOTE TO BE COUNTED EQUALLY-Robb '08



Modern presidential campaigns would be far better served by a system where every voter across the country has an

equal say in the determination of who leads America. Currently, the winner-take-all approach is woefully inadequate to

this task, reducing the presidential election process to a caricature of the kind of debates the country and the Americanpeople deserve. n247 The Agreement would eliminate a presidential candidate's ability to either blithely take for

granted or callously ignore voters in the vast majority of the country, as they do now. n248 While candidates may still

focus much of their strategy on certain large population centers, they would also be forced to compete for the votes of

all Americans. For instance, in a close national election, the candidates would have an incentive to work for support in

every state, regardless of its population, even though high-population areas would likely see an increase in attention

from candidates. While cost-benefit analysis would still be used by presidential campaigns to target their efforts, the

Agreement would eliminate the disproportionate power that voters in a handful of states currently enjoy simply because

of the close political divides in their states. n249


11/93



DIRECT ELECTION GOOD: EMPOWERS THIRD PARTIES

THIRD PARTY SUPPORT FROM DIRECT ELECTIONS WOULD STRENGTHEN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM-Plumer '04



The ultimate argument against the Electoral College is that it would encourage the rise of third parties. It might. But

remember, third parties already play a role in our current system, and have helped swing the election at least four times

in the last centuryin 1912, 1968, 1992 and 2000. Meanwhile, almost every other office in the country is filled by direct

election, and third parties play an extremely small role in those races. There are just too many social and legal obstacles

blocking the rise of third parties. Because the Democratic and Republican parties tend to be sprawling coalitions rather

than tightly-knit homogenous groups, voters have every incentive to work "within the system". Likewise, in a direct

election, the two parties would be more likely to rally their partisans and promote voter turnout, which would in turn

strengthen the two-party system. And if all else fails, most states have laws limiting third party ballot access anyway.

Abolishing the Electoral College won't change that.


12/93



NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT DESCRIBED

NATIONAL VOTING PLAN DESCRIBED-Chang '08



The heart of the NPV legislation is a "cheeky idea" n49: upon implementation of the NPV legislation, states that havepassed the NPV legislation will pledge their Presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than

the state popular vote, thus assuring that the popular vote winner receives a majority in the Electoral College. n50

Linking the electoral vote to the national popular vote appears to be unprecedented in the history of proposed reforms

to the Electoral College. n51 It allows the [*212] Electoral College to remain intact, but only as a "tourist attraction,"

replicating the national popular vote result, subject only to the possibility of faithless electors. n52 The NPV legislation

overcomes the incentives against abandoning the winner-take-all rule by employing an interstate compact that does not

bind states until the participating states cumulatively constitute a majority of the Electoral College, assuring that the

national popular vote winner has a majority in the Electoral College. n53

The first two articles of the NPV legislation extend the right to join the interstate compact to any state and to the District

of Columbia n54 and mandate that each participating state conduct a popular election for the President and Vice

President. n55 Article three contains the central operative language, which assigns the state's Presidential electors tothe winner of the national popular vote: "The Presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify

the appointment in that official's own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national

popular vote winner." n56

The NPV legislation makes no provision for a recount. Each state's chief election officer must treat as final "an official

statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each Presidential slate" made by the day established by

Congress for making the states' electoral vote determinations conclusive. n57 In the extremely unlikely event of a tie in

the national popular vote, the NPV legislation provides for the states to revert to the present winner-take-all rule for

assigning electors. n58

States that have passed the NPV legislation will only utilize its procedures for a given election year if the NPV legislation

is in effect by July 20 of that election year. To come into effect, the legislation must be adopted by a number of states

such that the majority of the Electoral College votes would be apportioned under the NPV legislation. n59 Member

states may withdraw from the agreement at any time, but any withdrawal occurring [*213] within six months of the end

of a President's term cannot take effect until the next President or Vice President is "qualified to serve the next term."

n60


13/93



NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN DESCRIBED-Raskin '07

[Jamin; Professor of Constitutional Law at American University; Deformed Reform: The cure for the Electoral College

that is worse than what ails us; Slate; 24 August 2007;

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.html; retrieved 2 October

2011]

Citizens who are truly serious about transforming the Electoral College actually have a sturdy nonpartisan vehicle bywhich to move us to the kind of popular presidential election that citizens in nearly every other democracy enjoy. We

don't need a new partisan trick to "fix" our presidential process. We need only enact the existing obvious solution.

The "National Popular Vote" plan, which is on the table in 47 states, has been signed into law in Maryland and had

actually passed both houses in California in 2006 before it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It simply calls for

an interstate compact among all states to agree to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote.

It becomes effective and binding when states representing at least 270 electors enter the compact. This is the way we

will get to elect presidents as we elect governors and senators: everyone acting together, without games and

subterfuge.

The plan has the backing of distinguished Republican statesmen like former Utah Sen. Jake Garn, former Minnesota Sen.

David Durenberger, former Illinois Rep. John Anderson, former Alabama Rep. John Buchanan, and former California Rep.

Tom Campbell, as well as distinguished Democrats like former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh, and former New York Rep. Tom

Downey. It has been endorsed by newspapers from the New York Times and Minneapolis Star-Tribune to the Los

Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee.

As far as I can tell, the only thing the plan lacks is active support from Republicans in office. Indeed, for some reason,

there is a constant undertow of opposition from the party. I know this because when I introduced the plan in the

Maryland Senate, I had expressions of enthusiasm from several Republican colleagues, one of whom even voted for it in

committee. But when it came to the floor, all of the Republicans voted against it. They claimed that it would hurt small

states even though small states that are safely red or bluelike Rhode Island or Montanaare ignored today just like

the large ones (such as New York or Texas). They said that we should stick with the handiwork of the Framerseven

though the current Electoral College process is distant from the way it was practiced in the 18th century and even

though the Constitution clearly empowers the states to appoint electors as we see fit, including on the basis of the

national popular vote. On the House side, only one Republican supported the bill. It passed with overwhelming (but not

unanimous) Democratic support.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.html


14/93



NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN DESCRIBED-Dotinga '06

[Randy; A backdoor plan to thwart the electoral college; The Christian Science Monitor; 16 June 2006;

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.html; retrieved 2 October 2011]

Picture it: On election day in some future year, a presidential candidate ends up with the most popular votes but not

enough electoral votes to win.

It's a repeat of the 2000 election in which one contender, Democrat Al Gore, took the majority of the national popularvote, while the other, Republican George W. Bush, clinched the most electoral college votes and, hence, the presidency.

But this time there's a twist: A bunch of states team up and give all their electoral college votes to the nationwide

popular-vote winner, regardless of who won the most votes in their state. Then, the candidate who garners the most

citizen votes in the country moves into the White House.

Legislative houses in Colorado and California have recently approved this plan, known as the National Popular Vote

proposal, taking it partway to passage. Other states, too, are exploring the idea of a binding compact among states that

would oblige each of them to throw its electoral votes behind the national popular-vote winner.

At issue is the nation's presidential election system governed by the electoral college. Established by the US Constitution

in 1787, the system has occasionally awarded the presidency to candidates who couldn't muster the most votes

nationwide, as happened in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

While an amendment to the Constitution could change or eliminate the electoral college, battleground states and small

states would probably oppose any change that would leave them with less influence. Indeed, since the system's

inception, numerous efforts to amend it have been defeated.

Instead, reformers have turned to the interstate compact, saying it would be constitutional because agreements

between states already exist.

The compact is designed to take effect only if states representing 270 electoral votes approve the compact legislation,

giving those states majority control of the electoral college. The result: The "compact" group of states would be able to

determine a presidential election.

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN DESCRIBED-Robb '08



A new and innovative plan being offered by an organization called National Popular Vote seems much more likely to

succeed than any previous attempt to change the Electoral College, because it does not involve the cumbersome

process of amending the Constitution. n6 The organization has drafted an interstate agreement (or compact), entitled

the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" ("the Agreement"), which, if

enacted, would ensure that the winner of the most votes cast nationwide in a U.S. presidential election would also win

the majority of electoral votes required to win the election. n7 The plan, which takes effect only on passage of the

Agreement (in "substantially the same form") in enough states with a combined majority of votes in the Electoral

College, would award the electoral votes of the member states to the presidential candidate who wins the national

popular vote. n8 As of [*421] October 8, 2007, the Agreement had sponsors for the 2007 legislative sessions in 47

states, including Louisiana, with a combined 512 electoral votes, well above the 270 currently needed for an Electoral

College majority. n9 National Popular Vote hopes to eventually have sponsors for the Agreement in all 50 states. n10The organization is chaired by a bi-partisan advisory committee comprised of former members of Congress, n11 each of

whom continues to be active in public or academic life. The Agreement has attracted much attention from the media as

well. n12 It has also, however, encountered strong opposition from supporters of the current Electoral College system.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.html


15/93



NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT GOOD

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN WOULD DEAL IGNORED STATES BACK INTO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION-Dotinga '06



The plan is supported by electoral reform activists and a bipartisan advisory group including former GOP Rep. JohnAnderson (a presidential candidate in 1980) and former Sen. Birch Bayh (D).

They say the compact would allow long-ignored states to get attention again in presidential campaigns. The current

system has "just taken a lot of states off of the presidential map," complains Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a

nonpartisan organization based in Maryland, which supports the compact.

The compact proposal passed the California Assembly on May 30 with all but one Republican opposing. It awaits a vote

in the state Senate and, if it passes, approval or rejection by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), who hasn't publicly

expressed an opinion about it.

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN IS AN INGENIOUS SOLUTION-Dotinga '06



Colorado's Senate approved the plan in April with bipartisan support, but it has not advanced because the legislative

session there has ended.

Five GOP Assembly members are pushing a popular-vote bill in New York, and legislators in Missouri, Louisiana, and

Illinois have introduced bills. Advocates hope to put the legislation before every state by 2007, says Mr. Ritchie.

Meanwhile, several newspapers have come out in favor of the plan, including The New York Times, which calls it an

"ingenious solution."

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRESERVES OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS-Robb '08



The Agreement would be the best way to reform the Electoral College to allow the nationwide popular vote to be

decisive in the selection of the President. Rather than amend the U.S. Constitution, the Agreement is an interstate

compact among those states that should choose to adopt it. n226 Such interstate compacts have the same force under

law as contracts between the party states, n227 and as such are afforded protections against laws "impairing the

Obligation of Contracts ... ." n228 Thus, any state that decides to enter the Agreement will be bound by it. A state may

enter into an interstate compact in any manner in which legislation may normally be passed in that state, including the

legislature or a citizen initiative process. n229 As proposed, the Agreement would not take effect, unless it is enacted "in

substantially the same form" in states with a combined majority of the Electoral College votes (currently 270), ensuring

that the Agreement [*454] is not in effect unless its purpose would be fulfilled. n230 Making the Agreement contingent

in such a fashion is common in interstate compacts. n231 Although the Constitution states that "No State shall, without

the Consent of the Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State... .," n232 the Supreme Courtin Virginia v. Tennessee held that Congress's consent is not required in all instances, and instead is only mandated where

such a compact would enlarge the political powers of the states to such a degree as to encroach on the delegated

powers of the national government. n233 The Agreement does not encroach on any power delegated to the national

government, because the Constitution explicitly gives the states the power to choose the manner of the election of

members of the Electoral College. n234 Any state on its own initiative could decide to award its electors to whichever

candidate receives the largest amount of popular votes nationwide. The Agreement merely allows states to enter into a

binding agreement to do so, maximizing the political power which member states already individually possess.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.html


16/93



THE THREAT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN IS

MITIGATED FOR SEVERAL REASONS-Chang '08



If adopted, the status of the NPV legislation, as an interstate compact, is at least theoretically precarious because any

member state could withdraw from it at any time. n152 The NPV legislation attempts to foster at least election-yearstability by prohibiting withdrawals from taking effect after July 20 of the election year. n153 Theoretically, this provides

enough time for candidates to transition their campaigns to a battleground-centered race; however, it seems likely that

such an event would still throw campaigns into disarray and undermine the purpose of NPV legislation.

The possibility of state withdrawal may be mitigated by several circumstances. First, more states than necessary may

join the interstate compact, making the withdrawal of a few states irrelevant to the guaranteed majority. Second, since

the early 1800s, state legislatures have been reluctant to manipulate the presidential voting system. Third, the

popularity and self-propagating legitimacy of a true nationwide popular vote may make any switch back to a state-based

system politically unfeasible.

Fourth, a switch would be advantageous and feasible only under the rare convergence of several circumstances.

Specifically, the candidate would have to be trailing in nationwide polls, but have a reasonable likelihood of capturing a

majority of the electoral votes under the state-based, winner-take-all system. Further, states that could affect the

outcome of the election would have to be members of the NPV interstate compact. The composition of these states

would have to be controlled by the trailing candidate's party and willing to manipulate the system for assigning electors.

Practically, then, the danger of strategic withdrawals seems low. In sum, while state withdrawal remains a possibility, it

is probably unlikely.


17/93



NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT IS DIRECT ELECTION

THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN EFFECTIVELY CREATES DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT-Chang '08



The Electoral College is an anomaly of the American democracy. The United States is virtually alone in entrusting theelection of its President to a small, largely anonymous group of individuals, rather than to its citizen voters. n1 On

February 23, 2006, National Popular Vote ("NPV"), n2 an organization led by several former national legislators of both

parties, n3 unveiled the proposed text for legislation ("NPV legislation") that would guarantee a majority in the Electoral

College to the winner of the national popular vote for President. n4 The NPV legislation would effectively abolish the

Electoral College by having states pass an interstate compact to pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the

national popular vote. The NPV legislation promises to revive the centuries-old debate over the method for selecting the

President n5 and raise important questions about the foundations of American democracy.


18/93



NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN: SHOULDNT USE IT; MUST END THROUGH

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

SHOULD END THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-Gringer '08

[David; WHY THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN IS THE WRONG WAY TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; Columbia

Law Review; January 2008; 108 Colum. L. Rev. 182]

Nevertheless, NPV supporters are correct to focus public attention on the electoral college. The way we elect the

President is an anachronism that distances most Americans from choosing the most powerful official in the country. The

best way to end the electoral college is through a constitutional amendment. Perhaps given the pressure NPV

supporters are applying, Congress will finally pass an amendment. In the alternative, either submitting the NPV to

Congress as an interstate compact for the approval of a majority of Congress, or adopting it through ballot initiatives

[*230] in the states, provides a sounder method for ending the electoral college.


19/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE BAD: SYSTEM IS ANTIQUATED

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROCESS IS ANTIQUATED-Davis '08

[Roy T.; Retired Businessman; Electoral College Revisited; Empire Page; 28 October 2008; Gale Group Databases]

It's a good time to think about this antiquated process that the Electoral College forces upon us. Events in our country

and the world are far too important today to allow it to determine elections. Not to mention it is grossly unfair for thosewho cast their ballots for the losing candidate in New York and consequently their vote does not count in the national

total.

We now have intelligent (?), well funded and unscrupulous politicians and their party apparatuses who manipulate the

system. They are self serving with only one thing in mind and that is for them to stay in power. To them, their sole

purpose is not to tackle and solve difficult, complex problems that we elected them to deal with but just to stay in

power. Today they can do that very easily with the Electoral College by winning only eleven states!

AMERICA'S VALUES ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM-Robb '08



The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote should be enacted by the Louisiana

legislature and the legislatures of every other state. America's modern democratic values are not reflected in the current

winner-take-all approach in the Electoral College. That system has made the citizens of two-thirds of America's states

next to irrelevant in the process of electing a President, with the major candidates either taking them for granted or

ignoring them entirely. n286 The states have the power to exercise their constitutionally granted prerogative to

modernize the Electoral College so that it reflects the democratic values of voter equality that the American people

expect and [*465] deserve. The states should not hesitate to exercise this power. The winner take all Electoral College

system is a far cry from what the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they created the institution as a

compromise over two centuries ago. n287 The current system developed over the years as states sought to concentrate

their own political power. n288 The result has been that real influence in the presidential election process has become

concentrated in barely over a dozen states, while the rest of the country sits largely on the sidelines during a presidentia

election. n289 With the Electoral College of the Framers' vision but a distant memory, and with less authentic debate on

national issues with every passing presidential election, the time for change is ripe. The Agreement will bring this much-

needed change to America's civic dialogue, and will make every citizen in the nation equally as important on Election

Day, regardless of where they happen to live.

Furthermore, unlike previous direct election proposals, the Agreement does not seek to amend the Constitution, and if

at any point in the future the states should desire a return to the winner-take-all approach, the Agreement, with the

addition of the changes herein, allows them to do so, in a fashion that honors the tradition of federalism and the

sovereignty of the states. n290 The American public has been disenchanted with the winner-take-all aspect of the

Electoral College for almost sixty years now. n291 The time has arrived for the kind of change the American people

want, and the Agreement delivers this change while upholding the great traditions of American federalism. The

Agreement should be enacted, along with the changes proposed by this Comment, to bring America's democracy into a

new era, reflective of the ideals of its people.


20/93



THE ORIGINAL REASONS WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS IN PLACE SHOULDN'T MATTER: MUST LOOK AT MODERN

REALITIES-Davis '08


It appears there are many and varied reasons why the Electoral College exists depending on who you read or listen to.

The fact is it was developed 200 years ago and has a structure to it that was meant to appease opposing forces back

then so they could agree on other issues. With that being said, it doesn't really matter how or why it's in place, it just isand we should seriously consider eliminating it and go to a straight popular vote election.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE ADVOCATES DON'T CITE DATA OR LITERATURE-Edwards '04


Kindle Location 98]

It is disconcerting, then, to find that supporters of the electoral college are extraordinarily insouciant about their claims

on its behalf and virtually never marshal data systematically or rigorously evaluate supposed benefits. Nor do they cite

relevant literature. Instead, they make assertions. Yet there are ways to test claims. For example, do candidates really

pay attention to small states? We can find out. Is the electoral college really a fundamental pillar of federalism? Let us

examine the federal system and see. Is the winner-take-all system in the electoral college the critical institutional

underpinning of the two-party system? Researchers have been studying party systems for years.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS THAT IT SENDS PEOPLE TO THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DIDN'T

RECEIVE THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE-Levinson '07

[Stanford, Professor of Law at University of Texas Law School;SHOULD WE DISPENSE WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?;

University of Pennsylvania Pennumbra; 2007; 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 10]

So what are the primary deficiencies of the Electoral College? I begin with the most obvious one: It regularly sends to the

White House persons who did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Since World War II alone, this has included

Truman, Kennedy, Richard Nixon (1968), Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996), and George W. Bush (2000). (Gerald Ford's

unelected presidency cannot truly be blamed on the Electoral College, though any spirit of fundamental reflection about

the current Constitution might well ask about the necessity or advisability of having a Vice President at all.) More distantbeneficiaries include Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson (1912), either of whom might have been defeated if the

United States had adopted such a sensible election process as the Alternative Transferable Vote (ATV) or even run-offs

between the top two candidates. One might, of course, applaud both of those presidencies; if that is so, then perhaps

we should really be debating if we really believe in "majority rule" at all and why losers in such a process should feel

obligated to accept what they believe to be fundamentally wrong decisions on the part of minority presidents.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS RECEIVE MORE CRITICISM THAN ANY OTHER AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION-

Dotinga '06



The electoral college system is "distinctly American," says Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of

California, Riverside.

In US history, there have been about 700 failed proposals in Congress to change the electoral college system, according

to the Office of the Federal Register.

"It's safe to say that there has been no aspect of what the founders worked up in Philadelphia that has received more

criticism than the electoral college," says historian Rick Shenkman of George Mason University.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p01s02-uspo.html


21/93



THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS A WIDE BASE OF CRITICS-Robb '08



Although many aspects and institutions of American government are controversial, few have come under such frequent

attack and been the center of passionate debate among scholars, political leaders, and the American people as often or

with as much intensity as the system of the Electoral College, enshrined in Article II of the Constitution. n4 Politicalscientists, American political leaders, and most of the American public have recognized for some time the wide range of

flaws in the current winner-take-all Electoral College system, including its propensity to grossly misrepresent the

magnitude of support afforded a candidate by the electorate, its allowance for various crises as a result of a few critical

states determining the outcome in close elections, and the fact that, though rare, the system allows a candidate who

received fewer votes from Americans across the country than an opponent to become President.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A MENACE TO THE AMERICAN POLITY-Levinson '07

[Stanford, Professor of Law at University of Texas Law School;SHOULD WE DISPENSE WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?;

University of Pennsylvania Pennumbra; 2007; 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 10]

The only conceivable argument "for" retaining the Electoral College as a constituent aspect of the American political

process is a basically Burkean one. It seems to rely on some mixture of the fact that it is indeed our unique method of

choosing a chief executive/head of state; the highly debatable assertion that it has not disserved the country too badly

and may even, on occasion, have served us well; and, finally, that it would be either futile, because of the barriers set

out by Article V, to try to eliminate the College through constitutional amendment or too dangerous to accept my own

proposal, in Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct

It), of calling a new convention, as is legitimate under Article V itself, charged with examining the many grave

deficiencies of our present Constitution.

As should be obvious, I disagree with all of the proposed defenses and believe that the College is a continuing menace to

the American polity. Complacent acceptance of its "inevitable" role in electing our presidents is equivalent to an equal

complacency about driving a car with slick tires and bad brakes, after having had three drinks, on the ground that one

had earlier successfully navigated the route home. Even if true, this is ultimately an adolescent way of thinking. We

should recognize that there is also a significant chance that such a car will take us over a cliff and try to guard againstsuch an unhappy future [*12] by buying new tires, installing new brakes, and resolving not to drive while drunk.


22/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE BAD: DOOMSDAY SCENARIO

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CAUSED THE ELECTION DRAMA OF 1876-Robb '08



Soon after the Electoral College had taken on its current form, the nation prepared to elect a President in 1876. Comingas it did in the midst of post-Civil War Reconstruction, the election was of great import to the future of American society.

The accuracy of the result in the 1876 election remains in doubt even today, more than a century after the controversy

surrounding it was resolved. n152 On Election Day in 1876, the Democratic nominee, Samuel J. Tilden, won a close but

comfortable victory in the national popular vote, winning by a margin of 51% to 48% (or approximately 250,000 votes in

terms of raw numbers) over the Republican nominee, Rutherford B. Hayes. n153 While it was initially believed that

Tilden had also succeeded in winning a majority of the electoral votes, it became apparent that the election results in

three states were close enough to be in doubt; with allegations of fraud propelling the dispute on both sides, neither

candidate would be able to claim victory without a resolution on those races. n154 Each of these states submitted dual

certificates of their election returns, and Congress had to resolve the crisis by creating a commission to rule on which

electors should be certified. n155 This process took months to resolve, and culminated in a backroom deal in which the

commission voted to award all of the disputed electors to Hayes, on a party-line vote, giving him an Electoral Collegevictory by a single vote, 185-184, over Tilden, making him the nineteenth President. n156 Thus, despite the fact that

Tilden had won a seemingly clear majority of the popular vote across the country, it took months after Election Day and

a highly partisan and corrupt process for Americans to find out who their President would be. n157

While many Americans can remember the divisive and bitter dispute over the 2000 presidential election, this dispute

was quite a civil affair in [*442] comparison to the rancor and division sowed by the 1876 debacle. Had the Electoral

College system not existed in 1876, this could have been avoided altogether, and the pall of illegitimacy that hung over

Hayes throughout his presidency would not have afflicted the nation. Admittedly, it is not the Electoral College itself that

directly caused this calamity. The awarding of the disputed electors to Hayes was the result of a partisan commission

determining the outcome of the election in the three states in question, and it remains questionable today which of the

two candidates actually prevailed at the ballot box in the disputed states. n158 Nevertheless, without the Electoral

College, under a system that elected the national vote winner, there would have been less doubt that Tilden won the

1876 election, obviating any need for the contentious drama that unfolded months after citizens had made their choice

at the polls.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS CAUSED SEVERAL POTENTIAL CRISIS ELECTIONS IN THE 20th

CENTURY-Robb '08



The Twentieth Century saw a number of very close presidential campaigns, and on numerous occasions, the potential

for a "crisis" manufactured by the Electoral College's winner-take-all system. n167 In the election of 1900, for instance, a

shift of just under 75,000 combined votes in seven states would have made Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan

the President-elect with an Electoral College majority, despite Republican President William McKinley's national lead of

over 860,000 votes, a solid 52% to 46% popular majority. n168 A similar shift of just over 75,000 votes across a fewstates would have made Bryan the winner again in 1908, despite his 1,200,000 vote (52% to 43%) loss across the country

to William Howard Taft. n169 In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson would have been defeated for re-election had less

than 2,000 votes in one state (California) shifted, despite a popular vote victory nationwide of 49% to 46%. n170


23/93



2000 ELECTION IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE NIGHTMARE SCENARIO CREATED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE-Anderson

'05



Along with many other political observers, I have been mystified, if not confounded, by the fact that the 2000

presidential election failed to energize a strong effort to abolish the Electoral College. The voices for reform and theadoption of direct popular election have been muted. Rather, Ms. Best has been joined by Electoral College proponents

like Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, who wrote that "three (or four) crises out of more than fifty

presidential elections is remarkably small." He continued: "Heaven forbid a direct vote and the 'horrific nightmare' of a

possible nation-wide recount in a close contest, especially with lots of late-arriving absentee votes."

At this point, one wonders if the nation's thirty-six-day wait for the announcement of the president-elect and the

Supreme Court's five-to-four majority in the case was not in fact a "horrific nightmare." I believe that the occupant of

the nation's highest office should be determined by legally registered votersnot 538 faceless, nameless electorsnot

even if their role is decreed by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

THE POTENTIAL ELECTION DOOMSDAY SCENARIO FROM THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM WOULD MAKE 2000 LOOK

TAME-Plumer '04



The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people

should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for

much worse. Consider that state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors

could always defy the will of the people. Back in 1960, segregationists in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in

replacing the Democratic electors with new electors who would oppose John F. Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for

Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kennedy.) In the same vein, "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to

vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please. This year, one Republican elector in

West Virginia has already pledged not to vote for Bush; imagine if more did the same. Oh, and what if a state sends two

slates of electors to Congress? It happened in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presidingover the Senate, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so "without establishing a precedent."

What if it happened again?


24/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE BAD: MISREPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BADLY MISREPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-Plumer '04



The Electoral College is unfair, it has the chance of badly misrepresenting the will of the people, and it givesdisproportionate power to a few voters in swing states. Moreover, defenses of the Electoral College are unconvincing.

The College does not encourage broad geographical appeal, for example, because candidates tend to refrain from

campaigning in states that have few Electoral College votes or in states that typically are aligned with either the

Democratic or the Republican party. Abolishing the Electoral College would not cause instability or chaos, but would

promote democracy and rationality.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISTORTS THE MANDATE WON BY THE PRESIDENT-Robb '08



[*446] Finally, the Electoral College grossly distorts the relative mandate given to America's President by its voters. n188In order to recognize the overall disparity between the final Electoral College tally and the actual voter return, one need

not look further than the results themselves. While occasionally the electoral vote totals and national popular vote

totals are somewhat similar, it is not uncommon for a candidate to receive a heavily-inflated electoral vote majority on

the basis of what may have been a much smaller popular vote win. n189 For instance, in the presidential election of

1980, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan won a resounding victory over President Carter in the Electoral College,

receiving 489 electoral votes to Carter's comparatively paltry total of 49. n190 Thus, Reagan was credited with over 90%

of the 538 total electoral votes available.

When viewed in isolation, Reagan's victory that year in the Electoral College - one of the largest in American history -

seems like a nearly-unanimous acclamation by the electorate. This impression is belied, though, by the fact that 41% of

the voters in 1980 had voted for President Carter, and an additional 8% had cast their ballots for a third-party candidate.

n191 While Reagan's 10 point victory in the national popular vote over Carter was certainly a solid win, his Electoral

College victory dwarfed it in comparison. Similarly, in the 1992 election, Democrat Bill Clinton won a landslide Electoral

College victory over President George H. Bush, defeating him with 370 to 168 electoral votes. n192 Clinton earned

almost 69% of the total electoral votes available, despite receiving only 43% of the popular vote nationwide, in

comparison to Bush's 37% and independent candidate Ross Perot's 19% of the electoral votes. n193 Thus, Clinton's

victorious share of the popular vote - among the lowest in American history - was exaggerated into one of the larger

Electoral College majorities in such elections.

These distortions are caused in no small part by the winner-take-all aspect of the modern system. No matter how

slender a given candidate's [*447] victory in a particular state may be, that candidate is entitled to 100% of that state's

apportionment of electors. For example, in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush was certified as the winner in

the state of Florida by a mere 537 vote margin, out of almost 6,000,000 votes cast for President in that state, receiving

2,912,790 votes to Al Gore's 2,912,253. n194 Nevertheless, because of the winner-take-all approach, Bush was awarded

all 25 of Florida's electoral votes, which were determinative as to the outcome of that election.


25/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE INCREASES THE CHANCE FOR A TIE, WHERE THE HOUSE ELECTION WOULD TRUMP THE

COLLECTIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE-Anderson '05



Finally, the present system actually increases a likelihood of ties in the Electoral College. A shift of about 21,000 votes in

Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico could have thrown the election into a 269-269 electoral vote tie, which is certainly apossibility in the future as well. Once the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has a single

vote, the likelihood of extreme partisanship and deal making, which can trump the collective will of the people that has

manifested itself in the popular vote, becomes very real.

BECAUSE IT RELIES ON THE CENSUS, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALWAYS MISREPRESENTS THE POPULATION-Edwards

'04



When a presidential election falls in the same year as a census, the apportionment of a full decade earlier governs the

allocation of electoral votes. In the election of 2000, for example, the allocation of electoral votes actually reflected the

population distribution of 199o, a decade earlier. The increase or decrease in a state's population since 199o will not be

reflected in that state's electoral vote apportionment until the year 2004. Because of this process, the apportionment of

electoral votes always overrepresents some states and underrepresents others. For example, on basis of the 1980

census, California was allocated 47 electors. The Census Bureau estimate for California's population in 1988, however,

would have translated into 54 electoral votes in the election of that year. Other high-growth states like Florida, Texas,

and Arizona have also been penalized, whereas states with slower growth or population declines have benefited from

the lag in reapportionment.' More important, presidential candidates who won high-growth states have been penalized

whereas those winning lower-growth states have been helped.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISAGREES WITH THE NOTION OF ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE-Gringer '08

[David; WHY THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN IS THE WRONG WAY TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE; Columbia

Law Review; January 2008; 108 Colum. L. Rev. 182]

[*186] This frustration with the electoral college reflects a common view among political scientists that it weights some

votes more than others. n25 The idea that all votes should be weighted equally is the core of the Supreme Court's "one

person, one vote" jurisprudence, and is, as Justice Hugo Black declared in Wesberry v. Sanders, one of "our fundamental

ideas of democratic government." n26 Yet, the electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court

has refused to extend "one person, one vote" to the electoral college. n27


26/93



THE ELECTION OF 1888 PROVES THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IGNORES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE-Robb '08



Only twelve years later, in 1888, the result of another presidential election was skewed in favor of a candidate who had

received less votes nationwide than his opponent. n160 This time, there were no widespread allegations of fraud, and

no partisan commission was necessary to determine the outcome in the Electoral College. n161 The incumbentDemocratic President, Grover Cleveland, exceeded his Republican challenger Benjamin Harrison's national popular vote

total by nearly 100,000 votes, defeating him in a close race by 49% to 48%. n162 Cleveland's loss in the Electoral College

despite a national victory was the result of the fact that he had managed to carry several small and mid-sized states

(particularly in the South) by very large margins. n163 Contrasted with this, Harrison was able to carry a number of large

Northern states by very close margins. n164 The net effect of this was that, because of the winner-take-all system,

Harrison was awarded all of the electoral votes from these states, [*443] despite his close margin of victory, while

Cleveland won an insufficient number of electoral votes to win a majority, despite his landslide wins in several smaller

states, and very narrow losses in many of the larger states. n165 In any event, Harrison was elected, and the degree of

controversy that surrounded the 1876 catastrophe did not materialize. n166 Nonetheless, the election of 1888

demonstrated that even before the dawn of the Twentieth Century and the arrival of presidential campaigns in the mass

media age, the Electoral College had developed the capacity to overturn the national popular verdict. This potential

would be highlighted again many times in presidential contests over the next hundred years.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE IGNORES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE-Plumer '04



As George C. Edwards III, a professor of political science at Texas A&M University, reminds us in his new book, Why the

Electoral College Is Bad for America, "The choice of the chief executive must be the people's, and it should rest with

none other than them." Fans of the Electoral College usually admit that the current system doesn't quite satisfy this

principle. Instead, Edwards notes, they change the subject and tick off all the "advantages" of the electoral college. But

even the best-laid defenses of the old system fall apart under close scrutiny. The Electoral College has to go.

IN A TIE, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GOES TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHERE THERE IS DISTINCT UNEQUAL

REPRESENTATION-Plumer '04



Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the

House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. (The Senate would choose the vice-president.)

Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would

have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many voters

vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of

the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would havedeadlocked the election. In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii

had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe.


27/93



ELECTORAL COLLEGE BAD: DIMINISHES THE IMPACT OF SOME VOTES

ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAKES THE VOTES FOR LOSING CANDIDATES NOT MATTER-Davis '08


Consider this: any vote cast for a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate who does not carry a state, other than

Maine or Nebraska, counts for nothing toward the national accumulation of popular votes for those candidates. Theballots cast mean nothing. The only thing that matters are which candidate won each state by popular vote and those

winning votes are the only ones that count. The process is a winner take all for Electoral College delegates by state. So, if

my candidate didn't win the most votes in New York, my vote counts for nothing on the national total. Now here is the

clincher: we never vote for a Presidential candidate anyway! That's right, we vote for a state Electoral College delegate

in a political party who then is pledged to vote for whoever won the most votes in our state. Losing votes are thrown

out.

The number of electoral delegates for each state is determined by the state population exactly the same as how the

House of Representatives are chosen, plus two more delegates for each senator and two for Washington DC. The

delegates are selected by political parties so if their candidate wins the popular vote IN EACH STATE; those delegates are

pledged to vote the candidate of their party who won the state.

This is where I have a problem with the Electoral College. I am voting in a national election for President and VicePresident not in a state election as the system is set up for now. Even when my candidate loses in New York, my vote

should be counted in his or her national total of accumulated votes. That's why I'm voting, not for a state delegate to

vote.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM REDUCES POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS-Fresia '06

[Jerry; Former Professor of Political Science; Third Parties?; Z Magazine; 28 February 2006; Gale Group Databases]

There are many different ways of organizing elections throughout the world. The electoral system in the United States

has been shaped to both reduce popular participation and advance business interests. The impulse to create third party

oppositional politics is natural, positive, and will persist until space for oppositional politics is created. However, to

assume that our system is democratic and that the creation of oppositional politics turns only on a matter of will as

opposed to a reform of our institutions is to advocate moral victory and political failure.

None of our rights have been handed down; they have all been won through resistance. So let's call the bastards on

their professed support for democracy. Dump the Electoral College, push for proportional representation and adopt

majority elections, already in practice around the country at the local level, for federal office. Third parties yes, but not

without a corresponding demand for democratic elections here in the US of A.


28/93



THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GIVES MORE POWER TO VOTERS IN WYOMING THAN VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA-Robb '08



Thus, the electoral votes from a closely-won state are awarded in their entirety to whoever has the slightest edge. When

this phenomenon occurs in a relatively large state such as Florida, with a sizable block of electoral votes, it has a

distorting effect on the overall Electoral College picture by effectively rendering meaningless the votes of millions ofpeople in that state. In addition, a distorting enhancement of candidates' electoral vote totals results from the fact that

each state is given two electoral votes in recognition of their Senate representation. This results in states with smaller

populations being overrepresented in the Electoral College. n195 More than that, however, it gives the choice of an

individual voter in the smallest states more power than a voter who lives in a larger state. For instance, in the 2000

presidential election (in which the electoral vote allocation to the states was based on the 1990 U.S. Census), Wyoming's

3 electoral votes, when divided among its population, corresponded to one

Big Sky Debate NFL Public Forum Nov 2011 Electoral College

Documents

Transcript of Big Sky Debate NFL Public Forum Nov 2011 Electoral College