NYT Editorial: Drop Out of the College

[kskiska]

The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.

There is an innovative new proposal for states to take the lead in undoing the Electoral College. Legislatures across the country should get behind it.

Both parties should have reason to fear the college's perverse effects. In 2000, the Democrats lost out. But in 2004, a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry, even though he lost the national popular vote decisively.

Just as serious is the way the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. Candidates have no incentive to campaign in, or address the concerns of, states that reliably vote for a particular party. In recent years, the battleground in presidential elections has shrunk drastically. In 1960, 24 states, with 327 electoral votes, were battleground states, according to estimates by National Popular Vote, the bipartisan coalition making the new proposal. In 2004, only 13 states, with 159 electoral votes, were. As a result, campaigns and national priorities are stacked in favor of a few strategic states. Ethanol fuel, a pet issue of Iowa farmers, is discussed a lot. But issues of equal concern to states like Alabama, California, New York and Indiana do not.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/opinion/14tue1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I'd agree, except...

think of the fights and recounts over thousands of election districts across the country.

[beyurslf]

2. Removing the EC doesn't change that elections will be fought over a few

small areas and large areas will be ignored. It just shifts those areas. Instead of certain states, campaigns will focus on areas with large centers of their votes. So Wichita, a mid size city with lots of Republican votes, would get lots of attention from Republicans. NYC would be bombarded by Dems.

[SoulDrift]

4. Neither way is entirely fair

Unfortunately, I agree with you, after being an advocate of this change for a long time...

[serryjw]

3. I still can't support eliminating the EC

As much as I would love to see it happen; it would mmake it that much easier for republican dirty tricks. Rush * O'Reilly would have DIRECT access to the kool aid dring country and thugs would PAY poor people to not vote

[ed murrow]

5. It would make it harder for election fraud

Think about it, a National Popular vote would make it harder for Republican dirty tricks...

It is much easier for Rove, Diebold, and Company to steal 60,000 votes in Ohio than to coordinate alll 50 states and try and manipulate several million votes

In 2000, Bush & co were able to steal Florida but Gore still won the popular vote by more than a million votes...that should be proof positive

It would greatly mitigate the impact of election fraud by sheer volume

Not to mention how many Democrats in Texas or any other Red state this would re-engage, financially, civically, getting out the vote

it would be tremendous

these guys were on NPR this morning

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

[ed murrow]

6. NY Times Endorses New Plan 4 Popular Election of President

Great discussion ongoing about it on Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/15/16476/6606

also her is a better Dian Rehm link to her show on the Electoral College

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/03/15.php#10201