| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Talking About Books You Haven't Read | Main | The US's Back And Forth on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Project »

January 03, 2008

Getting Rid of the Electoral College Without A Constitutional Change

Martha Biondi in In These Times:

A Stanford University computer scientist named John Koza has formulated a compelling and pragmatic alternative to the Electoral College. It’s called National Popular Vote (NPV), and has been hailed as “ingenious” by two New York Times editorials. In April, Maryland became the first state to pass it into law. And several other states, including Illinois and New Jersey, are likely to follow suit.

How NPV works is this: Instead of a state awarding its electors to the top vote-getter in that state’s winner-take-all presidential election, the state would give its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This would be perfectly legal because the U.S. Constitution grants states the right to determine how to cast their electoral votes, so no congressional or federal approval would be required. NPV could go into effect nationwide as soon as enough states pass it (enough states to tally 270 electoral votes—the magic number needed to elect a president). In 2008, NPV bills are expected to be introduced in all 50 states.

“We’ll have it by 2012,” says Robert Richie, executive director of the reform group Fair Vote.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 03:44 PM | Permalink

Comments

Listen, anything is better than the outdated electoral college.

Posted by: beajerry | Jan 4, 2008 4:12:01 AM

While I agree that the Electoral College is not a perfect system, having the national popular vote decide the presidency marginalizes small-population states more than they already are.

However, if the Electoral College had been circumvented earlier, Bush would have never been elected -- a net benefit for the nation and for humanity.

Posted by: Mike | Jan 4, 2008 8:45:13 AM

I hear all this talk about fair representation of states, and I'm confused.

In the USA of 2008, why is the state the appropriate entity for which to consider matters of parity? Why not the city or the county? Yes, the USA is nominally the United States of America, but as the size of the Feds & the modern jurisprudence of the commerce clause demonstrates, the US state as a true sovereign is largely a historical relic. Unlike Europe or the Indian subcontinent where states roughly demarcate distinct ethnicities, who view each other with a sense of 'us' and 'them', Americans commingle a lot more on average. In the modern setting, the state seems more of an administrative organization.

In that light, should the representation be analyzed at the state level rather than at the individual level?

Posted by: Gyan | Jan 4, 2008 11:52:46 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Politics Prize

Donate to Todd Shea

More info about Todd Shea and his work here on 3QD.

3QD ADVERTISING

3QD on Facebook

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google


Recent Comments

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

odysseus14 on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Robin on The Incomparable Economist

odysseus14 on The Incomparable Economist

Cyrus Hall on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Jane Lenoir on The Humanists: Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968)

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Elatia Harris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Carlos on you can't handle the truth

Nick Smyth on you can't handle the truth

eric on you can't handle the truth

Ruchira on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Randolyn Zinn on Shards and Fragments: Eva Hesse Studioworks

Luke Lea on Hollywood gives biologists a helping hand

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Rhea on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

J.H. on you can't handle the truth

J.H. on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes


Logos designed by Vicki Winters

Subscribe to this blog's feed