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Listen, anything is better than the outdated electoral college.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