August 31, 2006
By Fax to: (916) 445-4633
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I’m writing to urge you to veto AB2948 (Umberg), a bill that would radically change the way that Presidential elections are held in the United States.
The bill – through an interstate compact – effectively abolishes the Electoral college and substitutes the results of the popular vote. While many people complain about the process or results involved in our creaky Presidential election process, I’d like to point out a few things and ask you to consider them as you weigh your response to this bill. First, and foremost, that the current system works. We are the longest-lived republic in the history of the world, and the cranky genius of the Founders who managed to build a federal system that manages to keep balancing all the moving parts of our society as it’s changed over the last two and a quarter centuries.
Next, simply, because one of the keys to the success of our system is specifically the balance it strikes between majority power and minority rights. I’ve lived all my life in California, one of the most populated, wealthy, and powerful states. But I have friends who live in New Mexico and South Dakota – friends whose vote for President would be effectively discounted as we moved to a purely population-based election system.
Finally, because a change of this impact and import should not be made without the clear attention, participation, and voice of the public, rather than in a late-session legislative maneuver that has been thinly publicized and is not well-understood.
I’ve heard you speak of the affection and admiration you have for the American system of government. Why risk carelessly damaging something you hold in such high esteem?
Almost thirty years ago, you stopped as you walked through a gym in Santa Monica to correct me as I did situps. I paid attention – as did the audience that gathered around to listen – because you obviously had a history of success in exercise. America has a history of success in politics, and I hope that you will pay as close attention to America’s success as I did to you that night.
Marc Danziger
You are right on the money, Marc.
This story should result in a blog swarm of citizens working to expose this Constitutional crime. Thanks for the heads up!
One thing that’s worth mentioning is that states aren’t supposed to be able to enter into agreements like this without the consent of Congress. So this whole scheme might well be unconstitutional.
I like the electoral college system of electing presidents. I like the idea of a republic.
The best case I’ve seen for the electoral college is the 2000 and 2004 election. The system we have makes arguments take place locally, instead of all over the entire nation. That, to me, is sane.
Yep, this bill is pretty rank. Very much a “screw the Red states” measure. It doesn’t surprise me at all that this is flying totally under the radar.
Radical thought: if the country really is concerned about the disproportionate electoral influence held by small population states (and that, I think, is a valid concern) the right way to deal with it is to increase the number of congressional districts. The number was fixed early in the 20th century (because of the very valid concern that the House was getting unweildy) with the effect of diluting the value of any one voters vote.
IMHO, with the advances in information distribution mechanisms and transportation, a 1000 member House of Representatives should be feasible. (Sure, getting floor time for any given member gets harder, but is that a bad thing considering some of the garbage uttered in session? Most real work gets done in committee anyway. So each committee gets bigger. The House would just have to figure out how to cope.)
Practical positive effects: Reduce the power of gerrymandering. (More districts means fewer monstronsities). Reduce the disproportionate advantage of small population states in presidential elections. (In this scheme Wyoming gets at most one extra EC vote. California would pick up probably 20-30 — sorry for not doing the math ahead of time). Increase the likelihood of any given voter actually knowing/influeincing their Representative. Decrease the effects of incumbency.
Practical negative effects: Gonna need a bigger building, probably. Thicker Congressional Records. More opportunities for small-scale vote fraud.
#4 Mark
I don’t like to see more districts. I agree with AL’s assertion that this bill sucks. But more districts only means bigger committee’s and a linear multiplication of time getting things done.
Not to mention the number of personalities we’d have to put up with would quadruple – everyone trying to get their crap to float to the top. Ugh!
I’m with thunder pig – let the blogswarm begin.
I’m not sure this is a “screw red state” activity, unless a lot of “red states” are persuaded to join the compact. If California’s electoral votes go to the candidate who won the general election nationwide, that’d only have added to Bush’s total in 2004, and wouldn’t have changed anything in 2000.
Daniel said it well. The electoral college confines arguments, such as Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, to a few localities.
Consider this. Suppose the ten* largest states agree to honor the popular vote from within only the ten largest states.
Then those ten states would always elect the president. No other states would even have a reason to vote. Would you like that? California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, ???
Notice Texas, Florida, and Ohio went for Bush. But with a ten state agreement they would have been outvoted by the other seven and been required to elect Kerry.
*Astute readers may notice that the needed count might be 11 or 12. But the principal remains the same.
The electoral system keeps new blood out; it keeps the Republican and Democrat big money controllers in complete control of our elections.
Therefore, Congress will never let it go. Noone in Congress wants to risk any new blood, or risk losing their seats.
Probably unconstitutional. I think we need to amend the Constitution. Specifically, this provision:
bq. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States . . . shall be eligible to the Office of the President.
Arnold’s sense of patriotism and the spirit of the gym aside, I think it would be in the interest of the country if all state leaders retained lingering ambitions for the highest office in the land.
Vote Joe Katzman!
Oops, I failed to fully omit the irrelevant part of the Constitution. Should read:
bq. No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of the President.
“But more districts only means bigger committee’s and a linear multiplication of time getting things done.”
And this is a bad thing?
The house was always meant to be the rowdy expression of the common man’s will. It’s not supposed to be some kind of sinecure. The institution would just have to adjust.
As to being a red-state basher, let’s suppose some big signatory (say, Florida) bucks the big state trend and votes little state. Well, in a close vote, suddenly recounts don’t mean squat; if the “popular vote” is 1% ahead for a specific candidate (say, Gore) hypotheticalflorida flips.
None of this nasty who-counts-and-who-counts-what stuff.
Marc Danziger wrote:
“I’ve lived all my life in California, one of the most populated, wealthy, and powerful states. But I have friends who live in New Mexico and South Dakota – friends whose vote for President would be effectively discounted as we moved to a purely population-based election system.”
Proponents of the Electoral College (EC) claim that it protects residents of the smaller states and encourages candidates to campaign in all regions rather than just in strongholds. Both of these claims are incorrect. While it is true that smaller states have numerically disproportional representation, this is a small effect and it is more than overcome by the effects of block voting. The probability of an election coming down to Florida’s block of 25 seats is vastly greater than the probability of it coming down to Montana’s block of 3 seats. _The Electoral College Primer_, by Lawrence Longley and Neal Peirce, presents a table of these relative probabilities. Candidates understand this. If Cuban immigrants had settled in Wyoming rather than Florida, the Elian Gonzales incident could have been safely ignored by presidential candidates.
As a thought experiment, imagine if California grew to 62% of the total US population. Its block of Electoral College seats would then, despite the numerical overrepresentation of the smaller states, have a clear majority, and no voter in any of the smaller states would have any effect on the outcome of the election. How does this benefit the smaller states?
Candidates under the EC do not have strong incentives to campaign everywhere. They have incentives only to campaign in swing states, states that are easily tipped, as a block, to one candidate or the other. This is especially true of large swing states like Florida. Texas, on the other hand, was a safe Republican state in 2004. Fundraising took place here, but neither Bush nor Kerry did any serious campaigning here.
Block voting is poison to a democracy, and the electoral college institutionalizes block voting in 48 of the 50 states. No serious political scientist believes that the framers of the Constitution ever intended the Electoral College to work this way.
I propose a Constitutional amendment: “The Electors shall be chosen using the same districts and methods as the corresponding members of Congress.” Then it would work the way most people currently think it works.
You can read my review of _The Electoral College Primer_, here:
“Three Fifths of a Floridian”:http://home.earthlink.net/~peter.a.taylor/florida.htm
Peter A. Taylor
the Electoral College Must Go
The electoral college is NOT working, as the last two presidential elections demonstrate in dramatic fashion. A change to popular vote system, whether through constitutional amendment or state compacts is preferable to the status quo.
Consider, in 2000 we had the anamoly of an electoral college victory despite the loss of the popular vote by 0.5%. Even if one discounts that election as a historical curiousity recall the anger and anomosity it aroused. Boy I sure remember. And keep in mind the corrosive effect it still has to this day on the confidence the public places in the integrity of the vote.
Now look at the huge bullet the nation dodged in the 2004 election. Even though the winner won the popular vote by more than 3%, he still almost lost the electoral college. A mere switch of 60,000 votes in Ohio could have swung the election! Imagine the anger after the 2000 election multiplied by a factor of six. That is what clinging to the electoral college might do to the nation.
The worst aspect of the electoral college system is the magnifying effect it has on election fraud. Trying to fake or fraud 3 million votes out of 100 million is task impossible to imagine any success with. But 60,000 votes in a single state? A single city? How about 6,000 votes? Or 600? Fraud on that small a scale might be all it takes to steal an election under the electoral college.
And if the shenanigans in Washington State are anything to judge by, election fraud is a growing menace to the American system of government. We should do all we can to head that menace off before a disaster, rather than try to clean the mess up after the fact. The electoral college must go.
Brad:
You say the fiascos in 2000 and 2004 prove why the Electoral College must be abolished, but then you utterly fail to support why either case proves that.
In fact, given a purely nationwide popular vote, the 2000 election would *still* be being recounted, and sued over. (Did they ever truely find out who won Nevada? Does it matter? No, so what’s the concern?)
(In 2004, everyone is concerned about Ohio, but ignores Wisconsin, with the same-day voting, and that had 2X more same-day voters who gave bogus addresses than the margin of Kerry’s “victory”)
But that’s just that, 2 states. 2 cases where you might need to investigate.
2000, the issues was confined to Florida, and especially Palm Beach County. (Run almost in totality by local Democrats, who were actually trying to help people – a fact often forgotten/maligned)
If you want to abolish the EC, at least give some plan how you would handle the issues. The current (legal) system would ensure that no election would ever be settled.
Personally, given the depths of corruption shown in Seattle in the last election and what Chicago is famed for, you’ve got a *lot* of ‘splaining to do before you easily get me to give up my “vote” to be countered and overridden by the Seattle imaginary voters and the Chicago dead.
Unix-Jedi wrote (to Brad):
“If you want to abolish the EC, at least give some plan how you would handle the issues. The current (legal) system would ensure that no election would ever be settled.”
I proposed a Constitutional amendment: “The Electors shall be chosen using the same districts and methods as the corresponding members of Congress.” This does not abolish the EC, but it greatly reduces the severity of the block voting problem, and it still has the (controversial) benefit of “discretizing” fraud. Does this satisfy your objections?
Peter A. Taylor
Unix-Jedi
It saddens me that you seem to have so utterly missed the point of my anti-electoral college post regarding the threat of fraud.
The reason the 2000 election was in dispute is because it came down to a margin of a few hundred votes in Florida. When the margin of an election victory comes to something that close, very little fraud is needed to swing the results.
And if the 2000 election had been decided by popular vote instead, there would have been no election dispute (unlike your claim). Even though 0.5% is an astoundingly close race by historical standards the ability of one bad actor to fake hundreds of thousands of votes without easily being caught is virtually impossible.
The electoral college makes fraud easier because you only have to swing enough votes in a single state, which could even be a very small state, instead of swinging enough votes in a national sized pool.
I hope restating the case might make an impression on you. But I don’t see how you missed the point in the first case.
You nailed it, Marc.
Brad:
I did miss why you wanted to abolish the Electoral College, and I appreciate your clarification.
However, your clarified reasoning is worse than what I’d presumed your rationale was.
_The reason the 2000 election was in dispute is because it came down to a margin of a few hundred votes in Florida._
In that specific case, yes. Without the Electoral College, that would not have been the case. The entire nationwide count would have been vastly different. The campaigns, grass-roots organizations all would have been radically altered. Merely looking back and saying “Well, if we change the entire ruleset, nothing *else* will change is not realistic.
_Even though 0.5% is an astoundingly close race by historical standards the ability of one bad actor to fake hundreds of thousands of votes without easily being caught is virtually impossible._
Removing the EC does not make close races impossible. Instead, it insures that any close race will *never be ended*. (Presuming the Democrats lose, anyway. Rossi in Washington took the high road, for example.)
Now you have 3141 investigations, lawsuits, allegations to deal with. You failed to explain how (other than by presuming that by taking a popular vote nationwide, there’s no possible way that it could be close) that *improves* the situation. I allege that it would be a hideous mess. Now *any* discrepancy has the ability to potentially turn the election. Further, I don’t accept that a nationwide vote would *not* be close.
*Presuming* that vote fraud would be “almost impossible” is nowhere near good enough. Even you admit, it would be possible. And you presume best case – that only *one* actor in *one* place is rigging votes.
That’s the problem with what you’re proposing: it presumes and requires, best case for everything.
Peter:
That sounds like a good idea to me. Of course, it’s also what I’d like to see done, so I think it’s brilliant!
But, I’m loath to risk the EC, which is a known, usually good thing, to any revision.
I suspect any revision will be beset upon with many similar to Brad. Who look back at prior contests with their postulations, and look at only the result.
(This is similar to people who build “stock picking” systems by looking at past history, and then postulating based on that into the future. It looks great on paper, fails in the real world when you actually hit the future).
Well, first off, thanks for posting this, since this is the first I’ve heard about it at all.
Without a lot of digging, my first “gut” reaction is that this is almost purely a spite motivated action aimed against George W. Bush’s victories in 2000/2004. I share that urge towards spite. In fact I have reactions to that…gentleman being President that are a hellova lot stronger than “spite”. (and I’m republican! :))
Having said *that*; you don’t come up with solutions for taking the engine out of your car while you’re driving it without having a *real* good plan for what you’re putting in after it’s gone.
I feel that, given the percentages of victory in both elections, you would have had challenges no matter what system you used.
Most elections systems work dandy when your margins of victory are more than 10%, once you start getting down to 1-2% margins, any systems is gonna reveal the cracks.
We’ve got 3 scary pieces of legislation going on right now, here in California:
1. This AB2948
2. The environmental legislation with countries outside the US
3. And the health care bill that would make private health care illegal.
How’d such important pieces of legislation all occur at the same time? There’s something else going on here, but I have no idea what it is, or where to look.