Reader comments
Electoral College or popular vote best?

There has only been one election in over a century in which the winner of the popular vote did not also win the electoral college (2000). Changing to a popular vote would, thus, make very little difference. States like Utah or Massachusets, which are now totally ingored because the outcome is foreordained, may get a little more attention as candidates try to persuade the small percentage of the population that is amenable to their arguments.

Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states� rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states� rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

Further example of what can happen when going to a "popular vote" is the selection of Senators. Originally, they were chosen by the State Legislators..therefore answerable to them. This was to make each state equal in the Senate. Demographic representation was left to the House of Representatives where a majority of the powers granted by the Constitution rested..Budgets, War Declaration to name a couple. By making the Senate race a popular one, this representation was lost.

To John Galt: I couldn't have said it better myself

I generally have respect for Mr. Pignanelli, even when I disagree with him, but he's really got it wrong this time. John Galt nailed it.

I have only one thing to add to what Mr. Galt said. Pignanelli's argument against using 18th century logic defeats his Jefferson quote, which is 18th century logic.

Perhaps it is time to change our name to The Consolidated States of America.

With the electoral college, states that are solidly in one political camp or the other are largely ignored by the candidates.

With a popular vote, rural areas are largely ignored. So either way, you will have a problem.

Living in Utah, I know that my vote for President is largely meaningless. The state votes overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate so no matter how I vote it won't matter. I could say the same thing if I lived in Massachusetts.

On the other hand, we don't have to listen to countless political ads for President every election.

Although I am a Republican, I disagree with the arguments of Mr. Webb and agree with Pignanelli in this case. A vote in Utah for President currently means nothing, whether you are Democrat or Republican, because the state will go Republican. This also means no Democrat or Republican candidate will pay any attention to our issues here in Utah. Your vote for president in this state under the current system is as meaningful as accumulating Monopoly money during a game. Without the College, we could truly have a system where every vote matters and is counted.

An example of the absurdity of the current system is the total joke of the 2000 election where the outcome came down to a controversy on Florida ballots of a few hundred people to determine to which candidate the state's large electoral vote would all go. When the popular vote of a state is divided 50-50 (OK - perhaps 50.1 to 49.9%) it seems ridiculous to give all of the votes to one candidate. It is also not true to the spirit of Liberty that a voter in Wyoming should get 3 times the power of a voter in larger states.

another thing about Pignanellu quoting Jefferson that I forgot to include in my prior comment. Jefferson was an ardent supporter of states' rights and feared the idea of a strong federal government. He would have been among the last to call for the abolishment of the electoral college as it is one of the best protections for the rights of the states and state governments.

sorry about the typo on Mr. Pinanelli's name - untintentional.

I agree with your view wholeheartedly.

Who is John Galt? No matter, his comments were right on. The states did create the federal government and the federal government is much more out of control and much more difficult to reign in. The loss of states rights is something we don't need more of

When I cast my presidential vote I want it to count. The last several elections I have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate. Since I live in Utah my vote was unable to help that candidate. My presidential vote goes straight to the round file, and don't any of you electoral college advocates try to tell me where it goes - it goes straight to the trash!

Keep the Electoral College, but require states to elect Electors proportionally (and not by district).

Utah has five Electoral Votes.

Under a proportional system, if McCain won 60 percent of the vote and Obama won 40 percent of the vote, McCain would get three electors and Obama would get two electors.

That's a fair, proportional result rather than the distorted outcome that the winner-take-all system creates.

Under such a proportional system, presidential campaigns would have an incentive to compete for their political market share in every state. This would take away the disproportionate influence enjoyed by early primary and so-called "battleground" states.

Resolve any lack of a majority through ranked-choice voting, i.e., if no candidate gains a majority on the first round of voting, the candidate receiving the lowest number of electoral votes is defeating and the next-lowest ranked preferences are re-allocated to the remaining candidates until there is a majority winner.

See FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy for more information.

Perhaps you don't hear about these reforms from Webb and Pignanelli because decentralizing our democratic republic would undermine the two-party system that has been such a lucrative source of business to their political favor brokerages.

Abolishing the Electoral college would be a TALL task. As a voter frustrated that my vote is worthless in Utah, I understand the desire for a popular vote, but it would take a long difficult process for change.

In the meantime, we can limit the damaging problems by instilling instant runoff elections. This way, people like those in Florida in 2000 who wanted to vote for Nader could vote for Nader and still prevent Bush from winning all of the electoral votes of their state.

Those pesky Constitutional amendments have hamstrung the states. Imagine where we'd be without the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments.

And I sure don't want to turn any more significant issues over to our state legislature.

The electoral college allows presidential candidates to ignore states with less electoral college votes and to ignore those that they don't consider competitive.

It's the electoral college system that has been used to create an elitist Presidency and it's time that we no longer tolerate elitists like John Galt infringing on our rights just because he and his family are parasites instead we should continue fighting for our liberty.

As one of Utah's 5 Republican electors in 2000 and as the alternate elector in 2004 and now for 2008, it was and is a great honor and education. I have read and had many conversations with people about the process. In 2000 I had about a hundred calls, letters and emails asking me to change my vote to Al Gore. That would not happen even if I didn't have a choice. Utah law will not allow you to vote for anyone but the winner. That is not true in all states, we have had what is called faithless electors who have switched candidates at the last moment, but not often. I believe our founding fathers had it right. The college protects the election process from candidates only campaigning in a few large states. As in 2000 Bush only won by one Elector's vote. You needed 271 and he got 271. 18th Century or 21st Century thinking, the process still works well.

@Our rights: you're the "parasites" guy who accuses capitalists of being parasites, aren't you? I'd like to hear you come up with a productive solution rather than just haranguing against what you consider elistists. What is your version of justice and fairness?

We live in a Republic where we chose representatives. That includes electing a representative to vote for us for the President of the United States. We vote for a 'voter'.

That is why, in most states, it's "winner takes all". The people in those states have voted to be represented in the electoral college by those electors who will vote for the candidate that the majority of the people in that state wanted to be elected.

The system is fair unless we're willing to let the voters in New York and California do our thinking and our voting for us.