Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Pros and cons of electoral college’

The attack on the Electoral College is nothing more than an attack on everything the Founding Fathers stood for. Indeed, it is nothing short on an attack on America itself.

The Fathers knew that the general public would never bother to educate and inform itself enough to vote intelligently. That is why the Fathers established the Electoral College.

The Fathers have been proven correct. Popular voting has led to a Congress which is completely ineffective and corrupt. The Electoral College is the last thing protecting us from those who seek to turn this Country into a European-style post-Christian welfare state. Thus, the College must be protected.

There is no such thing as a National Popular Vote. It holds no force of law. It is only a matter of curiosity that we aggregate the total popular vote. We don't have direct democracy by design. We have a Constitutional republic with some democratic institutions. The people who want to end the electoral college and move to a more direct democracy, are ignorant of the greatness of the founding fathers.

Thank's Bob for the information. It was interesting.

@John Charity Spring

The entire idea of the Electoral College has been undermined already. Most states have laws requiring these electors to vote for the candidate that carried the State. In that sense, we already have the people deciding the President *gasp*.

With the flow of information we have now, versus 1787, the voter has no excuse to not be informed of the issues and make a smart vote. If we have a lazy electorate, then I feel, we very much deserve the leaders we get.

Let's not seek to remove accountabilty from ourselves.

Now, Bob, and maybe this is a misprint, but when did the House of Representatives have equal representation between all states? Never. It was the Senate which was equal as you may recall-2 per state. So, if your description of Madison's intent in this article is correct, it certainly was not Madison's attempt to placate the small states. The Electorial College is only under attack, because of the same desire at the founding for the large states to further dominate the country. To bad they did not have the ability at the founding to establish a consensus where the Party controlling the House of Representatives, also appoints the President. It is the system basically used by most democracies in the world. But, the current system would work fine if somehow we could just find a way to reduce the electioneering cycle for President from constantly over 4 years to maybe 4 months or even better 4 weeks.

Just before saying: "Going to direct election could mean campaigns ignore the small markets even more than now." you acknowledged that: "the media market was cheaper" in "West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee." So, I don't understand your pessimistic conclusion.

The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia 81%, and Wyoming 69%.

Nine state legislative chambers in the lowest population states have passed the National Popular Vote bill. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

A survey of 800 Utah voters conducted on May 1920, 2009 showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. Voters were asked:

"How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

By political affiliation, support was 82% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, and 75% among others.
By gender, support was 78% among women and 60% among men.
By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 70% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 68% for those older than 65.

NationalPopularVote

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.

With the Electoral College, and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

Bennett is trying to wear the jacket of Elder Statesman. He doesn't do it very well.

I don't want New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, and Illinois picking the president. For sure your vote here in Utah wouldn't mean a thing. Win those states, you win the election. No campaigning necessary.

Keep things as they are. It forces the candidates to mostly pay attention.

Anything that makes elections anything other than majority rule is an anachronism. The same thing goes for the filibuster which didn't come from the Founders. Anyone under 80 can see that if you have to explain in detail why someone who didn't get the support of the greatest number of Americans won the election, it is just more "politics as usual".

The fact is that only 60% of eligible americans voted in 2008. Much less in other elections. To say that the people that took the time to vote are not educated is exposing your bias.

Judsen Phillips, president of the Tea Party Nation says only land owners should vote.

The good ol' days right? Only white male land owners should vote because that's what the diefied founding fathers did despite thier claim that all men are created equal.

You're not taking me back to the 1700's.

This time of year there's only one thing that matters for any college...what kind of team they can put on the field.

Reading presidential history you'll be appalled at the blatent buying of electorates in the past. I'm not so sure it's not still going on now.

There should be a run-off election required if the top presidential candidate does not get more than 50 percent of the vote. This would stop third party and other minor candidates--such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader--from determining who wins the election.

Run-off elections are required in many states for local and state offices. This should be made mandatory for presidential elections also.

The US Constitution provided for a balance between small population states and large ones.

The original electoral system was designed to that the electors nominated two candidates, one not from their state, and unless there was a candidate nominated by the majority of electors, the voting for president out of the top 5 nominees was done by the US House of Representatives, one vote per state. If two candidates received a majority of electors, the House would decide between just the two. Basically, the loser of the top two became the Vice President, who would take over if something happened to the President. The elector college system protected every state from being ignored.

While the current (after the 12th amendment)system doesn't work as originally intended, there is still some balance favoring smaller states, just barely enough to encourage candidates to campaign throughout most of the country. If the Popular Vote Compact were to succeed, I believe that would be eliminated and I also believe the cities with the most population would be the locations where campaigning would occur, making the situation of ignoring parts of the country even worse.