MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Eliminate' Electoral College, It 'Undermines' Democracy

The socialist candidate fails to grapple with why we have the Electoral College in the first place.

Jonathan Bachman/REUTERS/NewscomJonathan Bachman/REUTERS/Newscom

Now that the Senate has confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, some Democrats are turning their fire on the idea that each state should be equally represented in the upper chamber of Congress. "The idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change," NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted.

Others, like GQ correspondent Julia Ioffe, took issue with the Electoral College, which allowed Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump to place four justices on the Court, even though Bush and Trump lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016, respectively.

One politician who endorsed Ioffe's argument is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist running to represent New York's 14th Congressional District:

Ocasio-Cortez isn't the only high-profile Democrat to embrace this view. "I passionately believe it's time to abolish the Electoral College," Hillary Clinton wrote in The Atlantic last month. Clinton's view isn't surprising. After all, she earned nearly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016, but still lost.

In their criticisms of the Electoral College, Ocasio-Cortez and Clinton fail to grapple with the reason we have such a system in the first place. By preventing the majority from getting its way all the time, the Electoral College ensures that views from every part of the nation are represented. That way, those in high-population states with large cities aren't the only ones who have a say. Instead, as David Harsanyi wrote in a November 2016 piece for Reason, the Electoral College helps "create moderation and compromise":

To some extent, the Electoral College impels presidents and their political parties to consider all Americans in rhetoric and action. By allowing two senators for both Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, and California, with a population of more than 38 million, we create more national cohesion. We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied. We incentivize Washington, D.C.—both the president and the Senate—to craft policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.

This is especially important when considering that small states—even sparsely populated ones—play important industrial roles, particularly in agriculture. If those states "become marginalized and then coerced to embrace the policies favored by the people in urban areas, the nation loses valuable resourcefulness, imagination and brainpower," Harsanyi noted.

Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote–based system might also have some unexpected results. Clinton won the popular vote in large part due to her margins in New York and California, where Republicans knew their votes didn't matter. Changing the system might motivate some of those Republicans who stayed home on Election Day to come out of the woodworks. Texas Democrats might do the same. It's impossible to know who would have won in 2016 absent the Electoral College, as both parties—to say nothing of both campaigns—would've likely had very different strategies.

It's easy to blame the system when you don't win. But that doesn't mean the system is actually broken, or that there's an objectively "better" one we should be using.

Photo Credit: Jonathan Bachman/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eddy||

    As another commenter noted, Dems would like more felon voters and some of them want child voters.

    If blue states adopt such "reforms" it would allow these states to garner more of the "popular vote," probably to Dems' benefit, since children, as well as felons who got caught, represent natural Democratic constituencies. A perfect combination of "It's not FAIR" and "It's not my fault."

  • ned johnson||

    Diversity is demanded ONLY wherever white people live. Its ANTI WHITE!
    It means finding the world's dwindling percentage of white people and CHASING THEM DOWN until they're ACCEPTABLY non white!
    "Diversity is a strength" MEANS "White people are a weakness"!
    Its White Ge NO cide!

  • ||

    Anti-racist is code for anti-white.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    "Diversity is a strength" is investment advice.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Diversity is the opposite of United

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I have an even more radical idea. One vote per brain cell.

  • Heedless||

    Including glia? Or are we only counting fully integrated neurons?

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Yeah but then the democrats will register dead brain cells to vote...Oh, wait..

  • Susan Anthony||

    Presidential elections won by the candidate with the most national popular votes, would motivate national parties to put pressure on every election board to make sure every eligible voter has the opportunity to vote.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Every "possible" voter; Whether they were actually eligible wouldn't matter much.

    The real effect would be to effectively kill off third parties, unless it was coupled with some kind of transferable vote system. Since voters in states that weren't close could no longer reason that their votes didn't matter, they'd have to think twice about casting protest votes.

  • Susan Anthony||

    I said and meant "eligible."

    Of COURSE third parties would not be killed off. Every vote for every candidate would matter. Now they don't.

  • Ed in North Texas||

    Can't do it. The Socialist-Democrats would fight effective limitation of "eligible" to "citizens". Besides there is little doubt that, all else being equal, the metro areas and/or cities of NYC, LA, SFO, Chicago, Miami, maybe Seattle, Dallas, Houston and maybe Philadelphia would consistently select the President. These locations all have something in common, an overwhelming presence of Socialist-Democrat voters and Socialist-Democrat elected politicians. And that isn't only because the Libertarian/conservative/Republican voters just don't turn up at the polls. They exist, but in minuscule numbers.

    Not to mention that, contrary to the Socialist-Democrat claims, every eligible voter already has the opportunity to vote, many simply can't be bothered to vote.

  • ||

    No, it would just cement the power of California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington.

    No other state would truly make any difference.

    Thats 50% of the population and and most of the money.

    Enough of the other states would have enough split vote that campaigning in those states would be all that is required.

    States like Utah, RI, West Virginia would never see enough consideration for their states needs again.

    I suspect secessionist movements would pop up all over the place.

    This would be a really bad idea.

  • ||

    No, it would just cement the power of California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington.

    No other state would truly make any difference.

    Thats 50% of the population and and most of the money.

    Enough of the other states would have enough split vote that campaigning in those states would be all that is required.

    States like Utah, RI, West Virginia would never see enough consideration for their states needs again.

    I suspect secessionist movements would pop up all over the place.

    This would be a really bad idea.

  • Rockabilly||

    Tony has the hots for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez !

  • DiegoF||

    A lot of people, not just gay progs, seem to have the hots for her in these comments. I see why one might, but I do not. I think she looks like a specimen of some alien humanoid race that is indeed very attractive in those creatures' context. But theirs is not our own.

    Also maybe she also looks a bit like what humans would look like if they'd evolved in the ocean deeps.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    This is actually one of the better pictures of her I've seen. The ones where she smiles just make it impossible to ignore her horse teeth.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    That's who she reminds me of; Nancy Kerrigan!

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Lolololol…..now that you mention it.

  • fdog50||

    When she smiles, her eyes seem to bulge out even more.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "It's easy to blame the system when you don't win."

    It's easy to blame the system when you don't understand why it exists. Fucking moron.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    ^^^ Comment directed at the idiot pictured above, not the writer of the article.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: "No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles."

    In 2016 the AZ House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
    Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
    In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

    In 2014, the OK Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

    In 2009, the AR House of Representatives passed the bill

    When enacted by states with 270 electors, the bill would change their state winner-take-all laws without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Nah. Fuck that.

    M'kay?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Slight kink. Congress gets a say in how elections happen in states. Article I.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

  • buddhastalin||

    I think "plenary" and "exclusive" has its limits. There seems to be an equal protection/due process issue when one candidate gets a majority of popular votes but the other candidate gets the win (notwithstanding how the President of the US is chosen, obviously). The Supreme Court would not accept that outcome for, say, the vote for a Congressman or state Senator. I don't think it would accept it for choosing electors, regardless of Article II, Section 1.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a "person" in another state who is not "within its [the first state's] jurisdiction."

  • Susan Anthony||

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only restricts a given state in the manner it treats persons "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause imposes no obligation on a given state concerning a "person" in another state who is not "within its [the first state's] jurisdiction."

  • illusionofwill||

    Thanks for sharing this to make it clear that if the situation were reversed, there is little doubt Republicans would be calling for the abolition of the college.

  • damikesc||

    You know, there is a way to make it happen.

    It's called an Amendment.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

    Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

    In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

    In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

  • CE||

    Yup, and some states are trying to change the law so that the votes of people in that state don't matter, just the national outcome (if enough other states join them). It will be interesting to see how Kavanaugh votes on that one when it reaches the SC.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: "No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states"

    Yet that's what the EC was designed to do. A popular vote count would only speak to the needs of a few cities.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don't even bother to poll them individually.

    Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
    "Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn't taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states."

    Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
    "If people don't like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state."

    When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I love y'all's inconsistency in this.

    In any article about rural/urban stuff, y'all insist that many more people live in "rural" areas then the census counts.

    In every Electoral College article, suddenly the poor rural folk are so massively out-numbered.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Not sure who the "y'all" is.

    I've never claimed more people live in rural areas than the census counts.

  • CE||

    "I nicked the Census man! "

    Maybe there's a reason for the undercount....

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "y'all"? How gloriously non-urban of you. But actually, since you are referring to a group, the proper term is "all y'all". Nice try though.

  • mamabug||

    It's a one shot deal, at best. The very first election one state's electors go to the candidate other than who the majority of their state voted for, they'll pass a new law revoking it PDQ. Or sue. Or both.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In Gallup polls since 1944 until before this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

    Question 1: "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?"

    Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill states: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President's term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

    Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

    The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

    There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

  • Dillinger||

    HRC passionately believes in HRC, nothing else.

    "a shadow of slavery's power" fuck you AO-C

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    I don't think she does; if she did, she wouldn't have to lie and cheat so much. All she really believes is that she's back in heat.

  • Dillinger||

    like she's not even selling herself...works

  • Mickey Rat||

    Could somebody tell her that at the time of the Constitution's adoption the most populous state was Virginia.

  • ned johnson||

    WHY is so-called 'diversity' and mass immigration mandated for ALL white populations and ONLY white populations??
    Is open borders the REAL White 'Privilege'?
    Diversity is not demanded anywhere EXCEPT where white people are!
    It's CODE for removing white people
    Its ANTI WHITE
    It's Geno cide!

  • DarrenM||

    No, it's not "genocide". There are dictionaries online.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Don't start spamming Reason with the same drivel you spam The Federalist with, "ned''.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We allow YOU here.

  • esteve7||

    Popular vote doesn't mean crap. In California for Senate, a Republican isn't even on the ballot.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Feature, not a bug.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Yea, but California is a utopian paradise and having a choice would destroy the wonderland !

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Hahaha! Yes, I just returned from a week in utopian paradise. I'd sooner lick a truckbstop toilet bowl clean than return. I paid over $4/gallon on one side of CA-AZ border, and $3 just on the other side in AZ.

    I am changing next summer's vacay plans (Yosemite) for Yellowstone, because of the crappiness of that cesspool.

    And gawd! The housing! $350,000-$400,000 for 2-bedroom crumbling cracker boxes that I wouldn't let my dog live in!

    Fuck that state. Fuck it straight to hell.

  • esteve7||

    wait where was it only 350-400k? that would be a million in san jose...

  • ThomasD||

    " that would be a million in san jose..."

    Things are going to get real interesting after the new year, when people sit down to do their taxes. I'm guessing there are a whole lot of people who have not yet realized that the cap on deductibility of SALT is going to hit them good and hard.

    Especially in places where housing prices have gone ballistic.

  • buddhastalin||

    That's ok though because leftists are always saying that they want to be taxed more. They should be thanking Republicans for finally giving them something that they want.

  • ThomasD||

    Finally paying their fair share...

    It's easy to be for high taxes when you are not actually paying them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The housing! $350,000-$400,000 for 2-bedroom crumbling cracker boxes that I wouldn't let my dog live in!
    Fuck that state. Fuck it straight to hell.

    Unaccomplished people sometimes console themselves by claiming that better assets and products are unattractive. I have been told, more than once, that a Chevrolet or Ford sedan is better than a BMW.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You've probably also been told more than once that you should die a slow, painful, violent death.

  • CE||

    You haven't seen any SoCal 550K condos then, Rev. They really are not that great.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It's better than an identical property that costs $50,000 because it is located in shambling environment.

    $500,000 better, if the market is functioning properly.

  • TuIpa||

    "It's better than an identical property that costs $50,000 because it is located in shambling environment"

    That seems like an exceptionally stupid assertion, considering 550k condos in Cali ARE in a shambling environment, and you're expressing a qualitative preference.

    But you're stupid it's what you do.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    You think California real estate is a properly functioning market? Could your mother really not quit drinking for 9 months?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you really don't want to argue real estate with me. So just run along now and let the adults talk.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Who wants pointers on real estate from a backwater source who apparently can't understand that a house so attractive it costs millions of dollars is superior to a house readily had for a lesser fraction of that amount?

    Goobers are welcome to envy their betters -- the people in modern, successful, attractive, educated communities -- but are in no position to offer advice.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Oh, yeah, those "more progressive and advanced" communities that supposedly voted for Hilda von Pantsuit.

    Who lost.

    There are just too many of us deplorable clingers to ever let such a thing happen.

  • MJBinAL||

    Arty,

    You are uneducated, unsophisticated, and arrogant. Not a great combination.

    I, and most of the rest of the country, certainly wish you, and the rest of the cesspool in CA would indeed leave and become your own nation. It has been documented here, and in many other places, exactly how perverse and oppressive the economic environment in CA is.

    You would quickly find all your large corporate employers leave, including Google, and Apple as the tax rates to pay for your pipe dreams became unbearable. All those employees who love the climate would start to discover that other parts of the country have beaches and mountains too. Best of all, they could afford something more that a one bedroom, 500 sq ft apartment to live in.

    I understand that everyone who you don't agree with is a "goober" to you. But you might try becoming ever so slightly informed about where Rocket City is (hint, it, and it's thousands of PhDs are nowhere near Berkley), Where major aircraft are built by tens of thousands of skilled workers and where much of the medical research in the country is done. (these are not in CA either)

    In short, there are lots are very smart and educated people who do not live in CA, and in general, they do not agree politically with you. Everyone who does not agree with you is a "goober".

  • gaoxiaen||

    Or the new Lexus Predator Face grill.

  • TuIpa||

    "that a Chevrolet or Ford sedan is better than a BMW."

    The Chevy SS is better than a 1 series. In every measurable way.

    Fuck man, stop making a fool of yourself.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Indeed.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    I have an unofficial, non-peer reviewed, completely unsupported, anecdotal theory about BMW drivers based on over 25 years of driving experience:

    BMW owners tend to drive like douches. Chronic tailgating, excessive speeding in residential areas, swerving through and cutting across lanes to gain a 1 car advantage in traffic and generally acting as though they own the road. Similarly, the more expensive the model the greater the degree of innate a**holery there usually is present in the driver.

    Go ahead, test it on the road. You'll probably find it's right. ;)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I got t boned by a BMW driver in S.F. once. I was turning across stopped traffic, and she was passing on the shoulder. She actually wanted the police to come, until they told her that if they did come, they'd ticket her.

    I had to get out of the truck to kick my quarter panel back out. Her hood was an accordion.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The 1 series is a starter car, probably aimed at foreign markets and rarely encountered in my American travel.

    I gather the Chevy SS must be a top-of-the-paltry-line model, likely popular among those who barely finished high school.

    Unless the SS is a huge SUV, the cost of Chevy's "big deal" probably is shockingly similar to the price of BMW's entry-level offering.

    Chevy has its place in the market, and informed consumers recognize that place.

  • MJBinAL||

    LOL, ok genius.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    ROFL! Someone who clearly knows nothing about cars, talking about cars. Imagine that!

  • Will Nonya||

    He's an overachiever. It wasn't enough to show that he doesn't understand economics or real estate. He has to prove his complete mastery of being ignorant of any given subject.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    Skip Yellowstone, go to Glacier NP in Montana.

  • ThomasD||

    +1 on Glacier, it is the most amazing place in the lower 48 (Wrangel - St. Elias is tops for the whole continent.)

    Although it's really late in the season now. Bears are in hyperphagia, and you really do not want to bump into one in the back country. Park is all but closed right now (they leave the gates open but there are no staff or concessions.), there was just a storm that has 'temporarily' closed Going to the Sun road, along with Cut Bank and Two Medicine. Traditional closing date for Going to the Sun is third Monday in October so it might never reopen until they plow it out in June.

    Plan for next year.

  • chipper me timbers||

    "The housing! $350,000-$400,000 for 2-bedroom crumbling cracker boxes that I wouldn't let my dog live in!"

    That's cheap. You must have visited a shitty part of the state.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    That's because there's no such thing.

    In the presidential election, a "popular vote" isn't actually a real thing. It's made up by those who can't win within the system we do have, so they make up metrics that don't actually exist to show why they actually should have won.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The problem is that progtards receive votes and representation, as if they are real humans, with souls.

  • IceTrey||

    Actually it doesn't even exist. The general public votes only for electors.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    How would she feel about the Erectorial Collage?

  • Dillinger||

    hour diatribe about rape culture = foreplay

  • IceTrey||

    A bunch of penis pics on a piece of cardboard?

  • IceTrey||

    A bunch of penis pics on a piece of cardboard?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "By preventing the majority from getting its way all the time, the Electoral College ensures that views from every part of the nation are represented."

    The purpose of the electoral college was to bring the country together by guaranteeing that the South could dominate the government by way of the 3/5 compromise.

    "Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....Compromise

    This is why states joining the union as free or slave was important.

    This is why we went to war once it became clear that the South's advantage would no longer allow them to dominate the government.

  • Eddy||

    OK, but the Reconstruction Amendments kept the Electoral College in place, along with much of the original Constitution.

    Either the Reconstruction Congress serious about eradicating the legacy of slavery, or else it thought we could survive in a post-slavery without the EC, or anyway that they couldn't get behind a replacement system.

    There's nothing magic about the EC, but the question is how does it stack up against any given proposal to replace it?

  • Eddy||

    Either the Reconstruction Congress *wasn't* serious etc.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I appreciate all of that, and I want to keep the electoral college--but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it was put in place for the reasons I like. We can afford to be honest about this because we're right, but even if we were wrong about this, why compromise our credibility?

  • Eddy||

    Absolutely - but even with the tainted origins, it did some good work after slavery was ended.

    The Republicans - who had the most reason to resent the proslavery history, chose to keep the EC system, and they managed OK under the Electoral College after the Civil War, even after the Solid Democratic Yellow-Dog South came into being.

    And of course when the Republicans lost, they often had the Solid South to blame, including its artificially-inflated EC advantage (where, contrary to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, disenfranchised black people were counted toward the South's EC vote).

    Now that the EC is starting to break in the Republicans' favor, the Dems are of course crying foul - no doubt drawing on the Dem party's long and noble history of championing racial equality.

  • Eddy||

    ("No fair, we switched places with the Republicans so now we get to claim credit for what they did and blame them for what we did!")

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I still dont understand why any black person would vote democrats.

    Republicans ended slavery and the democratic party fought for slavery and then stood behind segregation.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That list of things this guy doesn't understand has become unwieldy.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's not that complicated: During the civil rights era, there was a debate between formal equality followed by hard work to achieve practical equality, and handouts.

    Handouts won, and the Democrats, already the party of racial spoils, had no problem with just changing their client race. Republicans were only willing to offer equal treatment under the law, and got outbid.

    And that's still all the Republicans are willing to offer: Formal equality with achieving practical equality being up to the blacks themselves. But more and more of the blacks are starting to realize those handouts came at a steep price.

  • DGB||

    Oh this whole business of Republicans being the "Party of Lincoln" is absurd. Lincoln has as little to do with today's Republicans as Nathan Bedford Forrest, Ben Tillman and Woodrow Wilson have to do with today's Democrats. The Republicans are more accurately the party of Steve Bannon, Richard Spencer and Alex Jones.

  • MJBinAL||

    Actually, the structure of the Electoral College is intended to mimic the concept of the states being sovereign in their own right. It is thereby the states that elect the president, not the people directly. It is easy to forget these days that the states were protective of their sovereign rights.

    Much like the Senate was intended to allow the small states to protect themselves from being ignored by the larger states. Originally, Senators were not popularly elected either, they were elected by state legislators and could be recalled at any time. So the House was popularly elected based on population, the Senate was selected by the state legislators, 2 per state, and the President elected by the states weighted by the same population weight that appeared in the House.

    A Republic folks, NOT a Democracy.

  • DiegoF||

    The use of a district-based winner-take-all election system, such as the U.S. has not only for its legislature but (in the form of weighted statewide districts) its executive, increases the electoral power of regions with high numbers of nonvoters (before the War, slaves; since then, albeit to a much lesser extent, aliens). Whenever you have something like that, the constituencies that stand to gain versus lose are bound to take up such attitudes. So of course it was going to be a major factor in opinion.

    But there were certainly other arguments being made for an electoral college, which for example was considered to be a compromise between a popularly elected executive and a completely elite-elected (let alone a parliamentarily elected one). The electoral college was never intended to be nearly as democratic as it is; initially, few states even held a popular vote at all and it could easily have turned out otherwise. In fact there's good reason to think that the founders intended most selections of the nation's chief bureaucrat job (note that to this day in many states the most powerful politician is a longstanding legislative leader) to usually go to the House after the nation's legislatures selected a pool of the best candidates--though of course that is never how it worked out in practice.

  • DiegoF||

    ...It is tempting to think of North versus South to have had anachronistic importance in the early Republic. But during the framing and beyond a whole slew of other cleavages--East versus West, small states versus large, etc., existed prominently alongside it.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Another major fault line rarely discussed these days was the heavily indebted states (Massachusetts, Virginia) vs. States that paid for the cost of the Fulto Revolution themselves (New Jersey).

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Should say "American Revolution"

  • DiegoF||

    Ah yes; a huge one!

    I wish it really had been called the "Fulto Revolution." Though that sounds more like an obscure 19th century political conflict. Like something fomented by a split in the New York State Whigs or something.

  • DiegoF||

    ...and named after a popular brand of hardwood floor polish that the rebels liked to use or whatever.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But there were certainly other arguments being made for an electoral college"

    One of the things it did was make joining the United States attractive, when it wasn't necessarily clear that the rest of the continent would necessarily become part of the U.S. In other words, some of the aspects that made rural states and the South more powerful vis a vis the industrial centers of the North, also made it appealing for territories to become part of the U.S. instead of joining up with someone else or staying independent.

    The upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest could have been part of Canada. As of 1859, federal troops invaded Utah, stripped the people of the right to elect their own (Mormon) territorial governor, and occupied it like it was Iraq. They were afraid that the Mormons were starting their own nation out there in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. The Texas Republic might have stayed independent. The territory we took as a result of the Mexican-American War might have been part of Mexico.

    Circa 1865, the federal government still wanted to make it attractive for all those territories to want to become part of the United States, and you don't accomplish that by subordinating their political power to the large population centers in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, etc. If you want them to become part of the United States, you offer them something better than what they've got--not the opportunity for the existing political class to suddenly become irrelevant.

  • CE||

    What, you're bringing actual history into this? What about fairness though?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " (before the War, slaves; since then, albeit to a much lesser extent, aliens)"

    The latest research suggests it's not a much lesser extent.

  • Dillinger||

    now I have to feel bad, Ken thanks.

  • CLM1227||

    thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861

    I find that curious as many reasons for the secession were involving decisions made at the south's expense...

    If they had been so powerful, how is it they failed to enact policies agreeable to them?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If they had been so powerful, how is it they failed to enact policies agreeable to them?"

    Like I said . . .

    "This is why we went to war once it became clear that the South's advantage would no longer allow them to dominate the government."

    Lincoln won the election of 1860 in November, and Fort Sumter happened shortly thereafter in 1861. Lincoln's election just made it obvious that the South didn't have the electoral college stacked enough in their favor to control the outcome anymore.

    One of the issues about slavery was what people in the north called "slave power"--this stacking of the electoral college and congress. On the one hand, Stephen Douglas was trying to solve the question of slavery in new states through popular elections--and thereby made the claim that it was the Democrats who were all about democracy. Abolitionists didn't think you should be able to vote on whether people should be slaves. Others in the north, who might not have cared about slavery otherwise, didn't like seeing democracy stacked against their votes, and, hence, they claimed that they were the true champions of democracy, saving it from the South's corruption through the institution of slavery.

    Anyway, the South losing control is what brought us to war.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    De ja vu?

  • MJBinAL||

    The electoral college, is weighted by population. The only thing that the South had stacked was the "slaves count 3/5" thing. This was really intended to compensate for the low population of the south (mostly agricultural at the time).

    The south had lots of reasons to fear the consequences of the northeast getting control of the Federal government. Slavery was a big one, but export tariffs were huge as well. This was one of the other issues causing the Civil War. The southern states were being essentially forced to sell to norther factories far below the prices France and England would pay for cotton. You may recall that in "Gone With the Wind" Rhett Butler became rich BEFORE the war smuggling cotton to Europe.

    I can assure you that Georgia still needs protection from New York and Californina today more than ever. As the Federal Government has taken more and more central control, the electoral college and the composition of the Senate are more important than ever.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The only thing that the South had stacked was the "slaves count 3/5" thing."

    What do you think we're talking about? If you're trying to separate the electoral college from that circa 1789, stop. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Slavery and the electoral college were not two separate issues in 1789.

    "I can assure you that Georgia still needs protection from New York and Californina today more than ever."

    You seem to be one of these people who assumes that if I say that the electoral college was originally about slavery, that means I want to get rid of it. If you're so deep in that hole that you can't see that I've repeatedly stated that I'm in favor of keeping the electoral college, then that's your problem.

    There's this thing called intellectual honesty. Because I want to keep the electoral college does not mean that I have to pretend the electoral college wasn't originally about slavery. Because I don't want to lose all credibility with everybody who knows what they're talking about, I'm required to acknowledge the facts as they are. If you're out there telling people something that isn't true because you want to keep the electoral college, then you are actually undermining the cause of keeping the electoral college.

    And, no, your good intentions don't count for shit.

  • DarrenM||

    The compromise that was affected by slavery was the 3/5 rule, not the establishment of the E.C.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The innovation of the electoral college was all about how many delegates each state would get. They didn't ratify the electoral college first and then add the 3/5 compromise later. It was always about accounting for slavery until slavery was abolished.

    I like the college the way it is now because if it wasn't the way it is, four highly populated states might inflict their will on the rest of the country. I like to see power seek a more diversified base. If it were the way the left wants it, the president would only be chosen by popular vote.

    The Midwest and the South would just get steamrolled. If you think a divided country is bad, wait 'til you're a minority interest in country where power is completely unified in opposition to you.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I like to see power seek a more diversified base.

    Have we identified a type of diversity that white right-wing rubes can get behind?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Remember the 2000 election, Florida?

    In a popular vote election, every state and precinct would have been Palm Beach. Rigging the vote ANYWHERE would have been effective.

    If we did go to a popular vote for President, we'd first need some huge reforms to clean up our voting processes, or it would be nightmarish.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The current system makes it easier to determine the winner of the Electoral College by microtargeting in one of the dozen battleground states.

    There was specific targeting by Russians of "purple states," or swing states, that are critical to the outcome in the Electoral College.

    With the current system, not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states, a small number of people in a closely divided "battleground" state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state's electoral votes.

    537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, misinformation campaigns, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The current system makes it easier to determine the winner of the Electoral College by microtargeting in one of the dozen battleground states."

    There would still be marginal states necessary for victory in a popular election. It's just that it would be the 10th or eleventh most populous state--the rest would never get a chance to influence policy.

    That's a strength of the system--rather than a weakness. The fact that whomever wants to be president needs to take pretty much the whole country into consideration rather than just 10 states is a good thing.

    I promise you, the solution to our problems is not the ten most populous states inflicting their will on the rest of the country with impunity. That way lies authoritarian solutions--not liberty.

  • CE||

    It also makes it easier for candidates to target swing states, and spend less money where they have a safe lead. Too bad the Dem candidate last time didn't apportion her campaign time to reflect that reality.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 38 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be 200 times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, 40 times closer than 2000 itself.

  • Kazinski||

    Sorry Ken, do the math, Virginia was actually underrepresented in the 1790 presidential vote based on population whether slave or free.

    The reason being, the same as now, the podunk states get 2 senators no matter what. And at that time the senate/house ratio was 26/60 so .433 as opposed to the current Senate/house ratio of about .30.

    So no matter how you slice it small states like Delaware, New Hampshire and Rhode Island had an even more outsized vote in the electoral college then than in 1790.

    Now you could argue that Virginia had an advantage over other large states like Pennsylvania and New York because of the 3/5 compromise, or you could argue that they had a disadvantage because their slave population wasn't counted fully. Let's remember it was the free states that insisted that slaves not be counted fully for representation, not the slave states.

    There are things not to like about the electoral college, but the slavery question had little to do with it then, and nothing now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Now you could argue that Virginia had an advantage over other large states like Pennsylvania and New York because of the 3/5 compromise"

    That's the whole point.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There are things not to like about the electoral college, but the slavery question had little to do with it then, and nothing now."

    There's this thing called the historian's fallacy.

    The idea that the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery in the minds of the framers is preposterous.

    The observation that slavery has nothing to do with the electoral college now is obtuse. Did you imagine I thought it did? Did you read what I wrote?

  • Azathoth!!||

    The purpose of the electoral college was to bring the country together by guaranteeing that the South couldn't dominate the government by way of the 3/5 compromise.

    "Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to deny the southern states the number of representative they would have had if slaves and free people had been counted equally, and make it impossible for slaveholder interests to dominate the government of the United States until 1861.

    FTFY.

    And damn, did it need fixing. Looks like the rats got to it.

    Slaveholder interests were checked by the 3/5s Compromise--not enabled.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Only if you assume the alternative was not counting slave at all.

    We're not talking about what might have happened anyway. We're talking about what actually happened and why.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Is it that you're not away that the abolitionists didn't want slaves counted at all--or that the slaveowners wanted slaves counted the same as citizens?

    So the two alternatives WERE 'not counting slaves at all' and 'counting slaves the same way citizens were counted'

    Hence the term 'compromise'

  • Ken Shultz||

    Only if you assume the alternative was not counting slave at all.

    We're not talking about what might have happened anyway. We're talking about what actually happened and why.

  • mamabug||

    "This is why we went to war once it became clear that the South's advantage would no longer allow them to dominate the government."

    I think this is the first time I've read someone other than me argue that the Civil War was over the loss of Southern political power due to rapid industrialization. Even back then, the democrats liked to take the ball and go home when they lost.

  • Sevo||

    Lefties luv them some mob-rule!

  • DiegoF||

    Except when they don't. I.e. when it does not suit them, which is mostly. Then they become the most shameless elitists since the court of Xerxes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    One man, one vote, one time.

  • miketol||

    Only until the proles vote in a way that displeases the liberal elite. For example; California Proposition 187. Then the liberal elite have to get an activist judge to overturn it.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I expected more of a commentary in this article about the nation being composed of a collection of states. That's a little more to the point, I think.

  • HGW xx/7||

    I'm surprised it was penned at all considering the shit-shingles churned our of here as of late. Completely devoid of wokeness.

    Clearly, Joe is a jerk-water provincial who doesn't care for cocktail parties. Why - * adjusts monocle * - I bet he doesn't even drink artesianal kombucha!

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    The horror !

  • Eddy||

    I'd use the Constitutional term "Union" of states. An unbreakable Union, as clarified by the Late Unpleasantness. But still a Union, not a blender in which the states were pureed into uniformity.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The problem with clarifying a point by killing a lot of people is that it only stays clarified so long as people believe you're willing to kill anybody who disputes it.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    Expected? Or hoped? 'Expected' it a bit strong, is it not, given Reason's tilt as of late?

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    The Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery. If anything, it was the opposite, because it really helped those small New England states -- Rhode Island, Connecticut -- at the expense of the larger slave states -- Virgina, the Carolinas, Georgia.

    Fucking socialists are dumb everywhere, not just economics.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    "The system is broken" is Lefty code for "we're noir getting our way!"

    I'd suggest maybe winning some elections but it's clear that most Americans don't want what they're selling.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • ThomasD||

    Then when they win, but things do not go as promised it's because we are "ungovernable."

  • Brian||

    "It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery's power on America today"

    Bullshit.

    We don't have a constitution created by slave holders. In fact, we have a constitution with the 13-15th amendments.

    If it was all about slavery, then why did civil rights-minded abolitionist legislatures do that, but leave the electoral college intact?

    And the answer is: because progressives have no arguments that don't involve racism. So it just has to be slavery. The end.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    As noted above, several of the largest states in 1787 were slave states. They did not benefit from equal representation in the Senate. Occasional-Cortex's argument is historically ignorant.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Largest population or largest land size?

    Georgia had relatively few white residents and hundreds of thousands of slaves. Its a decent land sized state.

    Rhode island had zero slaves and few white residents, yet got 2 senators and 1 guaranteed representatives. It is one of the smallest land sized states.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Ocasio-Cortez is what happens when what should have been a harmless idiot is educated by the state.

    This woman, who approaches levels of irrationality rarely achieved by a sentient being, will cancel the vote of Justin Amash. Of course she want to abolish the electoral college. It's not just that she lacks the ability and ambition to exert the effort required to understand the purpose of the electoral college, it's that she has the intellectual independence of one of the Borg. Mentally, she a teenager who wants to get a tattoo because all her friends have one.

    Without California, Trump would have won the electoral vote. Do you really want a country that is run by a state who keeps losing its small business and entrepreneurs due to its totally insane tax structure and regulatory apparatus?

    Moreover, do you want a country run by the mind of Ocasio-Cortez?

  • Ska||

    Man, I don't even want a restaurant run by the mind of Ocasio-Cortez.

    I do want some empanadas and pernil though.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Why not? The food would be paid for by the richest person there, and the louder you complain, the more you get

  • prolefeed||

    And the richest person would be forbidden to leave the restaurant ever - and eventually they would run out of food and everyone would starve.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Without the Electoral College, all national policy, including farm policy, will be made by people living in cities. How long before they vote that farms should give food away for free? How much will farmers plant the year after that?

  • CE||

    They will also vote to ban trucks for the noise and congestion and pollution they create, and then wonder why their stores have no food in them.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts which were surveyed, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Actually, the restaurant she worked at went under due to the increase in minimum wage she championed. It takes a special kind of devolution from self-awareness to keep supporting a system that has tangibly harmed the very people she claims to champion.

  • DiegoF||

    Puerto Ricans don't make empanadas per se.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    +2 - One for the obvious, that her 'mind' is . . . um like an empanada. And one for the fact that empanadas are really really good. Even if Ocasio-Cortez probably couldn't cook one to save her life. Ok, just +1 then.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    So, question for the audience - both libertarians and whoever else enjoys these discussions. Why does this borderline brain-dead woman make the news? Is it because it she represents the continuing descent of the left into pure unadulterated communism, and that is the future of that party? Because she is just so mindless it is fun to laugh at? Because a growing portion of Americans really believe what she says? Because we just need a young non-white woman and this is really the best there is? Really, I ask in all seriousness, despite my obvious opinions. When did we start caring about people like her?

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    "We" don't. Not even really in the sense that you're hinting at. A handful of these people have won elections in already heavily leftist territory.

    She wound have zero hope outside of a handful of districts.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    Yes, thank you. I suppose I should have written 'Reason' or 'the news media' or 'people' rather than 'we'. I suppose I simply tire of seeing her name in headlines, and assume that there must be some reason that people pay attention to her.

  • Don't look at me!||

    These are the kinds of things people used to say about Obama before he won. This girl has beer selected by the press just as Obama was. Pay attention.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on "60 Minutes"
    " I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There's a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In a presidential election, one cannot choose to not count the popular votes of any state.

    There are 5 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states.

    Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
    None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

    California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

    The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

    California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
    31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

    61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed "Appalachafornia") votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton.
    With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally.

    In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
    About 62% Democratic

    California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

    8 small western states, with less than a third of California's population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California will matter.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, Boston College gave her two degrees. (and based on her public statements, I really,really, mean GAVE.)
    So do we blame her, or them?

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Reminder: Democracy is not an end into itself, nor odds it inherently good. It's a system enacted to protect liberty against tyranny, but it's itself susceptible to other problems (e.g., mob ruke). Hence, it is a check in our Constitution on the states and inn the federal government, but the Constitution implements other checks inn democracy.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Every time we libertarians discuss this exciting young politician, we need to emphasize she agrees with us on one of our most important goals: #AbolishICE. Don't be scared of the "socialist" label; many democratic socialists embrace the Koch / Reason position on immigration.

    With that said, AOC makes sense on the Electoral College as well. Just look at it as a practical matter. How many times in recent memory has the EC allowed a Democrat to become President after losing the popular vote? None. In practice, it only helps Republicans. And as libertarians, we should want Democrats in the White House, especially now that the GOP is a full-blown white nationalist party.

    #LibertariansForOcasioCortez

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    You misspelt Occasional Cortex.

  • prolefeed||

    It misspelled #LibertariansForStatistSlavingFucks

  • Nuwanda||

    I have to commend you on how devilishly well written and skewering that is. Rejoice in the brows you've knitted.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    We?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "we should want Democrats in the White House, especially now that the GOP is a full-blown white nationalist party."

    Fully blown? Then get on your knees, bitch.

  • Don't look at me!||

    You are getting a nice polish on your craft. Keep up the good work.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The socialist candidate fails to grapple with why we have the Electoral College in the first place.

    There's a lot of things Occasional-Cortex fails to grapple with: reality, basic laws of economics...

  • DiegoF||

    See now, I would show up at this place just for the nicknames.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I wish I could take credit for that one, but I can't. I forget who came up with it. It definitely fits her.

  • posmoo||

    surprised reason still has a writer willing to criticize a socialist u.s. politician.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Has she called for pot legalization ywt? That'll be the game changer.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If we were to write a brand new Constitution today, would we include something like the Electoral College in it? If so, why?

  • Eddy||

    An interesting exercise for one of Burke's "political geometricians."

  • prolefeed||

    If "we" were to rewrite a brand new Constitution today, you wouldn't get 50 states to sign on to whatever hot mess was cludged up. You'd have at best, two or more countries form because of the 50 states going their own ways, and at worst, a shooting civil war, especially if the people in charge of the rewrite decided to outlaw guns in private hands.

    The Electoral College was a compromise needed to get the small states to join the union. The small states would have exactly the same concerns about California getting to call the shots on everything.

  • 68W58||

    +1

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    We could do it. The states would need to be cleansed of all the progtards though.

  • Susan Anthony||

    There are 5 million Republicans in California. That is a larger number of Republicans than 47 other states.

    Trump got more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
    None of the votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

    California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

    The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

    California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
    31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

    61% of an equally populous Republican base area of states running from West Virginia to Wyoming (termed "Appalachafornia") votes were for Trump. He got 4,475,297 more votes than Clinton.
    With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California and Appalachafornia will matter equally.

    In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
    About 62% Democratic

    California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

    8 small western states, with less than a third of California's population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California will matter.

  • Susan Anthony||

    With the National Popular Vote bill, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

    State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

  • JesseAz||

    Do you need a link to a picture version of a history book Jeff? What an idiotic question. You ignore the base premise of the constitution, that we are a collection of stated. That's the only way to ask such a stupid question.

  • CE||

    Maybe to prevent electoral fraud at the state level from messing up the national election....

    Just apportion the electoral votes by population, without the 2 vote senate kicker.

  • Susan Anthony||

    That would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    Probably for the same reason it was done in the first place, unless we want the Union to splinter.

  • JesseAz||

    Jeff actually believes Idaho, North Dakota, south Dakota, Wyoming, et Al would willingly seed more power to the shithole corrupt states that are California and new York.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You do realize that there are many more models of representation than the American model, right?

    Why do you think it is such an absurd question to explore other models? I'm not even advocating for a change per se, simply initiating a discussion. Why does that scare you so much?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'Scare'

    Yeah, he sounds terrified.

    Little Jeffy, you are such a fucking twat.

  • JesseAz||

    You didn't ask for other models dipshit. You asked specifically about having the electoral college. This is only relevant if we remain a country of states. There would be no other reason to have an electoral college. So now that we've established that your base premise keeps in tact the idea of states we come down to your idiotic question of smaller states ceding power to larger states. A dumb and stupid question.

    If you want to discuss other models, go for it. But then you'd have to collapse the idea that we are a country of states.

    My guess is you have no idea what other models would even work.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you want to discuss other models, go for it. But then you'd have to collapse the idea that we are a country of states.

    Why?

    Look at the German model.
    Look at the European Union.
    Look at the Russian Federation.
    Look at Australia.
    Hell, look at Canada.

    Why does getting rid of the Electoral College necessarily mean getting rid of the concept of states?

    My guess is you have no idea what other models would even work.

    No, I don't. But your knee-jerk opposition suggests that you don't even want to have the discussion. That is just closed-minded.

  • Sevo||

    "Look at the German model.
    Look at the European Union.
    Look at the Russian Federation.
    Look at Australia.
    Hell, look at Canada."

    I have. Great examples of what not to be.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Which other models have become more successful than the US?

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
    The bill has been enacted by Connecticut (7), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (19), New Jersey (14), Maryland (11), California (55), Massachusetts (10), New York (29), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), and Washington (13). These 12 jurisdictions have 172 electoral votes – 64% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    It would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

    Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district or county. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In hypothetical-land, there are no socialists that live in the USA so we domt need to even address electoral college as a problem..

  • prolefeed||

    Clinton won the popular vote in large part due to her margins in New York and California, where Republicans knew their votes didn't matter.

    They conveniently forget that due to Top 2 in CA and WA, there are ten congressional districts where no Republican is on the ballot. Why bother to vote when your choices are a Democrat, or a Democrat? Change to a democracy, and those Rs would flood back to the polls for presidential races.

    Oh, and remember the clusterfuck when we had hanging chads deciding the presidential election, and recount after recount? Imagine the chaos if the Entire Fucking Country was recounting every ballot everywhere because the vote was within the margin of error of machine reading (and ballots mysteriously appearing out of allegedly uncounted ballot boxes).

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Why bother to vote when your choices are a Democrat, or a Democrat?

    By "democrat, or a democrat" you must mean "center left Democrat, or an official from the Pol Pot regime."

  • ||

    Such is life.

  • JesseAz||

    Nope. Two of the latter for the most part.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yep, the Electoral College makes recounting rarer and simpler.

  • JesseAz||

    Imagine how many "hey we found missing ballots" could be had with no electoral college.

  • Susan Anthony||

    537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, misinformation campaigns, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    The National Popular Vote bill would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 38 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

  • DarrenM||

    The most that will ever be done is that an electoral vote will automatically be cast base on how the House district for that vote went. The two votes corresponding to the Senate seats would be cast based on how the entire state voted. An actual meeting of electors would no longer be necessary. No more casting all electoral votes for a state in sync for a single candidate. Although, I suspect Democrats would not be all that keen on losing California's and New York's block of votes. All in all, this issue is going nowhere. It's just something for leftists to complain about.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Dividing more states' electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

    If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2012, the Democratic candidate would have needed to win the national popular vote by more than 7 percentage points in order to win the barest majority of congressional districts. In 2014, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by a margin of about nine percentage points in order to win a majority of districts.

    Nationwide, there were only maybe 35 "battleground" districts that were expected to be competitive in the 2016 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 38+ states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 98% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    It simply requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award them according to the nationwide, rather than the statewide, popular vote.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

    The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

  • Susan Anthony||

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system has been a constant source of "chaos, litigation and confusion." In the current system, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Recounts would be far less likely in a National Popular Vote system than in the current system. In the United States' 58 total presidential elections, there have been 5 litigated state counts which were totally unnecessary and an artificial crisis created by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system. Based on U.S. election history, a national popular vote would reduce the probability of a recount to once in 640 years.

  • Susan Anthony||

    No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation's 58 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

    The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall.
    "It's an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house." Hertzberg

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

    The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

    The question of recounts only comes to mind because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

  • Susan Anthony||

    We do and would vote state by state with the National Popular Vote bill. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

    Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

    The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

    The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I need to script up a progressive tweet generator.

    Still a work in progress, but:

    We need to eliminate [institution], it enables [something awful] and is holdover from [something awful in history], perpetuated by white [catchphrase].

  • Eddy||

    (Something Republicans are doing) is like (something bad which Democrats/progressives used to do but we won't mention they were Democrats/progressives)

    (Any given event unfavorable to Progressives) is an absolutely unprecedented violation of our American traditions, which would appall (dead Republican whom progressives used to hate)

  • Pro Libertate||

    MINE!!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I need someone with the skills to create a Mad-Lib. I nominate you.

  • Juice||

    Peru doesn't have an electoral college and look what happened.

    They literally elected Hitler.

  • Walk_on_Walter||

    Let me be crystal clear: I want no part of a democracy. Go fuck yourself and your insane mob rule, bitch.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

    Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

    Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

    Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

  • The Iconoclast||

    The process of amending the Constitution is defined in Article V. They should get right on that. They need to convince 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment, so that'll probably be fun trying to convince them to agree to relinquish a bunch of their power, but the real kicker might be the bit about "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate".

    I am not a constitutional scholar but it looks like they'll need to get ALL the states that will lose power to agree to it. GLWT.

    Maybe they don't have any real intention of trying it and they just want to complain about how it's unfair. Or they figure screw it and they'll just go straight to armed overthrow. Interesting times...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The great thing about the constitution is that you dont need to be a constitutional scholar to understand it.

    Its simple in its basic limiting principles.

    If its not listed as a government power, government cannot do it. If a state and people's right is not restricted then it cannot be limited by government.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The best part of this popular vote interstate compact? Since it's mostly "blue" states signing onto it, imagine what the reaction is going to be when a Republican wins the popular vote...

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    It simply requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award them according to the nationwide, rather than the statewide, popular vote.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    People keep repeating that Her Shrillness, Hillary the (would be) First Queen For Life, won the popular vote. Did she? How many of her votes from places like California, that have few if any real safeguards against vote fraud, were legitimate? We know that the Democrat establishment is vitrolic in its opposition to even the most basic efforts to prevent such fraud,mand against any effort to investigate the possibility that such fraud exists.

    Could it be that they fear that without widespread vote fraud they would become a much less powerful political force?

  • crufus||

    There are actually two issues:
    1. The two senator rule for all states, big and small.
    2. The presidential electors being decided on the basis of the total number of senators and representatives in each state.

    There is no reason why the president could not be elected by the popular vote while retaining the two senators for each state, or the other way around.

    As a practical matter, it is unlikely that the electoral college or the two senators per state could ever be changed because that would require the small states to approve a constitutional amendment that is against their interest.

  • DiegoF||

    The Senate composition cannot even be changed in that way. It is unamendable.

    Of course, the Founders forgot to make the clause declaring that unamendable. Along with the failure to make a prohibition on making anything else unamendable, and to a lesser extent the failure to impose sunsets on amendment ratification (or clarify whether states and/or Congress may revoke their ratifications at any time by any means), these may be the stupidest mistakes they made.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    They didn't forget, they were just not going to get into that infinite regress.

    It would actually be simpler to amend the Constitution to strip the Senate of all power, and leave it a largely ceremonial body, like the House of Lords in England. You could do that in one step.

  • Jerryskids||

    She's right, you know. The Electoral College does undermine democracy. You'd think a minority like herself might appreciate the checks on majority rule we have in place here. But I doubt she appreciates the fact that it wasn't blacks who voted to allow black people to vote or women who voted to allow women to vote or 18-year olds who voted to allow 18-year olds to vote.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Mostly off-topic.

    While it's not about the electoral college per se, it's about how when the left starts losing, they want to abolish the institutions that they see as the cause of their loss.

    Reason Alumnus Tim Cavanaugh cracks wise about a New York Times think piece on eliminating the midterm elections.

  • ||

    At this point are there any Democrats who are not insane?

  • DiegoF||

    There's me. But I am damn close to it.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Opposing our system's structural amplification of backwater votes and voices is not the sole reasonable position, but it is an emphatically reasonable position.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You having your retarded face stomped on repeatedly is a reasonable position that every sane being would support and celebrate.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    structural amplification of backwater votes and voices

    Behold the party of working people.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You figure people in successful, modern, popular, attractive communities do not work?

  • 68W58||

    In San Francisco they seem to be working pretty hard to get shit off of their streets.

  • DarrenM||

    I'm sure there is a primer on suicide bombing someplace. You need to look into it.

  • cc2||

    Cortez is right that the electoral college interferes with democracy--it is designed to do just that because pure democracy can turn into mob rule quite easily. The US is a Republic, not a democracy. That is why it has lasted so long.

  • ||

    Good luck abolishing it. Requires 2/3 majority Congress + 3/4 state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. Will happen, but not in the next 100 years.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If states possessing a majority of Electoral College votes were to cooperate and direct those votes to the winner of the popular vote, no amendment would be required.

  • Vaelyn||

    Genius! It's just like eliminating elections altogether! Those clingers don't deserve to vote anyway, right Rev?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Clingers are and should be entitled to vote.

    They should not benefit from structural amplification of uneducated, unskilled, unaccomplished, backward voices.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You realize this popular vote compact either doesn't matter in a given state, (The state went for the popular vote winner.) or directs the state's EC votes to the candidate who lost that state?

    The first time it kicks in will be the last time, it will be so unpopular with the voters.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    It would be unpopular among voters who wished to benefit from structural amplification of backwater votes.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    structural amplification of backwater votes.

    Which is why yours should be nullified immediately.

  • ||

    Good luck abolishing it. Requires 2/3 majority Congress + 3/4 state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment to abolish the EC. Will happen, but not in the next 100 years.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    It simply requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award them according to the nationwide, rather than the statewide, popular vote.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

    Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes would not make us a pure democracy.

    Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

    Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

  • CE||

    Good article, but the author misses the point on why every state gets the same number of Senators: the USA is a union of states, not provinces or administrative units. A state is basically a country unto itself, united in a free-trade, free-immigration monetary and defensive union with 49 other states.

  • ||

    This point about states is what foreigners just don't 'grok' about the United 'States'. France/Spain/Germany they all have provinces and that's their mental framework. They don't know American history and have no desire to know it.

  • perlchpr||

    You wouldn't think it'd be that hard for them to grasp, now that they have the EU.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    CE and Alan, yes, extremely important points you are making. Most other countries are divided from the top into smaller units to make central governance easier. The United States is not. We are states, united together, from the state level up. We have admittedly lost our way a bit, with so much power centralized in DC. But we are not like other countries in this regard. And it is not just foreigners who don't get this. It is Ken Dilanian, Julia Ioffe, and of course Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well. And all too many rank and file democrats.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Factually, this is incorrect. Germany does not have provinces, it is a federation of *states,* while neither France nor Spain, unitary states both, have "provinces", although they have some degree of autonomous or decentralized regions with regional governments, neither of which are provinces. You can't credibly complain others don't know American history while being ignorant of the same for others.

  • ned johnson||

    White "privilege" is NO white countries, cities, neighborhoods!
    White "privilege" is open borders!
    White "privilege" is No-White-Anything-Anywhere!
    Its ANTI WHITE
    Its White Ge NO cide!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Go away.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You could go with him. Your rants are even more obtuse than his.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know, Shithead, you really are tiresome.

    Why don't you tell us again how you want to murder all the progressives.

    And then why don't you try to convince us why anyone should take you seriously, and not regard you as the obvious shitposter/psychopath that you obviously are.

  • tbc||

    They only care about the small states that vote Republican. There is absolutely never any mention of Rhode Island or CT.

  • Jerry B.||

    All Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Clinton have to do is amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They have not a chance to amend the constitution which is why hey talk the way they do.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Dems should stop smell the roses and realize we still have Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, gay marriage, badass porn industry, fewer people being conned by Christianity, a shitload of gun control considering the "shall not infringe" part (not that I this neccessarily agree)..... I could go on and on. Those scum fucked conservatives from my grandfather's generation lost in every sense of the word. This is a liberal country. The Republicans of today would be hated by the conservatives of yesterday.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, it never occurs to these anti-EC idiots that if it is the popular vote that wins, candidates will campaign differently, and "guys they hate" will still win elections.
    The only reason Dems get more of the popular vote is that the others campaign to win what does matter, the electoral college vote.

  • Nuwanda||

    What am I missing here? The number of electors for each state is the sum of its representatives in the House and its two senators. Thus California has 55 electors and Alaska 3.

    The Electoral College is already allocated according to state representation in Congress. California has commensurately more power in the College than 18 Alaskas. If that's so wrong then so is any give state's allocation in the House.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some numbers from 2016.

    Alaska has 3 electoral votes, with 223,422 popular votes. That equals 13.4 electoral votes per million people.

    California has 55 electoral votes, with 10,190,815 popular votes. That equals 5.4 electoral votes per million people.

    So each individual Alaskan voter has over twice the electoral power of each individual Californian voter.

    This was actually by design. This way the states with fewer people have a greater voice so they aren't drowned out by tyranny of the majority, leading to mob rule.

    Of course the mob doesn't like this one bit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Shoot into the crowd.

  • IceTrey||

    If I remember correctly 11 of the largest 14 states are Democrat and could elect the President evey year if they voted together.

  • 68W58||

    I don't think that's true-Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina are among the 10 most populous states and none are "Democratic", to say nothing of Ohio.

  • IceTrey||

    I said top 14. Learn to read gooder.

  • 68W58||

    You also said 11 of those 14. Learn to math better.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political candidate. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states that have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    With National Popular Vote, it's not the size of any given state, it's the size of their "margin" that will matter.

  • MasterThief||

    Golf clap. You did well on this one, Seyton

  • sarcasmic||

    We need to go the opposite direction and repeal the 17th Amendment.

    The Senate was intended to represent the states, while the House represented the people. This way the Senate could be a check on democracy. For example I seriously doubt there would be a national drinking age of 21 without the 17A, because the Senate would likely block federal blackmail against the governments that the Senators would represent. Same with National ID, and who knows what else that the feds force upon unwilling state governments.

  • ThomasD||

    This. Currently the States have almost no voice about what DC does to them. Bring that back and a lot of Federal overreach would go away.

  • CE||

    how does it help? the people of the state elect the legislature. the senators are going to be the same people.

  • LynchPin1477||

    What's the slavery connection? Didn't the Senate and 3/5s compromise give relatively more power to the smaller northern States (relative to what would have happened if the southern States got their way)?

    But then, I'm asking for historical literacy from a millennial socialist, so who's the real fool here?

  • dchang0||

    If the smaller, rural states are ever denied representation by removal of the Electoral College, I hope they starve the megacities by denying them farm output.

    Sell the meat and produce to other countries instead.

    Which of course would trigger what the Socialists want to do anyway: state seizure of farms. But the megacities will be in utter turmoil by then, with only a 3 day food supply. The Socialists won't be able to maintain order in the cities and seize the farms at the same time, especially given how well-armed the rural areas are.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

    Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

    16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

    16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
    The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts which were surveyed, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75%, IL (enacted), NC - 74%, WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states"

    Looks like you're playing funny with terms. Rural vs. urban isn't the proper dividing line--it's highly populated vs. less populated. And if "rural" people support a straight popular vote, it's probably because they don't understand that they'd lose influence in such a popularity contest.

    If the top ten populated states account for more than 50% of U.S. population, why should the other 40 volunteer to be railroaded by them? Being a minority in a democracy stinks, and if the population of 40 states is out there volunteering to join the permanent minority, then they're foolish.

  • Susan Anthony||

    That's very condescending of you.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

  • Susan Anthony||

    That's very condescending of you.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

  • Susan Anthony||

    That's very condescending of you.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

  • Susan Anthony||

    That's very condescending of you.

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

  • IndependentTexan||

    The Electoral College is part of the deal that made the US come into existence. Without it, it's doubtful we'd have a country. It's a compromise that gives otherwise ignored parts of the country some influence. It's in the Constitution, which means it can only be changed by a constitutional amendment.

    Want to take it away? What exactly do you have to offer in trade? I'm sure the small states would at least consider it if you were to offer something up in return. For example, how about ... a vastly strengthened 10th Amendment that makes it far more difficult for the Federal government to overstep and take power away from the States?

    I don't know about you, but I'd consider that trade.

    Oh, not willing to make a deal? Want to get something for nothing? Good luck getting 3/4 of the States to ratify your one-sided suggestion. Knock yourself out.

  • sarcasmic||

    a vastly strengthened 10th Amendment that makes it far more difficult for the Federal government to overstep and take power away from the States?

    Repeal the 17A. Give representatives from the state governments veto power over the mob.

  • IceTrey||

    As intended.

  • IceTrey||

    How about an amendment that prohibits the government from initiating force?

  • sarcasmic||

    That would be overruled by the FYTW clause that is the source of every government's power.

  • IceTrey||

    Isn't that the consent of the governed? The blood of tyrants and patriots right?

  • sarcasmic||

    Just another way of saying social contract. The guy who talked that talk walked a totally different walk as president.

    Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So criminals would have carte blanche then?

  • IceTrey||

    No they could still use retaliatory force.

  • ThomasD||

    An amendment to prevent government from being government?

    OK.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: "No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles."

  • Susan Anthony||

    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
    "The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
    "The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

    Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

    In the 2016 general election campaign

    Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

    Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

  • Susan Anthony||

    Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties.

    Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

    The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections because they are not closely divided "battleground" states.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I've seen where this is coming from. One looter website is pushing the idea that less populated states have "unfair" leverage, therefore the electoral college that elected Slick Willie and defeated George Holy War Bush (the pop vote winner who wanted a death sentence for hemp farmers) has to go. The problem is that looters converge in large cities, just as drinkers did during National Prohibition. But Prohibition was enacted via the much more powerful spoiler votes. What NOBODY points to is places with no electoral college and more rights. Popular vote counting routinely elects looters of one stripe or another. In our system the States are the citizens of the Customs Union. We should get rid of the communist manifesto income tax (a capitation tax) and correct the imbalance caused by the 16th Amendment. The rest works fine now, thanks to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot exposing the evils of socialism. Spoiler votes suddenly increase freedom and lower taxes. That's winning!

  • IceTrey||

    People don't understand that the federal government is a compact between the states not among the people. At its founding people considered themselves citizens of their state not the country.

  • sarcasmic||

    When the nation was founded, state meant what we now think of as country. The states were autonomous, like European countries, and the federal government was like the EU and NATO put together - free trade zone and mutual defense. At that time The United States was plural. After the Civil war it became singular. That's because the federal government destroyed that compact and established dominion over the states, making them all into one country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is only partly correct.

    There would be no USA without states agreeing to the US constitution and having things in common with other states.

  • IceTrey||

    Hello Captain Obvious.

  • IceTrey||

    Hello Captain Obvious.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean "that compact" that I mentioned, referring to the previous comment?

  • Azathoth!!||

    I've searched and searched for this singular 'United State of America' that you claim has existed since the end of the Civil War.

    It doesn't seem to exist.

    And, in point of fact, the several States often have very different internal structures and laws--as well as an overarching federal system.

    As was set forth in the Constitution.......wonder of wonders.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    Since 2006, the National Popular VOte bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes.

  • JVT||

    The fact that 48 of the states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis is the real problem. In Maine and Nebraska, candidates get one electoral vote for each congressional district they carry, and 2 electoral votes for carrying the statewide vote. This forces candidates to compete in many of the congressional districts in the country, not just a few swing states. It preserves the blend of population and states in the number of electoral votes each state gets, without the large-scale distortion of winner-take-all.. And it can be done without a constitutional amendment.

  • JesseAz||

    Just have the state representatives vote for the president. That's all you are doing. Or... Do what the constitution says and let each state legislature choose their own manner of elections. We made it 250 years in this system. It's not broken unless democrats lose. Pathetic.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district or county. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

  • Susan Anthony||

    The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

  • Susan Anthony||

    The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws, and now may change them in the same way.

    Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
    "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…."
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

    In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

  • Susan Anthony||

    77% of Maine voters and 74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote.

    Nebraska in 2008 was the first time any state in the past century gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state.

    2016 is the first time an electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In Maine, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored).
    In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
    77% of Maine voters have supported a national popular vote for President
    In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

    Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

  • Susan Anthony||

    In Nebraska, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
    In 2012, the whole state was ignored.
    74% of Nebraska voters have supported a national popular vote for President

    After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008,Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party's support.
    A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

    The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.

  • M.L.||

    More fundamentally, the states are sovereign. The idea that the states could be governed (excessively one might add) without representation in the executive branch is an inversion of basic principles.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    At least hatred of Trump has exposed these treasonous 5th element types.

    We know exactly who they are to ignore their anti-American activities.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    5th element types? You mean like a sexy girl dressed in strategically placed bandage-wrappings who lands in a guy's flying cab and you can't understand a word she says?

  • illusionofwill||

    LOL!

  • MikeP2||

    What is so difficult to understand about "big badda boom"?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Multi-pass baby!

  • ThomasD||

    Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Trump, April 26, 2018 on "Fox & Friends"
    "I would rather have a popular election, but it's a totally different campaign."
    "I would rather have the popular vote because it's, to me, it's much easier to win the popular vote."

    Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
    "I would rather have a popular vote. "

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on "60 Minutes"
    " I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There's a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

  • ThomasD||

    (Psst... It's Fifth Column....)

  • No, You're a Towel||

    I lurk and read your comments, and rarely ever do you or the Shitlord add anything to intellectual discussion other than strange Team Red/ Trump love and its converse, hateful invective against Team Blue. You are no more substantive than this socialist Tony or the one-note Reverend; all of you are boring partisans and not a libertarian brain cell in your head. Why do you even bother posting such facile nonsense over and over day in and day out? Could it possibly be that everyone who disagrees with you is a merely a butthurt "progtard", or is there something else at play?

  • Pathogen||

    Taking the shit coming out of this idiots mouth at face value is by far the largest problem. Like a tale told by an idiot, it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.. but the desire to stay relevant within her own circles. While I do not doubt her "ambition", I accept that these regurgitated talking points are so much grist for the proglidyte mill, and nothing more.

  • Susan Anthony||

    Trump, April 26, 2018 on "Fox & Friends"
    "I would rather have a popular election, but it's a totally different campaign."
    "I would rather have the popular vote because it's, to me, it's much easier to win the popular vote."

    Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
    "I would rather have a popular vote. "

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on "60 Minutes"
    " I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There's a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Okay Alexandra, show us on the doll where the Electoral College hurt you.

    What is wrong with this woman? She does realize, I hope, that the Electoral College has no bearing on her own run for Congress? There is no need for her to carry water for Hilary Clinton. You don't hitch your wagon to a horse that's on its last legs.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She Guevara is a very stupid woman. Probably a hot fuck though. She also has that vibe of a chick that is very enthusiastic during a spitroasting.

  • MikeP2||

    Until you dont call the next day, then its all 'kill your pets and claim rape'

  • Susan Anthony||

    Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

  • TxJack 112||

    No you see the issue is people like you think the Presidential election is one large election instead of 50 individual elections which is actually is. The ONLY reason Hillary won the COMBINED popular vote is she won California. The reason Trump got more electoral votes is he won the popular vote in all those states. Most people are NOT comfortable letting the large populous states decide every election so your claim is garbage.

  • CDRSchafer||

    If the election were decided by a popular vote, Trump's strategy would have completely changed. Discouraged Republicans in California and New York would have had something to go to the polls to vote for. Completely different game so we have no idea who would have won but it probably still would have been Trump because Hillary is an idiot who campaigned in states she had no chance of losing while ignoring states that were close.

  • illusionofwill||

    There are better arguments that "the majority shouldn't get its way all the time." When we talk about democracy it would be wise to include the question of democracy at which scale. More people will get their preferences met if they are divided into 50 groups, each making their own laws, than as part of just one group with one set of laws. This is a mathematical reality.

  • Dan Bongard||

    People always say "Bush lost the popular vote in 2000" and "Trump lost the popular vote in 2016".

    Well, they did. But so did Gore (in 2000) and Clinton (in 2016). Nobody won the popular vote in either of those years. Gore and Clinton achieved a *plurality*, not a majority.

    A majority could grant some sort of claim to democratic legitimacy, I suppose. But pluralities cannot. All a plurality says is "this person was less-unwanted than the other people".

  • TxJack 112||

    The problem with this statement is it is only correct if you are referring to the combined national vote. Bush and Trump won the popular vote in every state where they got electors. By winning more states, they won the elections. Democrats bank on the stupidity and outrage of the uninformed to promote this lie and argue the system is unfair. The "majority" in this country refers to the majority of the fifty states, not the number of people. The fact that Democrats control the coasts is why when you combine ALL of the votes, they win the "popular vote" but still lose the election. What they want is to win an election by pandering only to the people the deem worthy of consideration and the rest of us can go to H***

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    By allowing two senators for both Wyoming, with a population of less than 600,000, and California, with a population of more than 38 million, we create more national cohesion. We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied. We incentivize Washington, D.C.—both the president and the Senate—to craft policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.

    1. National cohesion? Now? The electoral college is a huge part of why we don't have it. The California/Wyoming example to the contrary is preposterous. Compared to that contrast, what example more corrosive to national cohesion can be found?

    2. "We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied." Swath protection wasn't part of the plan. And swaths can't be bullied. People, on the other hand, are especially bullied when the electoral college forces minority rule on them. That actually was part of the plan. The nation fought the Civil War to get rid of that bullying. That wasn't an example of national cohesion either.

    3. The needs of Colorado? Defined how? By the preferences of a minority, nationwide? On what principle does anyone reason that national minority rule is especially helpful to Coloradans? Because Coloradans don't encompass a national majority? Neither do Californians, Texans, Floridians, or New Yorkers—all of whom are numbered in groups notably disadvantaged by the electoral college.

  • MikeP2||

    All the illiterate rants about the EC conveniently ignore the counter-balancing force of the House. Remember the concept of "checks and balances"?

    The founders were far smarter than you can conceive.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    The Senate historically was the most important institution in our government and the reason we have 2 Dakotas is because Republicans wanted to keep their boot on the neck of the vile racist southerners.

  • Olga||

    The writers of the constitution did not foresee a time when agriculture would only be 1 or 2% of the economy and everyone would move to a few large cities for work. Also the idea of having a House of Representatives, representation based on populations vs a Senate 2 senators for each state seemed like a reasonable compromise at the time. It might be less of a reasonable compromise now.

    So now we have a situation where Wyoming population 573,720 gets two senators, but Washington, DC population 693,972 gets zero senators. So many people that they are not being represented.

    Not sure the best way to rectify this situation, but clearly there must be a way to do so.

  • MikeP2||

    DC is vastly overrepresented. They may not have votes, but the massive influence of that city on our national politics easy overrides the biggest, most populous states.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    DC is a parasite that exists at the expense of the rest of they country.

    Without the federal tax money paid by people who live in other states, it wouldn't have been built out at all to begin with.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Without the federal government DC would a blighted suburb of Baltimore.

  • TxJack 112||

    The reason Washington DC gets zero is it is not a state but rather the seat of the Federal government. It is supposed to remain neutral. The people who are represented by the city government which has far more power than most cities since they are overseen by Congress, not a state government.

  • Miter Broller||

    When you rely on an uneducated and ill-informed electorate to get you elected and support your policies, then the more the merrier!!!

  • Lance L||

    I think this article misses the bigger point. Right now it is D's who are complaining about the EC. If the situation was reversed, it would be some Rs doing the same thing.
    Plus, I think you are wrong to assume that when a pol advocates for something they actually want it to happen. I thinkss is she is playing to her base, and we shouldn't get upset when a pol does things that will help them in the moment with their base. When I saw R's playing to nutjobs in tricorn hats with tea bags hanging from them, it was crazy but it was also rational.

  • MikeP2||

    Her eyes tell you everything needed about her. No depth, and a touch of crazy.

  • pyrrhonist1975||

    Personally I feel that the 17th Amendment ruined the purpose of the Senate. By allowing direct election of Senators instead of having the state legislators pick them they have become more and more like the House and people forget that this is supposed to be a republic not a democracy. I feel that a lot of problems that arise would not happen if the Senate was only accountable to their state legislatures instead of the state's voters.

  • vek||

    This is a fact. The original system was to ensure that senators stood up for states rights. Once it became just another popular vote scenario, it undermined the whole point. Not that the other way wouldn't have its issues too, but I think it was a better set of checks and balances.

  • ThomasD||

    Yep, and it is the same sorts, .e. proggs (of both parties) pushing elimination of the EC who also pushed passage of the 17th.

    That was a terrible idea that largely led to the Federal leviathan we have today. Ending the EC would only compound the error, and destroy what remains of a limited constitutional republic.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery's power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic."

    The nation is a Constitutional Republic - not a democratic republic.

    The only things that are legitimately subject to deciding at the federal level are those that fit within the framework of small and limited government as required by the 10th Amendment.

    And the parameters of what constitutes those limits are exactly what James Madison considered them to be in the first nanosecond the ink of his signature dried on the Constitution.

    If those limits had been upheld then all the blather about the pure majority not getting their way at any given point in time would be moot. They majority would have FAR fewer things to be deciding on to begin with.

    As it should be.

  • Daniel||

    Before trying to eliminate the Electoral College, first, eliminate the 17th Amendment.

  • CE||

    I've never thought that would work. I suspect we'd end up with 99 of the same 100 establishment clowns as we have now, and Rand Paul would still be an ophthalmologist.

  • tlapp||

    If the electoral college goes away cities will have free limos driven by government union employees replacing cabs and Ubers. Gold plated manhole covers and fire hydrants all to buy the votes of the population centers. Then they will wonder why they are having problems with production of things energy, steel, lumber and food. Rather than realizing they regulated them out of business they will blame greedy business people. Then the collapse of the nation. This is a pattern that has happened everywhere cities have gained more influence and power.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I believe what you describe is the Reverend's vision. Only it cannot possibly go wrong, being so elitist and well intended and all.

  • Doug Huffman||

    The United States of America is not a democracy but is a democratic republic guaranteed by COTUS Art. IV a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our FF rightly feared mobocracy. See also Aristotle Politics IV (Bekker 1294be).

  • Anomalous||

    "It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery's power on America today that undermines our nation as a people's democratic republic."

    Mask almost slipped there.

  • MSimon||

    A Thermodynamic Explanation Of Politics

    The City vs Country divide has been a feature of human politics for 5,000 years or more. Too bad we haven't figured it out yet.

    Two Ecologies

  • Heraclitus||

    This is pretty weak stuff for REASON. The framers of the constitution needed to throw a bone to the South to get their support. Since 40% of their population was slaves they didn't like the idea of a popular vote because they would obviously be at a disadvantage. So they struck the 3/5th compromise. But instead of giving each voting man in the South an extra 60% weight to a vote - that would be too complex - they went with the electoral college. Thus, they add up the population, giving slaves 3/5th weight and then base electoral college delegates on that simple mathem atical calculation. Yes, it gave rural areas a bigger say in relation to big cities, but in that context rural areas meant plantation areas.

    But the heck with facts. Ocasio-Cortez is the devil, amiright? Our dear leader has instructed us to mock her at every turn in order to gin up the base and we must comply with his orders.

  • vek||

    You DO realize it also helped out smaller northern states right?

    It was a populous state versus less populous state compromise across the board. To claim anything different is nonsense.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    He doesn't even realize that the 3/5ths compromise hurt the slave states, because the default rule was that everybody counted for 5/5ths even if they couldn't legally vote.

  • Heraclitus||

    There was no default rule. It literally was the constitutional convention. It was designed to create the default conditions. Slaves were property and not 5/5th. If they were 5/5th and couldn't vote then that would be a problem for the South no? They are at the convention arguing that they have all these people (property) that can't vote and yet they felt that because of all their people (property) they needed extra representation. The electoral college was one mechanism to do this.

    BTW, Ocasio-Cortez is not crazy. Many scholars have pointed this out many times. Just google it. But that would not fit the crazy Socialist narrative that you'll desperately want to foster. The shtick is growing old.

  • Larvell Blanks||

    "The heck with facts, other than the ones I just totally made up."

  • TxJack 112||

    Actually, the Electoral college follows the apportionment of representatives in the House because the Founders considered the House to directly represent the people. The House is like the House of Commons in the UK. In contrast, the Senate is supposed to mimic the House of Lords in that it is a more limited body. The simple truth is we have a bicameral system which has worked well for 231 years. In all that time, the minority party never ranted about the system being unfair and demanded it be changed. Only when the radical progressive left is unable to win elections and impose their socialist "vision" on the country is the system suddenly "unfair". The biggest problem with such a proposal is simple. It will only prompt a 2nd civil war and the utter destruction of the US as a nation.

  • ||

    The Electoral College did its job keeping whatshername out of the White House.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Madame Nada Presidente.

  • ||

    'I passionately believe'.

    How can someone without a soul have passion?

    The only thing she's 'passionate' about is naked power.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Socialism undermines freedom and democracy. Eliminate that.

  • Larvell Blanks||

    I would ask Ocasio-Cortez how she would go about eliminating the electoral college -- by amending the Constitution, or by asking the Supreme Court to hold it unconstitutional.

  • Longtobefree||

    By fiat.
    For the children.

  • Tony||

    If the American people actually got to choose the presidents they wanted, we'd have a 7–2 liberal majority on the supreme court.

    You people don't like that outcome, but not because it wouldn't be the result of the people choosing. You just wouldn't like it and think you should be in charge because you're so smart.

    Lots of idiots think they're smart.

  • CDRSchafer||

    And lots of them post stupid comments that prove nothing and go nowhere.

  • jimolivi@icloud.com||

    There really is a thing called the tyranny of the majority.

    Two wolves and a sheep are a democracy.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I find it funny that progressives tout democracy which is basically minority loses. People in the minority should worry about that.

  • Tony||

    Why should the minority win?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Racist

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Why should the minority win?

    To avoid over-tiring the majority.

  • buddhastalin||

    You probably thought that Hillary should be President because of the popular vote, but note that she did not win a majority. No candidate did. For every candidate, not-candidate won more votes. We don't know who the majority winner is because the system is not set up to figure that out in situations like that in 2016. It's possible that Trump could have won a majority if only Trump and Hillary were on the ballot. Because any candidate who did not win a plurality could have been a majority winner, I see no special reason other than convenience to declare the plurality vote winner to be the winner of the contest. Of course, this is all moot because the Electoral College chooses who is President of the US government.

  • Tony||

    *Makes jack-off hand motion*

  • buddhastalin||

    You've had too much practice.

  • TxJack 112||

    Read the 10th amendment. It says all those powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the STATES. Each State government is the ruler of the people within it. What you and others like you want is to abolish state sovereignty and force everyone to bow to the decisions of a few heavily populated states. What you want is exactly what the 3/5 compromise was intended to prevent. Here is a thought, how about Democrats stop thinking they are above all of us in the center of the US and maybe start listening to our point of view instead of attempting to dictate to us? How about they attempt to govern rather than mandate?

  • ThomasD||

    They tout the rhetoric of democracy.

    What they want is power.

  • TxJack 112||

    The claim we need to give large states more representation in the Senate than small states, like the House only demonstrates the stupidity to those on the left. The entire reason for a Bicameral system was to let every state have some say in what happens in this country. Whenever they are unable to achieve their goals, the first thing the progressive left demands is change the rules. If you want a popular vote system, then you have to allow ID verification. However, Democrats will scream that is unfair because it will suppress minority voting. The problem is if you have a system where a single vote can change the outcome of the election, then every vote does matter and you have to verify the people voting are only those allowed to vote. When you consider states like California are considering letting illegal immigrants vote, the reason a popular vote system will not work is obvious. These type of demands will never come to fruition because if they did, this country would cease to exist. The entire center of the country would secede rather than bow to the tyranny that would be implemented by those on the coasts.

  • loki||

    Here's a novel idea for the dims, try appealing to flyover country instead of talking down to it!

  • CDRSchafer||

    People don't like to be talked down to by bartenders. Serve me a fresh drink and STFU.

  • Juvenal||

    All the rhetorical smokescreen about changing the Electoral College only reflects that the Democrats lost in 2016. I remember Hillary and her bots chortling in September 2016 about the so-called "Blue Electoral College Wall" they had going for them, composed of the same states that later put Trump in office. It's only since the election that they (in their eyes the natural elites and rulers of the country) have got religion about the Electoral College. Squirm and dodge all they want, but the country, as the United States of all of America, will never sanction an amendment to give the erstwhile supporters of HRC power in perpetuity. It would be hard to find a better prescription for breaking up the country, by denying any real voice to most of the country in the selection of the chief executive. No matter how much "reasonable" sophistry you indulge in Susan Anthony, let's be clear (and honest) about your real agenda: it's the fond hope that somehow people of your ilk will be able to grab power and force their "enlightened" views on everyone else. Totalitarianism always starts this way, being reasonable up and until the would-be nomenklatura gets what it wants. Read Koestler and Orwell.

  • CDRSchafer||

    How about New York and California secede and form their own Progtard Nation?

  • jimolivi@icloud.com||

    Now that's a great idea. But first, let the dissenting counties in northern California create the state of Jefferson.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    Do you imagine that your dumb regionalist biases are any better than coastal elites looking down on you as a hick? Cuz they seem pretty evenly matched in stupidity.

  • Truthteller1||

    Her ignorance is breathtaking. Every time she makes the news it's a teachable moment.

  • jerryg1018||

    Ocasio-Cortez is correct, the Electoral College does undermine democracy because democracy is mob rule with no protections for the minority. We got a good glimpse of mob rule in action during the Kavanaugh hearing. The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic with elected representatives responsible to the electors. As the Democrats found out recently in 1994, 2010, 2012 and 2016.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Still, we should want 1 person 1 vote and the EC undermines that ideal which is a foundation of our republic.

  • ThomasD||

    The foundation of our republic is not '1 person 1 vote.'

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    That is the foundation of our republic.

    It is also an explanation of why we are a republic. We did not choose raw democracy because we understood that as a from of government such an arrangement would inevitably prove destructive of liberty.

    That the people most vocal about eliminating the EC are also the people least concerned with actual liberty is hardly coincidental.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    1 person 1 vote has nothing to do with "raw democracy". In 1900 people in the South voted for representatives but obviously not every member of the community got to vote.

    Would you have been fine with faithless electors voting for Gore in 2000? Because that is a 100% legitimate way to win in the EC.

  • No, You're a Towel||

    OK, but where in the world is "raw democracy" practised? Can you name any?

  • No, You're a Towel||

    OK, but where in the world is "raw democracy" practised? Can you name any?

  • Uncle Jay||

    Comrades,
    Ocasio-Cortez doesn't go far enough.
    We need to terminate the racists, homophobic, sexist, capitalist US Constitution and replace it with one that works, like the one in Cuba if we are all to enjoy the wonders and miracles of a socialist slave state.
    That's the trouble with the American left today: It doesn't go far enough to ensure our nefarious capitalist state is destroyed so we can all concentrate in making our ruling elitist filth more prosperous and powerful over all the unenlightened masses who so desperately cry out for socialist slavery.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    To the Democratic elite, the system works just fine until they lose. Then it's time to scrap the whole thing. And it's no surprise that Ocasio-Cortez takes a position that assures the absolute control of the majority over the minority. It's a position that will suit her just fine until, as has been the case in the past, her views sink once again into the minority -- at which point she will be screaming for "protection against democracy run amok"

  • jimolivi@icloud.com||

    OK, bear with me here...

    Churchill said (I think) that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. And it is said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Alexis de Tocqueville said "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money". A union of independent states is one of the ways that we don't succumb to the tyranny of the majority.

    Having 2 Senators per state and the Electoral College help to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

    The Progressives of the turn of the 20th century knew that they could advance their positions by popular vote and passed the 17th amendment. This Amendment changed the election of Senators from appointment by the state governments to popular vote.

    Removing the Senate and Electoral College will leave dissenting states with limited recourse to tyranny...

  • Don Nico||

    She's just another whiner who hates the American system of government.

  • Don Nico||

    There is nothing that prevents any state that want to assign electors based on popular vote from doing so.

    Since CA and NY are SO progressive, they should be the first states to make that change.

    I won't hold my breath.

  • TxJack 112||

    States do assign electors based on popular vote. They just do it based on the popular vote in THEIR state. What Democrats want is for states to totally ignore how the actual residents of the state voted and instead award electors based on the combined national vote total because they know they will always win as long as the win California. Do you actually think for one minute the voters of Texas would happily accept all of its electors being awarded to a candidate they did not vote for because of the outcome in other states? The proposal is beyond stupid, it is dangerous because you cannot simply nullify the will of an entire state and expect the people in it to simply accept what happens.

  • Gasman||

    " "The idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change," NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted."

    Somebody needs to read the constitution. Article V, in one very long sentence, states very clearly that representation of the states in the Senate is the only thing in the constitution that cannot be amended.

  • Gasman||

    " "The idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change," NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted."

    Somebody needs to read the constitution. Article V, in one very long sentence, states very clearly that representation of the states in the Senate is the only thing in the constitution that cannot be amended.

  • TxJack 112||

    Don't you love when the left gets all indignant about North Dakota having the same representation in the Senate as NY but never seem to acknowledge in contrast Vermont has the same representation as Texas? They only focus on the issue where they are "treated unfairly" and never the entire picture.

  • bernard11||

    We protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied. We incentivize Washington, D.C.—both the president and the Senate—to craft policy that meets the needs of Colorado as well as New York.

    This is nonsense, as is the entire paragraph. How does letting North and South Dakota outvote California in the Senate "protect large swaths of the nation from being bullied?" Aren't Californians being bullied? Oh, I get it. You're an acreage worshipper.

    And what if there are policy issues where both CO and CA can't be satisfied, and you have to choose?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Yeah, it sucks when you shitlibs can't run roughshod over everyone at whim, isn't it?

  • starman2112||

    Tyranny of the majority is a real thing, but the electoral college has nothing to do with it. The reason Ocasio-Cortez mentions the "shadow of slavery" is because, back when it was being negotiated, the electoral college would give southern states disproportionate representation because of their larger black population that couldn't vote. This lead to the compromise for counting blacks as 3/5s.

  • TxJack 112||

    Which was for the representation in the House. Democrats want the Senate to be apportioned like the House because they will have more control. The fact the Senate is actually balanced angers them because they are unable to bully and ignore the GOP when they are in the majority. Also, I think it is funny that the reporter used North Dakota as the example since right now, one of those representatives is a Democrat. So in this instance, you have three Democrats and one Republican.

  • starman2112||

    Yea. Southern and rural places have been overrepresented in congress from the beginning.

  • XM||

    The Electoral is college is opposed by the people who insist that movies and TV shows employ "diversity riders".

  • XM||

    The Electoral is college is opposed by the people who insist that movies and TV shows employ "diversity riders".

  • qoheleth||

    "Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote–based system might also have some unexpected results."
    Yes. That's the thing the vast majority of Electoral College opponents don't seem to get: It's not that they would've won if the College didn't exist. If the College wasn't there, people campaign differently and people would vote differently.

  • TxJack 112||

    Another shining example that you cannot fix stupid...

  • SovereignMary||

    TxJack 112 - You're absolutely right on. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is truly a walking disaster to this sovereign nation's founding as a Limited Government Constitutional Republic.

  • blorgsnarfer||

    The Electoral College requires reforming, if not abolition altogether. Right now, the threat of "faithless electors" makes a mockery of one-person, one-vote. If a state goes for one presidential candidate, there is currently no unambiguous law that says an Electoral College elector cannot turn around and make a "vote of conscience" for someone else. Many experts say that the state laws that prohibit this (which, by the way, don't exist in every state) are unenforceable. So that's reform issue #1. The second problem is the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College in many states. Win a state by 537 votes? No problem! All 6 million now belong to you, as happened in 2000. By the way, a point not commented on much is that without Florida, Bush was behind. It was only Florida that put him over. Whereas, if they had just said, "Let's not count Florida," or had split Florida's electoral votes, Gore would have won handily. In other words, Gore didn't just win the popular vote; he was also ahead in the Electoral College, if you don't count Florida. Only giving Bush ALL of Florida's electoral votes (which he won by just 537 votes) gave him the presidency. We should go congressional district by congressional district, each of which would have one electoral vote. The states should be out of this national election altogether. If the President works for the people, he shouldn't be elected by the states.

  • SovereignMary||

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is truly a walking disaster to this sovereign nation's founding as a Limited Government Constitutional Republic.
    The founding fathers were very historically knowledgeable and astutely wise when they included the Electoral College within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.
    The Electoral College clearly does what it was meant to do, which is to give the much smaller populated State voters as fair a footing as possible with the votes that are cast within the much greater populated States.
    If the U.S. went the way of a National Popular Vote, then the much more highly populated States would cause the votes cast in the much smaller populated to be null, void and useless.
    Why then would someone residing in Maine or Rhode Island even bother wasting their time voting, since the votes cast in New York and California would thoroughly obliterate any meaning of their votes?

  • UncleSam13||

    Now the 17th amendment, that needs to be repealed.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online