Are we close to a tipping point for a Constitutional Amendment to end the Electoral College?

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
No. Unless someone wants to argue that the Constitution was perfect at the beginning, then there comes a time when what made sense then doesn't make sense any more.

We don't change the Constitution simply because we've figured out a better way to do things. We change the Constitution to remedy serious flaws, to guarantee specific rights, occasionally to change the powers of government.

So, what is the fundamental failure of the Electoral College you wish to remedy? Personally i don't find the case of the 2000 election, by itself, to be a compelling argument for Constitutional amendment. As best i can tell, the Electoral College has generally reflected the will of the people in presidential contests. Is there a serious error, injustice, or denial of fundamental rights that demands correction? If not, why should we spend the enormous amount of time and attention it would take to amend the Constitution, rather than working on improving other parts of our electoral system?

[Ted King]

I'll be sure to link back to this thread if Obama wins the popular vote next year but loses the presidency because of the Electoral College (and that is not at all an unlikely event).

[davester]

rjmacs wrote: So, what is the fundamental failure of the Electoral College you wish to remedy? Personally i don't find the case of the 2000 election, by itself, to be a compelling argument for Constitutional amendment. As best i can tell, the Electoral College has generally reflected the will of the people in presidential contests.

The last two sentences are contradictory. The 2000 election clearly did not reflect the will of the majority of the people. The electoral system gave an inordinate amount of power to a small group of people in states with low population densities, enough power to control an election. There is no justification for that. That is a fundamental flaw in the electoral college.

[J Marston]

The anti-majoritarian provisions of the constitution were useful compromises in the eighteenth century, but they are starting to interfere with good government.

I think davester is right in thinking that it's simpler at this point to render the effect of the electoral college nugatory than it is to try to amend it, simply because we've mythologized the founders so much that it's difficult to get around key provisions.

But the electoral college has been a problem for a long time: the twelfth amendment is a direct response to a flawed electoral system. It could hardly be argued that the candidates who won an electoral majority but lost the popular vote represent an array of very great political talent. And the electoral college means that elections are determined by Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, while New York, Texas, and California can be safely ignored.

It's an embarrassment.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
No. Unless someone wants to argue that the Constitution was perfect at the beginning, then there comes a time when what made sense then doesn't make sense any more.

We don't change the Constitution simply because we've figured out a better way to do things. We change the Constitution to remedy serious flaws, to guarantee specific rights, occasionally to change the powers of government.

So, what is the fundamental failure of the Electoral College you wish to remedy? Personally i don't find the case of the 2000 election, by itself, to be a compelling argument for Constitutional amendment. As best i can tell, the Electoral College has generally reflected the will of the people in presidential contests. Is there a serious error, injustice, or denial of fundamental rights that demands correction? If not, why should we spend the enormous amount of time and attention it would take to amend the Constitution, rather than working on improving other parts of our electoral system?
The Electoral College has already been changed by amendment - the 12th Amendment. That happened in 1804. Was the "flaw" they fixed more serious than electing a person president who didn't get the most votes? If so, why do you think so?

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
I'll be sure to link back to this thread if Obama wins the popular vote next year but loses the presidency because of the Electoral College (and that is not at all an unlikely event).

Okay, but this isn't an answer.

davester wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]So, what is the fundamental failure of the Electoral College you wish to remedy? Personally i don't find the case of the 2000 election, by itself, to be a compelling argument for Constitutional amendment. As best i can tell, the Electoral College has generally reflected the will of the people in presidential contests.

The last two sentences are contradictory. The 2000 election clearly did not reflect the will of the majority of the people. The electoral system gave an inordinate amount of power to a small group of people in states with low population densities, enough power to control an election. There is no justification for that. That is a fundamental flaw in the electoral college.
Okay. As i stated above, i don't consider the 2000 election alone to be sufficient grounds for amending the Constitution, but it's okay if we disagree about that. I completely concur that the Electoral College system for presidential elections means that mathematically, individual votes in states with smaller populations have greater weight than those in states with larger ones. However, i don't think this constitutes a grave injustice that merits amending the Constitution. Simply passing the National Popular Vote bill in a sufficient number of states would solve that problem, and is far more achievable than a constitutional amendment.

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
The Electoral College has already been changed by amendment - the 12th Amendment. That happened in 1804. Was the "flaw" they fixed more serious than electing a person president who didn't get the most votes? If so, why do you think so?

I'm not interested in 'comparing the merits' of constitutional amendments, Ted. I understand what you are asking, but i don't think going at it from this angle moves the argument forward. It's an argumentative parry to get me to defend or condemn the 12th Amendment, which is wholly off point.

The present question is: does the imperfection of the Electoral College process merit amending the Constitution. Nobody here is arguing that the process is perfect or optimized as it is. I have argued that it does not rise to the level of constitutional amendment, and you have argued otherwise. I think it's fine if we disagree on that point.

[davester]

rjmacs wrote:
Okay. As i stated above, i don't consider the 2000 election alone to be sufficient grounds for amending the Constitution, but it's okay if we disagree about that.

This makes me wonder what state you live in. I live in California, so my vote is not worth much, which is why the candidates don't bother to campaign very hard here. Heck, they have to spend four times as much per vote here than they do in some other states.

[Ted King]

davester wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]So, what is the fundamental failure of the Electoral College you wish to remedy? Personally i don't find the case of the 2000 election, by itself, to be a compelling argument for Constitutional amendment. As best i can tell, the Electoral College has generally reflected the will of the people in presidential contests.

The last two sentences are contradictory. The 2000 election clearly did not reflect the will of the majority of the people. The electoral system gave an inordinate amount of power to a small group of people in states with low population densities, enough power to control an election. There is no justification for that. That is a fundamental flaw in the electoral college.
I totally agree but would say it more flawed than that even. Under the current system, look at how much sway voters like Cuban Americans in Florida have. In the Gore election all it took was a very small event like the Elián González affair to make the vote close enough to flip Florida's Electoral votes to Bush. Because of the Electoral College and Florida being a close swing state, the relatively small number of Cuban Americans in Florida have a way, way more disproportionate say in who becomes president than someone living in California. That is a significant problem.

[Bill in NC]

Eliminate the Electoral College and every presidential election will be determined by the courts.

Our voting system will never be accurate enough to ensure every single vote gets counted correctly - there would always be enough statistical error for the losing candidate to sue.