Washington 9th in line to kill the electoral college

May 1, 11:56 PMIsland County Conservative ExaminerCarmen Grant

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Island County Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 

Washington State is front and center on ridding the U.S. of the Electoral College and pushing for electing the president by National Popular Vote (NPV). Olympia legislators passed Senate Bill 5599 which made Washington the 9th state in the U.S. ready to kill the Electoral College. Ironically the NPV law only needs 270 out of the 538 electoral votes to be enacted into law. The vote is currently at 60 or 23%.

Why we have an electoral college

The Founding Fathers decided against NPV because it would not represent the smaller states. Candidates could ignore rural areas, and focus on densely populated regions where they could get more votes. The Electoral College (EC) is meant for candidates to work harder to get their votes. Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on the states population, determined by the U.S. Census. Washington State has eleven votes, less populated states, like Alaska and Delaware only have three while California has the most electoral votes at 55.

Its a winner-takes-all system, meaning when an absolute majority is met, then the candidate gets all the electoral votes from the state. One of the wonders of Obama's campaign was that he literally led his campaign door to door, smallest county to small city to large city. He appealed to the most rural towns in America gave them hope that they wouldn't be forgotten again. Obama covered all his ground making a strong personal visits, and hitting hard with internet and television campaigns, which is why he got both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

What a NPV would prevent

With the way things are now, it is very possible to elect a president without him or her receiving the popular vote. This is what happened with George Bush against Al Gore in 2001. Gore got the popular vote, but Bush won the elections with the electoral vote.

Opposers of a NPV argue that that level of campaigning will become unbalanced as politicians can focus on larger cities and more densely populated areas, ignoring the handful of votes they could get in rural areas. This idea is challenged by the information age and the swiftness of how information is passed from person to person with the internet, television, email, facebook, and other social networking sites. If Obama follows through on his one-computer-per-household promise, then the next elections will be even easier to follow, even without television.

Is a NPV really more representative?

A National Popular Vote doesnt just mean a 51/49 split. It means whoever gets the majority wins. A candiadte could very well win with a mere 20% approval. It is more complex than people understand. It might kill the two-party system that has carried elections throughout history. Currently, each party has to agree on a candidate who can appeal to the greatest number of citizens to gain a majority of votes of the Electoral College.

Paul Greenberg argues that this shift in electoral reform makes us more like the French. There were thirteen candidates in 2003, and barely any of them could carry a majority. The result was to have a second round of voting that put a right wing radical against an unpopular conservative. Ridding the U.S. of the EC would water down the quality of candidates and open the door for right and left wing radicals to be legitimate presidential contenders. It would segregate states, regions, and people.

Buying into Office with a NPV

If the NPV goes into effect, there would have to be a better way to monitor campaign funding. There is currently a bill in the U.S. Senate, S. 1285, called the  Fair Elections Now Act which calls for federally funded campaigns. Tax-payer money would be used to fund the campaigns, and would make it illegal for lobbyists to raise money and for candidates to take large campaign donations from an individual or corporation. The limit per donation would be set at $100.

In sum, there is a lot of elections reform happening in the U.S. that not many people are not aware of. A NPV makes voting easier to understand, though it will not be a good law to pass by itself. It needs other reform, like the Fair Elections Now Act, to protect the quality of candidates. While the EC was created to give each person better representative power, most citizens don't get the process and don't agree with it when they do. It will be up to each individual state to pass legislation for or against the abolition of the Electoral College.

For more information in support of a NPV, visit the National Popular Vote website. For information to protect the Electoral College visit the the Save Our States website.