Michigan Votes Forum

 NO, NO, NO....The electoral college must stay. I wouldn't want the big cities to rule the vote.

The President should be elected by the majority of the people, no matter where they live. It is high time we do away with this antiquated and unfair system.

 Abolishing the electoral college would be a huge mistake.  It was put in place for a reason.  Elimination of it could ultimately lead to attempts by states to secede from the union.  If we truly have a desire to run the country by national popular vote, why not abolish the Senate which provides equal representation of the states regardless of population?  Leave this effective system alone.  This bill should not pass.

changeagent:

Elimination of it could ultimately lead to attempts by states to secede from the union.

Wow, that could cause a civil war.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#whyelectoralcollege

By entering the proposed compact, Michigan would pledge its 17 Electoral College delegates to cast their votes for the presidential candidate that receives the largest number of popular votes nationwide.

That defeats the Founders’ purpose in establishing the Electoral College, which was and is to ensure that every state, large or small in population, has its own unique say in presidential elections.

Presently, Michigan law regarding Electoral College delegates sets up a winner-take-all system that commits the state’s entire 17-vote delegation to the one candidate who wins the entire state.  If Electoral College voting reform is something Michiganders really want, perhaps they should consider the approach taken by Maine and Nebraska. 

In those states, Electoral College delegates are committed on the basis of which presidential candidate wins the popular vote in each Congressional District.  Under that arrangement, Michigan’s 17 electoral votes very well (likely?) might be split between two or more presidential candidates, reflecting regional political differences across the state.  

FreeSpeaker:

Presently, Michigan law regarding Electoral College delegates sets up a winner-take-all system that commits the state’s entire 17-vote delegation to the one candidate who wins the entire state.  If Electoral College voting reform is something Michiganders really want, perhaps they should consider the approach taken by Maine and Nebraska. 

 

In those states, Electoral College delegates are committed on the basis of which presidential candidate wins the popular vote in each Congressional District.  Under that arrangement, Michigan’s 17 electoral votes very well (likely?) might be split between two or more presidential candidates, reflecting regional political differences across the state.  

 

 This would be a better approach, so the voters and issues of Detroit (and Metro areas) wouldn't be able to dominate the election.

 I agree.  (Wow, that wasn't as hard as I thought it would be.)

The majority of the people in our country want to elect the President with a popular vote. Regions, even down to congressional districts, can never reflect the true will of all the people in them. These districts can, and have been, adjusted to advantage whatever political party is in power at the time, (gerrymandering).

The Congress is there to represent states and the districts in them. The President is there to represent all the people of this nation. It only makes sense he should be elected by them.

The compact agreement this bill proposes that Michigan enter would provide that all 17 of our state’s electoral votes be delivered to the candidate who draws the majority of the popular vote on a national scale.  Conceivably (even very likely) under such an agreement Michigan’s electoral votes then well might go to a candidate who did not win in this state.  That strikes me as a travesty.

This is not a matter that should be dealt with by entering a compact designed to subvert or negate the Electoral College provision in the United States Constitution.  If the system is to be changed, it should be done via an amendment to the US Constitution.

 Rather than eliminate the electoral college, we need to reform it to more fairly represent the will of the people. Rather than a winner take all approach, we should award a percentage of the electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote won. For example, if a candidate wins 51% of the popular vote, that candidate should receive 51% of the electoral votes to the nearest whole vote (since awarding fractional electoral votes would be needlessly complicated). However, for this approach to be truly effective, it really needs to be implemented nationwide so perhaps this legislation should be introduced at a Federal rather than state level.

FreeSpeaker:

The compact agreement this bill proposes that Michigan enter would provide that all 17 of our state’s electoral votes be delivered to the candidate who draws the majority of the popular vote on a national scale.  Conceivably (even very likely) under such an agreement Michigan’s electoral votes then well might go to a candidate who did not win in this state.  That strikes me as a travesty.

I find it amusing that the candidate recieving the most votes nationwide winning the election is seen as a travesty.

A broken system

Consider these facts about our broken system from FairVote's 2009 edition of Presidential Election Inequality:

gypsy:

I find it amusing that the candidate recieving the most votes nationwide winning the election is seen as a travesty.

This bill does not create a system through which presidential elections would be decided by popular vote.  The bill proposes that Michigan enter an agreement with whatever other states join a proposed compact to subvert the Electoral College system as set out in the United States Constitution. 

Under the compact agreement, Michigan’s 17 Electoral votes would be given to the presidential slate garnering the largest number of votes nationally, irrespective of how the vote went in Michigan.  Our state would thereby cede its unique political voice (and character) to others. 

The Electoral College system as it stands is, perhaps, imperfect.  We do note that in three elections – 1876, 1888 and 2000 – it produced winners who did not receive a plurality of the popular vote.  The 1824 election was decided by the House of Representatives, and it is not known whether the winner received a plurality of the popular vote. 

If you think popular vote is the end-be-all in the modern age, consider that Minnesota has not yet settled its November 2008 US Senatorial race.  In fact, that election ultimately will be decided by the courts, which are as far removed from direct democracy as any of our government institutions.  Likewise, the election of 2000, frequently cited as a reason for scrapping the Electoral College system, actually was decided by the courts who dealt with a dispute over the popular vote winner in Florida.

It well may be that reform of the Electoral College is desirable.  Subverting the US Constitution is not.  If reform is indeed desirable, it should be accomplished in the proper way, by amending the US Constitution.

If Michiganders are dissatisfied with the way their 17 Electoral votes are allocated, they might better adopt the system used in Nebraska and Maine.  There, the presidential election winner in each Congressional district is awarded the Electoral vote from that district.  Michigan’s 17 Electoral votes thus might well be distributed among two (or even more) candidates, reflecting political differences in various areas of the state.

FreeSpeaker:

This bill does not create a system through which presidential elections would be decided by popular vote.  The bill proposes that Michigan enter an agreement with whatever other states join a proposed compact to subvert the Electoral College system as set out in the United States Constitution. 

Yes, it does. By subverting the electoral college system, the end result would be the election of the president by popular vote. This compact would not take effect until enough states entered it to accumulate 270 electoral votes. At the present time, 5 other states have entered into the compact.

FreeSpeaker:

If you think popular vote is the end-be-all in the modern age, consider that Minnesota has not yet settled its November 2008 US Senatorial race.  In fact, that election ultimately will be decided by the courts, which are as far removed from direct democracy as any of our government institutions.  Likewise, the election of 2000, frequently cited as a reason for scrapping the Electoral College system, actually was decided by the courts who dealt with a dispute over the popular vote winner in Florida.

Minnesota's election is in court because of the closeness of the election, as it should be. The courts will decide if election law was followed, and every proper vote was counted, to determine the result. I certainly don't see that as a subversion of democracy, but a shinning example.

I would agree with you that the 2000 election was a subversion of our democratic process, as the vote counting was stopped by the Supreme Court, allowing the winner to be named, even though further counting proved he had lost the popular vote. Certainly not an argument for the electoral college, nor an argument against the popular vote. More an argument for counting every legal vote, as they are doing in Minnesota.

First, I do not and will not advocate subverting the United States Constitution by doing an end run around the Electoral College.  There is a Constitutionally provided way to make changes if they are perceived as necessary and desirable -- it is called the amendment process.  If electing a president by popular vote is the right thing to do, then it also should be done right by amending the US Constitution to provide for that method.

Second, the issues in the 2008 Senatorial election in Minnesota and the 2000 Presidential election in Florida are identical:  Who got the most votes to win the election?  At one point or another the courts will settle the issue in Minnesota by saying, "enough counting and arguing over votes is enough," and declare a winner.  That is exactly what happened in the Florida election.  Otherwise, the process could go on ad infinutum, which does nobody good.

But the Minnesota and Florida fiascos are a sideshow. 

This bill represents the wrong way to fix the way we elect presidents of the United States, if the system indeed needs repair.  That is why it should be rejected.     

I beg your pardon, but you did advocate subverting the constitution. These are your words.

"If Michiganders are dissatisfied with the way their 17 Electoral votes are allocated, they might better adopt the system used in Nebraska and Maine.  There, the presidential election winner in each Congressional district is awarded the Electoral vote from that district.  Michigan’s 17 Electoral votes thus might well be distributed among two (or even more) candidates, reflecting political differences in various areas of the state."

One could make the argument that any amendment to the constitution is a subversion.

The issues in the Minnesota and 2000 presidential election may be the same, who got the most votes, but the Minnesota Supreme Court is basing their decision on counting all the legal votes. The US Supreme Court in 2000 made their ruling knowing their were still legal votes to count.

This bill presents a way to fix an outdated and unfair system of electing our president.

Sorry, but neither Article II nor Amendment XII of the US Constitution sets forth how states must split up their Electoral votes.  Thus, the scheme used by Nebraska and Maine, whereby the winner in each US Congressional District in the state is awarded an Electoral vote representing that district, is wholly in keeping with the Constitution.

SB 598 proposes that Michigan join a compact agreement among the states to throw all its 17 Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate receiving the largest number of popular votes nationally.  That undermines each state’s sovereignty as an actor in the presidential election, as expressed through the Electoral College provisions in the US Constitution.  It subverts the Constitution.

My contention is that if the Electoral College system is deemed obsolete or defective, Article V of the US Constitution provides a proper remedy: amend the Constitution. 

This remedy for Constitutional shortcomings has been employed successfully on 26 occasions, including the first 10 amendments that gave us our treasured Bill of Rights.  To say that amending the Constitution is to subvert it is to speak or write an absurdity, since the amendment provision appears in the original, unamended body of the document. 

The issues in the Minnesota and 2000 presidential election may be the same, who got the most votes, but the Minnesota Supreme Court is basing their decision on counting all the legal votes. The US Supreme Court in 2000 made their ruling knowing their were still legal votes to count.

The point is that either way, the courts, and not the voters will make the final decision as to the election outcome.  In both the Minnesota or Florida examples it is a court deciding which votes count and which votes don’t.  

You are correct, Article II and Amendment XII do not set forth how the states split up their electoral votes. Therefore, this bill would be constitutional. It would have the state throw it's electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in the nation. Under the US Constitution, as you state correctly, states have that authority. The electoral college would still be in place.

Amending the constitution , I agree, is also an option, but an almost impossible hill to climb.

I used the term "subvert" in reference to your use of it. "The bill proposes that Michigan enter an agreement with whatever other states join a proposed compact to subvert the Electoral College system as set out in the United States Constitution. " I do not consider this bill subverting the constitution, as I explained above, nor do I consider Amendments subverting the constitution. If you use the latin origins of the word subvert, "to change from under", I suppose, in a stretch, you could apply it to both. I would not, as the term is mostly understood to mean "to corrupt".

I do not agree with your conclusion that in Minnesota, the courts will decide the winner. The voters have done that, the court is ruling on the legality of the votes cast. In Florida, they stopped the counting. Quite different.

gypsy:

You are correct, Article II and Amendment XII do not set forth how the states split up their electoral votes. Therefore, this bill would be constitutional.

Constitutional, yes.  But the thrust of this bill is to subvert the Constitutional provision regarding the Electoral College by having states cede their sovereignty in Electoral College participation.

gypsy:

Amending the constitution , I agree, is also an option, but an almost impossible hill to climb.

Because achieving change the proper, and wholly Constitutional way by amendment is difficult neither makes it impossible, nor does it justify engaging in subterfuge, as SB 598 proposes for Michigan.

gypsy:

I do not agree with your conclusion that in Minnesota, the courts will decide the winner. The voters have done that, the court is ruling on the legality of the votes cast. In Florida, they stopped the counting. Quite different.

You are engaging in a semantic argument.  When the court rules on the legality of votes cast, it rules on which votes count and which get thrown out.  Thus, the courts decide the winner of the election.  That isthe long and short of  what happened in Florida, and what is happening in Minnesota.   

You agree this bill is constitutional, but still see it as an improper way to achieve the goal of a national popular vote for president. OK, your view of proper is pretty narrow , in this regard.

If the goal is worthy, which I, and many others believe it is, and this method is constitutional, and more achievable than a constitutional amendment, why not use it? I respect your opinion, but really do not see "subterfuge" in this bill. The goal is quite out in the open.

You may see me as engaging in semantics, I see a world of difference in the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on the legality of votes cast, and the US Supreme Court refusing to allow votes to be counted, legal votes I may add.