Skip to main content

View Diary: NRO: Romney would have won if we had just changed the rules (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The president only got 41% of (0+ / 0-)

    the vote from white people yet we know how the election came out. It doesn't seem as if minorities got no representation under the present system. The present system does require that minorities form coalitions to win.

    •  Minorities got representation in this election (0+ / 0-)

      because they're part of an imperfect but effective coalition of center/left whites, blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and increasingly Indians too.  I hope that will always be the case but am not sure we should bet the farm on it.

      Note that Obama won with 51% of the popular vote -- a very slim margin.  The electoral vote gave Obama a wide lead, however.  Why?  Because rightwing/racist whites essentially wasted a lot of votes in the South.  In states like Mississippi or Arkansas, they definitely had enough rightwing white votes to bury any non-white votes (or votes by women turned off by the Republicans, etc), and give the electoral votes to ROmney.  But then they kept piling on those rightwing/racist anti-Obama votes.  I read that in some southern states the white vote was 80-some or even 90-some percent against Obama.  But that couldn't produce any more electoral votes for Romney.  All those extra anti-Black Guy votes were just wasted.

      Anti-Obama votes, and rabidly anti-Democratic votes, aren't limited to the South, but they are in fact intensely concentrated in a limited number of core Southern states.  In other parts of the country, Obama did well enough that he balanced out the Rabid Factor and won.  In the electoral college, he won easily; in the popular vote, barely.

      I hope that the power of the rabid (and racist) right has peaked and will gradually decline; but they aren't going anywhere fast.  I admit that I'm glad the Electoral College gives us something of a sheild.  Just as the EC dictates that you must appeal to more than one racial/ethnic group, it also makes it almost mandatory that you be strong in more than one region.  The Rabid Right is definitely weakened by being so strongly concentrated in a limited number of Southern states.

      COnsider 2016 or 2020 or 2024.  Those will all be bitterly contested elections, with tremendous impact (especially on the climate change front).  It may well be that in one or more of those elections,  only the Electoral College will keep us from being swept over by the tide of fanatical conservatism centered in a core group of Southern states.

      I recognize that it's inconsistent for me to be pleased that the Electoral College strengthens the electoral impact of an ethnically diverse coalition, but also to be pleased because it LESSENS the impact of the rabid right.  I like that it advantages my side, and I like that it blunts the force of the other side.  Yep.


      Today's aberrant Republican party is dangerously anti-democratic.  They're dedicated to gaming the system, from their pseudo-pious "voter fraud" campaigns to their shameless gerrymandering to the decades spent deliberately stoking white racial resentment.  ANd they serve the 1%, not the misinformed, manipulated people they claim to represent.  We need every shield we have against their deceit and their massive war-chests.

      So please:  Since we've gone along with the Electoral College for 2 centuries without disaster, let's keep it around for a while longer.  Even if I didn't think it had inherent virtues (which I do), I'd say -- don't kill it off right now.  LEt's see if we can get a ways further down the path to a genuinely multicultural society, and let's get a ways past the peak of the Rabid Right, before we mess with the Electoral College.  It's bias toward coalitions fits our needs as a party and our country's needs as well.  

      And we have a lot of things we need to do.  Give it 20 years -- they'll be busy years -- and we can talk about the Electoral Collage again.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:42:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since 1804 -700 attempts to change Electoral Coll (0+ / 0-)

        The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

        The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

        Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states.  

        The bill uses the exclusive power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

        In Gallup polls since 1944, 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 is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

        Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.  Many believe George W. Bush's presidency, won by the Electoral College, while lost in the national popular vote, was a disaster.

        The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

        Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (174)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (34)
  • Elections (26)
  • Law (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Environment (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site