Do not allow our elected politicians on Capitol Hill or anywhere else in America to tamper with and/or destroy our Electoral College as our process of electing our President and Vice President of our United States. Our current electoral process is sacred. Our Electoral System is not broken, or for that matter, not even stretched. Some may hate America and choose to break our Electoral College system and/or our Democratic Republic.

Our founding fathers had the wisdom to foresee the Electoral College system which may prevent corruption from destroying the entire election process in the Executive Branch as the President and Vice President of our United States.

Changes in eliminating the Electoral College for local corruption may not even change any local, district, and/or state elections; only the election for President and Vice President of the United States. The States' and the Federal Judiciary could become overwhelmed with a newer election process. We do not need any additional legal fights throughout our entire Judicial system all over America!

Changing the Electoral College is equivalent to initiating an earthquake, a hurricane, and/or a tornado combined while Americans lose their individual voting freedoms. Save our Electoral College.

Oscar Y. Harward
oharward@carolina.rr.com

This is all DOA given that the voting power of voters in 2/5+1 of states with small populations, those with populations

What's the plan on convincing the states required to ratify a constitutional amendment to forfeit their power by acceding to a popular election of the president?

Sheesh, that's an overheated post, Oscar. A U.S. Senator is hardly someone likely to hate America. There have been significant changes in the past. The Senate was once an appointed body. Presidents were not limited in terms.

Here's a variant that I like. Keep the electoral college, but go by one district, one vote. The winner of the state vote (could be a majority of districts rather than popular vote) gets the extra two delegates proportioned to the Senate. Nebraska does it that way. This also addresses concerns of the small states. They still get a slightly outsized contribution and don't lose their power.

The downside is that a district by district fight could loom in a close election.

BB

I don't get what is wrong with:
one person = one vote?!?!? No more Delegates, not more Super-Delegates...simple vote...each LEGAL American Citizen gets one vote.

This issue comes up every election, and quickly fades by mid-November. This year will be no different.

I can see both sides of the argument. The founding fathers wanted to create a more balanced system of power among the states. It is the same reason they compromised and created two legislative bodies in the house with the two competing methods of allocating representative. One population based, the other equal across the board. However back then the federal government was very limited in power (see the Atricles of Confederation in the Constitution). The federal government was mostly an overseer to ensure cooperation among state governments and provided a single voice for forgein affairs. Today is a much different landscape where The Fed rules supreme and the states have limted powers. A popular vote has more merrit now, but at the same time you basically forfiet the voice of the people in the middle in favor of the more densely populated coasts. It's really a tough call and has only been questioned recently because our polarized nation has had two successive very very very close bitter elections.

Might I add that in more than 200 years we have only ever had two elections in which the popular vote and the electoral college did not produce the same result.

I would argue that two elections where the people's choice was thrown over for that of "the system" is two too many even if over a 200 year time span...

Three times. 1876, 1888, and in 2000.

without the electoral college, new york and california will decide the outcome, now how fair is that. leave it to the dems to try to insure they steal the election year after year. I say let the dems select their nominee by popular vote before subjecting the country to their shortcomings, get rid of the delegates and superdelegates and then lets talk a few elections along the way. after the way hillary was treated, can the dems really be trusted.

Great idea!
-Because if the republicans pull another stunt as they did in 2000, we will not be so docile this time.

Great idea!
-Because if the republicans pull another stunt as they did in 2000, we will not be so docile this time.

This is not a Republican / Democrat issue. If Kerry had received 100,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have defeated Bush, who had more votes. Electoral College means candidates focus on a handful of swing states, like Ohio and Florida, and ignore states like Texas and California. Our founding fathers also denied the vote to Blacks and women. Times have changed. It is time to let every person's vote count towards electing the president.

The Electoral College should be retained as a tie-breaker for those instances when no candidate receives a simple majority of the popular vote (1992, 1996, 2000).

Stumped,
You are confusing the general election and the Electoral College with the Democratic Party primary system. That's like confusing a debutant ball with an orgy.

Just to echo other posters, please take a look at why the Framers invented the Electoral College. It had nothing to do with one-man, one-vote or the popular election of the President and Vice President. It was to ensure equal voice by all states in the selection of the Chief Executive. To quote Hamilton in Federalist 68: "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union..." In other words, a candidate for President cannot succeed by courting the major population centers of New York/Boston, Chicago, and coastal California. He must appeal to the country as a whole. That's why he is called the President of the United States.

Senator Nelson reeeealllly should have suggested this about ten years ago.

I would prefer a one person/one vote system. But if we have to retain the electoral system why does certain states like WY get 17X as much influence (per voter) as CA? Frankly I'm tired of this "we have to do what the framers had in mind" think. They thought only white male landowners should vote. I also do not like that only a handful of so-called battleground states get all the attention during the campaign.

Another way to bypass this constitutional amendment hurdle is to get state legislatures to require that all electors go to the candidate who wins the popular vote. Of course all states need to do that before it would take effect.

I'm flabbergasted by those of you who defend the electoral college. Do you believe in the essence of true democracy, meaning simply of course, whoever has a majority of the votes wins? Can anyone explain to me why if you're running for the school board, city council, sheriff, mayor, congressman, governor or senator, we use this majority vote system, but NOT to elect our president? (by the way the only election in our country where we ALL get to vote for the same few choices) Does it bother anyone that presidential elections in our country continue to be decided by people that live in give or take a dozen states? Is it healthy for our country to elect anyone to ANY position in government if they don't have a simple majority of the votes? For those of you who defend the electoral college process because "thats what the constitution says and its what our founding fathers wanted" I have a news flash for you. Our constitution when it was originlly drafted was (gasp!) flawed in certain areas. Allowing slavery and the counting of African Americans as 3/5ths of a vote, not allowing women to vote at all, and having State legislators elect US Senators are a few mistakes that come to mind. It's not unpatriotic or inpractical to occasionaly make a needed change to our constitution. Our founding fathers were wise enough to allow for us to make changes when we deemed it necessary, we call them Amendments, and it seems to me every one we've passed (except prohibition which of course was later repealed) benefited our country. With the growing influence of the media and the increasing hardcore political passions of our electorate, it would be extremly dangerous for our country to have any further repeats of 2000. I don't care who gets elected President, if you win a majority of the popular vote you should be elected. A vote in Mississippi should count the same as a vote in California.

Senator Nelson stands to gain from such a proposal. All of those little states won't get in the way of major states like Florida.

Granted, the electoral college has some major problems such as the possibility for a candidate to win the popular vote and still. However, I have yet to see a better solution that ensures equal representation of states, large and small.

As for balancing power among the states and protecting small states, I disagree with those who claim the Electoral College was meant to accomplish those goals. The Senate does that, by giving each state equal voting rights and thus political power. The Electoral College and the "three-fifths" rule of Art. I, section 2, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, was set up to protect the slave states from one man, one vote. The rationale for the Electoral College thus vanished with the abolition of slavery.

Residents of swing states should demand direct election. All the annoying crap like robo-calls are directed at those voters. With direct election, this sort of garbage would be spread over the entire nation. Voters in non-swing states should have to suffer these abuses, too.

Abolishing not only the electoral college, but the super-stupid superdelegate system would be a start, but everyone in every state and U.S. territory subject to and paying taxes should be allowed a vote in all Presidential and Vice Presidential elections if we want to create a "real democracy." If you get receipt when you make a charge, why can't you get a receipt for your vote to make sure that it is counted and stop the voting abuses and fraud (including having the Supreme Court -- clearly illegal, biased and unconstitutional, make a judgment directly resulting in the re-election of the very person and party that appointed them) we have had in recent years. But the political movers and shakers will never consent to any semblance of a fair, honest and uncorruptable voting system in this country because too much money is at stake. It would take a total congressional overhaul (i.e., housecleaning to let these folks know that it woun't be business as usual and that a new day is on the horizon. Only then will they really get the message, because these boys think they are invincible!!! They even have their secret pow wows on the Hill and dare others to enter there special teepees.(smile)Amazing isn't it, but ask those in the know!!!

Funny how when the Constitution doesn't support one's parties goals, it is a flawed 200 + year old document. But when it does support their aim, it is Holy Writ.

They did not concieve of a true democracy, it was a Republic.

Senator Nelson is right.The convoluted electoral college system with all its complication as in the Florida tangle versus Al Gore in 2000 needs to be given up.
With electronic voting machines as in India why not have a direct vote for the Pesident.Let the parties have their primaries and their annual jaunts at Cow Palace and elsewhere but let the plebeian voters like my son , a u.S.citizen, have a right to say who should be president.

Reserving comments about the Senator's proposal until I read/study more of the ramifications, but I do have one question about his proposal.
Since it is a one person/one vote per citizen in the general election, would he include all those people of Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands since they too are American citizens?

I wouldn't say NY and California will decide the elections in a popular-vote system. I'd say Americans will decide the election, no matter where they live.

We aren't citizens of states, and residents of states don't meet to vote as a bloc. "California" is a piece of land, not a person. "California" doesn't decide anything. There are no typical NY or California residents. Those states are just as diverse as the nation itself.

Besides, Americans move around a lot. I've voted from NH, NY, and Alaska. I'm the same individual no matter where I live. But as a Dem in Republican Alaska, I have no reason to vote for president. I'm disenfranchised.

I find the argument in any given debate that essentially because our super-smart founding fathers thought it was a good idea completely unpersuasive. The Constitution was a compromise between a number of colonies that viewed themselves as independent. Today we live in a county of 50 states that are completely interdependent. If the Constitution were a perfect document, it wouldn't have been amended 27 times. Our founding fathers wrote a constitution that worked for them, and provided a foundation for a system of government that works for us today. But they did not create an unalterable system without need for change. Had they thought the Constitution perfect, why would they have allowed for amendments? The Electoral College is an arcane system that made sense for our founding fathers, but not for the 21st century. Presidents should not be elected by the states; they should be elected by the people. And I support any movement to give people the right to choose the president rather than states. I've lived in 8 different states, and have little identity/loyalty to any. Like most people, I identify myself as an American. And I prefer having a president selected by the majority of Americans than by proportional choice of the states.

The Electoral College should be retained as a tie-breaker for those instances when no candidate receives a simple majority of the popular vote (1992, 1996, 2000).

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | June 9, 2008 5:03 PM

House and Senate already serve that function

What the heck does Senator Nelson know anyway? Bigtime wannabbe. Stupid is as stupid does

Not one word (yet) about Alexander Hamilton and the "Federalist Papers." (or James Madison and John Jay)

The Electoral College was created for a number of reasons.

1. The Founding Fathers didn't trust the public since they could be manipulated, especially by a dictator.

2. Industrial interests would have more power than Agrarian interests, since most of industry is based around populated urban areas.

3. Different states have different values and the Electoral College provides a "balance" for the smaller states with the larger states.

What Sen.'s Nelson and Levin propose goes against the very grain of Federalism and they need to re-read their history books. The direct election of a President can be frought with mischief. The states like California, New York and Florida can dictate their values to the rest of the nation.

I object to people who are too lazy to register, let alone show-up on Elections Day, even if it is on a Tuesday. They can always vote through an absentee ballot. I did this for a number of years. There are more ways to register to vote than I can think of. "Back in the day" I volunteered as a Deputy Registrar and went out to register voters.

Today, it's done at the DMV, schools, the mail and now a proposal for mandatory enrollment for students when they get their drivers license? Give me a break. What ever happen to the fact that people have to take responsibility for their actions if they want to participate in the electoral process? We keep hearing about how voters were "disenfranchised" in Florida, but when I hear Sen Barbara Boxer from California crow about voter intent, I suggest she looks at her own state's rules, since it is the voter's responsibility to clear all of the chips off of the punch card.

What do the Honorable Senators want to propose next? Free beer and hot dogs for everybody who votes?

I am usually very supportive of the checks and balances of the Constitution, but the Electoral College is one feature that has stopped serving it's purpose many years ago. There is no longer any Virginia versus Massachusetts struggle with smaller states caught in between. It no longer takes weeks for news of votes in one state to reach another. I think it's time we adopt one person-one vote direct election for the Presidency/Vice President as we do for every other elected position in the nation. I used to worry that direct election would mean that smaller states would be ignored in the presidential campaign so that candidates would focus on the large population centers. However, as the years have gone by, it's become more and more of a national media campaign anyway.
Moreover as it stands now there is no reason for some voters to bother voting in the state they live in, for example, why bother voting for McCain is you live in NY or California and it's a forgone conclusion Obama will win the state. Why bother voting for Obama in most southern states when you know they will go Republican? Counting each vote equally will increase the voter turnout and give more people the feeling that they did directly have a say in the election of the presdent.

I like the idea of the electoral college being the tiebreaker if no candidate gets a simple majority of votes.

Save for that, a few states (MD is one, but there are also "red" states doing the same thing) are agreeing that once states whose total heft in the EC amounts to 271 votes agree, they will all award all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote. I think that this is the way to go. If CA (considering it), FL (see above), and TX or NY were to join in, we'd be halfway to the necessary 270 right there.

the argument that California would get too much power is bogus. residence in California or any other state would become completely irrelevant. there would no longer even be any meaning to the term "carrying" a state. and as another poster noted, people in states dominated by one party would no longer be discouraged from voting at all (because they couldn't affect the outcome in the state), their votes would count just as much regardless of how the state total broke down.

Interestingly enough, I think both political parties support the current system, and why do you ask? Because it gives them a better idea of where to target their campaigning and finances, oh and lets not forget the media. The electoral college allows for more drama on election night for them rather then a straight out majority vote election where they would have to sit on their hands untill all the polls closed in the US.

The electoral college is somewhat of a problem but the real problem with the system is the process of nominating candidates. If Nelson and other reformers are consistent they would also advocate a national presidential popular vote primary to go with their proposal for the popular vote in the general election.

The campaign as it, currently exists, is a race for Iowa and New Hampshire where the candidates discuss regional issues such as ethanol and farm subsidies. After that the debate focuses on which candidates are going to drop out.

Democrats had more of a choice this year but the usual case is that many of the candidates have dropped out of the race by the time the later primaries roll around. Later Democratic primary voters only had the choice of Obama and Clinton and later Republican primary voters only had the choice of McCain and Ron Paul. In the beginning there were dozens of candidates that voters could choose from.

Also, do we really need the extended campaign between the presumptive nominees? We have known that Obama and McCain were going to be the nominees for awhile. Do we really need six months to decide between McCain and Obama or for that matter did we really need eight months to decide between Bush and Kerry.

The French recently conducted a presidential election that took ninety days. Why do we need one that takes over a year? We could have primaries in April, conventions in June, and the general election in August and we would not know any less about the candidates on election day then we do under the current system.

Maybe our political system should be more about governing and less about campaigns and elections.

All of Nelson's proposals make sense. The Electoral College sacred (godly), as 1 person said? It's not even natural. It's custom, which no votes for women and the poll tax used to be. And the E.C. is outmoded: times have changed since our forefathers devised things. Democracy = 1 person, 1 vote. Some may want something else and for a good reason, but don't call it democracy (and we don't: we call the US a republic). More than 1 day to cast a vote also makes sense. I once missed an election because I had to go out of town at the last minute (too late to do an absentee ballot). And the shifting regional primaries also make sense. Because all of these proposals make sense, they probably haven't a chance of being enacted.

electing presidents via the popular vote is the 100% accurate way of determining the winner, if you want this bill to stand a chance send your senators an email stating your support of the bill at senate.gov
I live in Ohio and I get sick and tired of the idiots in my state deciding the election based on how what side of the bed they woke up on that morning, please help us fix this jacked up system

One-person/one-vote is a nonpartisan idea. Everyone who doesn't live in a swing state should support these changes so the candidates will pay equal attention to every voter regardless of where they live, and so every vote will be meaningful.

The system must be changed so that every vote counts. It must not matter where one lives.

Interesting debate, but it'll never pass. I'd be surprised if it got out of the Senate (which requires a 2/3 vote). Even if it does, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and there's no way the citizens of states with relatively small populations will cede power to the bigger states. We have to protect our interests.

Finally, a privileged system of selecting the choice of those holders of political and economic power (as anti-democratic as we can get in the Electoral College system) is being challenged. As a democracy, isn't the final authority always the "peoples' choice" and not that of a contrived system set up in 1795 to provide the holders of the economic and political power to continue to choose whomever they preferred? We now have a literate electorate in which persons are encouraged to make their voices heard and their political power exercised in terms of chosing whom they preferred for president and vice president. The popular vote is the only rational. logical outcome of a truly democratic political system.

The big drawback in going from a electoral system to a direct popular vote is that the small states would have no incentive to vote knowing that their votes would be worthless.Remember this had New Hampshire in 2000 given Al Gore four thousand more votes Florida would not have met anything and this smallstate which only distinction is the first primary of the election cycle would have made Al Gore President.If small states loose this leverage the people running for President will spend all their time and money in the 10 most populated states build up big totals there and the heck with the rest.For this reason even if I am from California I will stick up for the small states and oppose Senator Nelson change in our electoral system.

With no Electoral College, candidates wouldn't think of themselves as campaigning within a state. They'd be campaigning among Americans. A New Hampshireite, as an individual American, would be just as important as a Californian. Candidates wouldn't carry states. There would be no swing states. The states would be irrelevant.

We all know about federalism. It's pointless today when applied to presidential elections. Life in a small state is no different from life in a big state. Small states have cities, too. Big states have hamlets, too. There are more tiny schools in California than in Alaska. There are farmers in NY, not just Iowa. Every state has a mix of people, lifestyles, occupations.

A 1 person, 1 vote system wouldn't make CA and NY more powerful for Democrats. CA and NY typically go Dem, yet Rep have won most of the recent contests (Clinton x2 and Carter winning as Dems). And only once, recently, has the popular vote been different. Thus, even if it was 1 person, 1 vote, it wouldn't give an advantage to either party. Plus, it would give people more incentive to vote, especially the minority party in states that aren't typically battleground states. I like the idea.

I also agree with redoing the primary season and mail-in ballots and paper trails.