Archive for Thursday, September 18, 2008
Scholars discuss merits of Electoral College
September 18, 2008
Advertisement
Election 2008
In-depth coverage of the candidates and the issues, all leading up to the Aug. 5 primary and the Nov. 4 general election.
A presidential voting process developed by the country's Founding Fathers has long spurred dissent and apathy among voters.
The Electoral College is a process in which the general public casts votes for an electorate that promises to in turn vote for a favored candidate. Electoral votes are apportioned among states, and it is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election.
Critics say the Electoral College is an undemocratic process and that every person's vote should count.
The mechanics, alternatives and obstacles to creating alternatives to the process were discussed by a three-person panel in "Constitution Day: The Historical, Political and Constitutional Aspects of the Electoral College," at the Dole Institute of Politics. The event, which attracted about 150 people, was not only part of Constitution Day observances, but also the Dole Institute's fall lecture series dubbed POTUS, The Next President of the United States.
Jonathan Earle, a KU history professor and associate director of the Dole Institute, discussed the background of the Electoral College. Part of its origin was rooted in the fact the Founding Fathers "were terrified of direct elections," he said. "They didn't trust ordinary voters to make the right choice."
In the modern world, "you think you are voting for John McCain; you are actually voting for a slate of electors," Earle said.
Paul Schumaker, KU political science professor, discussed an extensive study he and numerous other political science professors conducted to analyze potential methods to propose instead of the Electoral College. He organized a conference after the 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush. Alternatives include a popular plurality, district plan, bonus plan and a national compact. Though the Electoral College failed a test of criteria, it was still approved by the professors.
Schumaker said people believe the Electoral College system is legitimate, and will accept it, no matter the result.
Richard Levy, a KU J.B. Smith distinguished professor of law, explained the mechanics of law and the provisions that make it difficult for the Constitution to be amended.
"As much as we might like to change, I'm not sure how we can get there because there is an awful lot of vested interests that are at stake and in play that make it difficult to change," Levy said.
A two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment and a ratification of the amendment by three-fourths of the states would be required to make the change.
Getting agreement in Congress and having states be willing to possibly give up their solid Democrat or Republican holdings are among the challenges, according to Levy.
More like this
- Green panel votes against Electoral College January 29, 2001
- GREEN PANEL VOTES AGAINST ELECTORAL COLLEGE January 29, 2001
- Let the debate begin November 12, 2000
- Change to Electoral College possible, election official says November 10, 2000
- Vote differential questioned November 9, 2000
Top ads RSS
- Academic Advisor Hawk Link Retention Specialist The Office of Multicultural ...
- PHLEBOTOMIST Part time experienced phlebotomist needed for medical office. Hours ...
- St. Francis Health Center - NAS Recruitment
- KU Institute for Educational Research
- Seeking General Maintenance person for medium sized apt. complex. HVAC ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- FSHS sports stacked November 10, 2009 · 7 comments
- Blog: When Will We Get Our First Snow? November 11, 2009 · 11 comments
- Recipe for change: Film battles policies of industrial food giants November 11, 2009 · 4 comments
- Mandatory service November 11, 2009 · 45 comments
- Attorney for man who says he shot George Tiller won't present 'necessity' defense November 10, 2009 · 45 comments
- Right costs GOP N.Y. seat November 11, 2009 · 8 comments
- Thanks, vets November 11, 2009 · 5 comments
- Blog: Strippin' Ain't E-Z November 11, 2009 · 16 comments
- Jihadist threat underplayed November 11, 2009 · 32 comments
- Woolridge makes it official, signs with KU basketball November 11, 2009 · 1 comment
- KU's Learned Hall closed for several hours after early-morning mechanical problem November 11, 2009
- Food magazines seek niche November 11, 2009
- Code Talkers break silence November 11, 2009
- First blast on section of Kansas Turnpike river bridge scheduled for early Sunday afternoon November 10, 2009
- Former Kansas governor William Avery dies at age 98 November 5, 2009
- Traumatic childhood takes 20 years off life expectancy October 6, 2009
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Shop Talk: Sale item brings back taste of Italy November 11, 2009
- Recipe for change: Film battles policies of industrial food giants November 11, 2009
- Horoscope for November 11, 2009 November 11, 2009
18 September 2008
at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
The electoral college is an anachronism that is just plain stupid and undemocratic— but it serves the purpose of entrenched interests (i.e, big money and the two major parties it owns) so it will stay with us for the foreseeable future.
18 September 2008
at 7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
I think we should keep it; without the electoral college, elections would be determined by votes on the coasts and the heartland would be ignored. Republicans should be in love with the electoral college. Without it, they would be finished as a national party.
18 September 2008
at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tir (Anonymous) says…
As a voter who has been disenfranchised by the Electoral College in every presidential election I have voted in simply because of where I live, I think it's time to end this undemocratic and patronizing institution forever. We the people want our actual votes to be counted!
18 September 2008
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
Keep the Electoral College, do away with “Winner Take All”
18 September 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
What's wrong with simply electing the person who gets the majority of the votes?
18 September 2008
at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Or, require a certain majority, ie. 2/3 of the popular vote.If no one gets that, perhaps a power sharing government is in order.
18 September 2008
at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
I agree with Dr. Getto.The electoral college weights the selection of the president in favor of the smaller states.Now, states can apportion electors as they wish: Our neighbors in Nebraska elect one elector in each congressional district and two state wide.A requirement for a geographic distribution of the support of a president might substitute for the ancient institution, but the direct plurality election of the president is apt to be a good way to start a civil war.Remember that a lot of recent presidents have been elected by a plurality only, not a majority! Clinton NEVER recieved a majority of the popular vote, even if he did achieve electoral college landslides!
18 September 2008
at 10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Truthfully, I've always questioned this system of electing a president. But now even a bigger question needs looking at:Why is the left (OK, more specifically, the far-left) all of a sudden in a huff to discard it? It appears if you did get your wish right now––today, McCain/Palin win. No?
18 September 2008
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Why is the left (OK, more specifically, the far-left) all of a sudden in a huff to discard it?”Your characterization is characteristically inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory.I'd much rather see us move to a modern system of government, such as a parliamentary system with proportional representation. Our current system was cutting edge 220 years ago— now all it is is insurance to entrenched interests that they will always be in control.
18 September 2008
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
It's easy to campaign in the dozen major cities. It's easier to manufacture votes in the inner city. That's why Liberals want to get rid of the fairness of the electoral college. They'd rather concentrate their energies in 4 or 5 states that would dictate election results for the other 45 or 46 states.
18 September 2008
at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“It's easier to manufacture votes in the inner city.”So that means you can show an example of where this has happened in recent times (as in since Mayor Daly senior died?)But not to worry, Republicans are busy caging votes and implementing new poll taxes to prevent too many of the people of (wrong) color from voting.
18 September 2008
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
google ACORN fraud & see what you find
18 September 2008
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…
jafs: “If no one gets that, perhaps a power sharing government is in order.”Power sharing cannot work in an executive that is elected separately form the legislative. I'm all for parliamentary legislature, power sharing, coalitions, etc., but out separation of powers and system of single-member districts from elections mean that structural power-sharing in the executive branch is essentially impossible.
18 September 2008
at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Bozo, I don't have a problem with your parliamentary system proposal. Not at all. And I must say to barrypenders, they don't have to manufacture a whole lot of votes in the inner city anyway. In many swinger/leaner/battleground states with sprawling, less densely populated areas, take for example, Missouri, the inner city vote can throw an election very easily–most certainly in a tight race. So, yes the electoral college is a bit questionable, but I'm not as unhinged about it as the left is at this time in history.
18 September 2008
at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
jafs (Anonymous) says:”What's wrong with simply electing the person who gets the majority of the votes?”Nothing “wrong” with it, but it would have the effect of giving the most populous State's and urban centers more influence, and the sparci areas and ruracities less influence, in deciding presidential elections. If you live in “fly-over” country this is not in your best interests.
18 September 2008
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Wow, I really need an editor, should have been:Nothing “wrong” with it, but it would have the effect of giving the most populous State's and urban centers more influence, and the sparsely populated State's and rural cities less influence, in deciding presidential elections. If you live in “fly-over” country this is not in your best interests.
18 September 2008
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
So why not just give people in less populous states 2 votes each? That'd be just about as fair as the current system.BTW, nobody has come up with a single example of an election that has been significantly affected by so-called “vote manufactuing.”