National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by...
Rated • 6 reviews • politics, liberties rights • nationalpopularvote.com
The President of the United States (AKA "the most powerful man in the world") is not elected by a straight-up vote of the American people. Instead, he (or she) is selected by a bizarre and opaque institution known as the Electoral College, sometimes with the help of the Supreme Court (who are themselves selected by the President--sound a bit like "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"?). This is why Bush was chosen to be President in 2000, even though a clear majority of Americans wanted the other guy.
The effect of the Electoral College is to give disproportionate voting power to small states (those with smaller populations). As an example, Texas, with a population of about 22,490,000, gets 34 electoral votes, or about 1 electoral vote for every 660,000 Texans, while Vermont, with a population of about 620,000, gets 3 electoral votes, or about 1 electoral vote for every 210,000 Vermontians. In other words, a Vermontian's vote carries more than three times as much weight as a Texan's vote. (For a technical definition of voting power, known as the Banzhaf power index, see Jean-Pierre Benoit, "Social Choice in a Representative Democracy.")
The Electoral College may seem unfair, but its existence is protected by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The only way to get rid of it is a constitutional amendment, which would require ratification by two-thirds of the states. Of course, the smaller states would never ratify such an amendment, since it would only diminish their power. And that's why we have been stuck with this unfair and antiquated system for two centuries.
Fortunately, although the existence of the Electoral College is constitutionally protected, its relevance is not. The same article that protects the Electoral College also grants states "plenary" (total) power to use their electoral votes in any way they wish. Thus they could agree to cast their electoral votes for whoever got the most votes nationwide (not just in their individual states)--and if enough states (e.g., the biggest 11) agreed to do this, the Electoral College would become an immovable but essentially irrelevant symbol, like the British monarchy. The electoral votes of the other 39 states wouldn't matter (even if they all voted the same way, the "Big 11" could outvote them), but the votes of individual citizens in every state would matter (they would help decide who the Big 11 would cast their electoral votes for). The United States would finally be able to live up to its promise of "one person, one vote." That's what the National Popular Vote movement is all about.
The effect of the Electoral College is to give disproportionate voting power to small states (those with smaller populations). As an example, Texas, with a population of about 22,490,000, gets 34 electoral votes, or about 1 electoral vote for every 660,000 Texans, while Vermont, with a population of about 620,000, gets 3 electoral votes, or about 1 electoral vote for every 210,000 Vermontians. In other words, a Vermontian's vote carries more than three times as much weight as a Texan's vote. (For a technical definition of voting power, known as the Banzhaf power index, see Jean-Pierre Benoit, "Social Choice in a Representative Democracy.")
The Electoral College may seem unfair, but its existence is protected by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The only way to get rid of it is a constitutional amendment, which would require ratification by two-thirds of the states. Of course, the smaller states would never ratify such an amendment, since it would only diminish their power. And that's why we have been stuck with this unfair and antiquated system for two centuries.
Fortunately, although the existence of the Electoral College is constitutionally protected, its relevance is not. The same article that protects the Electoral College also grants states "plenary" (total) power to use their electoral votes in any way they wish. Thus they could agree to cast their electoral votes for whoever got the most votes nationwide (not just in their individual states)--and if enough states (e.g., the biggest 11) agreed to do this, the Electoral College would become an immovable but essentially irrelevant symbol, like the British monarchy. The electoral votes of the other 39 states wouldn't matter (even if they all voted the same way, the "Big 11" could outvote them), but the votes of individual citizens in every state would matter (they would help decide who the Big 11 would cast their electoral votes for). The United States would finally be able to live up to its promise of "one person, one vote." That's what the National Popular Vote movement is all about.
