25 Jul '06 - 377 W - + 8 - 4 Stanford professor proposes electoral college work-around

An interesting proposal by a Stanford comp sci (not polisci) professor:

A Stanford University computer science professor has come up with an idea to circumvent the more than 200-year-old Electoral College system and institute a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States.

The proposal by John Koza, who also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket, is receiving serious consideration by lawmakers in several states. Legislators in California, New York, Colorado, Illinois and Missouri have sponsored bills to enact such a plan.

Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The plan doesn't require all 50 states to join, but a combination of states that represent a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed.

Supporters say the proposal would avoid such controversial results as the 2000 presidential election when Republican George W. Bush was declared the winner despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore, a Democrat. There were three other instances in the history of the United States -- 1824, 1876 and 1888 -- when the winner of the popular vote lost in the Electoral College vote.

Proponents say Koza's proposal is ingenious because it would avoid the immensely difficult task of trying to get rid of the Electoral College system by amending the U.S. Constitution.


My two cents - definitely an interesting approach. I termed it a "work-around" as that is essentially what it is (and something that often comes up with computers, where you tweak the code a certain way in order to get something done in a manner that may not be elegant but at least is easy). In any case, I kind of hope it happens, though since it's more likely to be approved by big blue states (e.g. New York, California) that means that if it is approved and if a Republican wins the election (both popular and electoral), they will possibly receive a grossly exaggerated share of the electoral votes (as they'll get the red states they actually won plus the blue states that signed this thing).
Consider 2004, had this been in effect, California and New York, who both gave well over 55% to Kerry would have given all their electoral votes to Bush. The logical result of that would be lawsuits claiming a dillution of the voting rights of the majority of the state.

Proportional distribution of electoral votes is a better solution, that wouldn’t have the legal challenges associated with this half-assed work around.

Crazy Politico () (URL) - 29 July '06 - 17:58

While I can definitely see your point (and am a fan of proportional distribution, I remember reading about it post 2000), I think that legal challenges are inevitable. The main advantage to this solution is that it is very clean and clearcut – granted it accomplishes this by being a complete work-around, but I wouldn’t envision this as a long term solution. Rather, it’s a temporary analgesic, and hopefully a bit of a kick in the butt for some real reform (be that proportional distribution, just ditching the electoral college, etc.). If we tried to skip straight to those things in America it might not work – not that this would necessarily work either. Mostly, it’s just an interesting idea.

Aaron () (URL) - 30 July '06 - 19:18

  
Remember personal info?

Emoticons / Textile

To prevent automated commentspam we require you to answer this silly question.
 

  (Register your username / Log in)

Notify:
Hide email:

Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.