Monkeyleg
Member.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today ran an editorial about aboloshing the electoral college. Amazingly, the editorial board didn't have an opinion on the subject. Instead, they're asking for letters.
Here's the editorial:
Editorial: Founding wisdom or founding folly?
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: June 10, 2006
Coming soon to Wisconsin will be a campaign to convince the state that it should take a hand in neutralizing the Electoral College. Because you paid attention during civics class, you know that this is the constitutionally created body that actually elects the president.
Advertisement
The pitch, from an organization called the National Popular Vote, will be that Wisconsin join other states in signing a compact that would have the state's electors - the folks who actually get to vote in the Electoral College - cast their ballots for whoever wins the national popular vote.
Yes, this is an end-run around Congress, where smaller states are likely to block any move because of the perception - one National Popular Vote disputes - that they will see their clout diminished.
The aim is to ensure that the country not repeat the 2000 election, in which the popularly elected candidate, Al Gore, lost the election. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court had a hand in this, but after all was said and done, Gore had more votes by regular folks casting ballots and George W. Bush had more votes in the Electoral College. Which meant that Bush won the election.
Just a fluke? No, it's actually happened before, and history has other examples of less-than-smooth sailing because of the Electoral College. The problem, says National Popular Vote, is that recurrences of the 2000 election are a certainty. It notes that, had several thousand votes shifted in Ohio in 2004, John Kerry could have won the election, though losing the popular vote to Bush decisively.
The organization will soon be hunting for a Wisconsin state legislator to sponsor a bill that would have Wisconsin join this compact. Already, some states are joining in. And editorial boards from New York to Minneapolis to Los Angeles have taken up the cause of neutering the Electoral College.
And this Editorial Board? We'll be honest. We don't know. We're gathering the facts, but we want to try something a little different here.
We want to ask you.
No, we will not arrive at our decision based on de facto referendum. We will base it on the facts that make the most persuasive arguments. We want to hear what you think these are.
It's clear that Wisconsin has a parochial interest. It is one of those shrinking number of battleground states that National Popular Vote says makes the case for elbowing the Electoral College aside. If yours was not a battleground state, the candidates' election itineraries show, you got ignored. Anyone around in 2004 surely knows we saw a lot of the candidates.
But should our parochial interests trump national interest? Is there even a national interest at work here? Should someone's vote in Wyoming count more than a person's vote elsewhere? Is the Electoral College anti-democratic?
Certainly, we, as an Editorial Board, will arrive at an opinion. But we'd like to hear your best arguments to help us do that. And we'll be checking around for others as well.
If you put your thoughts in the form of a letter to the editor (being mindful of the guidelines published on the opposite page), we'll publish the best of them in next week's Sunday Symposium.
OK, let the debate begin. Should the president be elected by popular vote? Is the Electoral College an anachronism?
Here's the editorial:
Editorial: Founding wisdom or founding folly?
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: June 10, 2006
Coming soon to Wisconsin will be a campaign to convince the state that it should take a hand in neutralizing the Electoral College. Because you paid attention during civics class, you know that this is the constitutionally created body that actually elects the president.
Advertisement
The pitch, from an organization called the National Popular Vote, will be that Wisconsin join other states in signing a compact that would have the state's electors - the folks who actually get to vote in the Electoral College - cast their ballots for whoever wins the national popular vote.
Yes, this is an end-run around Congress, where smaller states are likely to block any move because of the perception - one National Popular Vote disputes - that they will see their clout diminished.
The aim is to ensure that the country not repeat the 2000 election, in which the popularly elected candidate, Al Gore, lost the election. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court had a hand in this, but after all was said and done, Gore had more votes by regular folks casting ballots and George W. Bush had more votes in the Electoral College. Which meant that Bush won the election.
Just a fluke? No, it's actually happened before, and history has other examples of less-than-smooth sailing because of the Electoral College. The problem, says National Popular Vote, is that recurrences of the 2000 election are a certainty. It notes that, had several thousand votes shifted in Ohio in 2004, John Kerry could have won the election, though losing the popular vote to Bush decisively.
The organization will soon be hunting for a Wisconsin state legislator to sponsor a bill that would have Wisconsin join this compact. Already, some states are joining in. And editorial boards from New York to Minneapolis to Los Angeles have taken up the cause of neutering the Electoral College.
And this Editorial Board? We'll be honest. We don't know. We're gathering the facts, but we want to try something a little different here.
We want to ask you.
No, we will not arrive at our decision based on de facto referendum. We will base it on the facts that make the most persuasive arguments. We want to hear what you think these are.
It's clear that Wisconsin has a parochial interest. It is one of those shrinking number of battleground states that National Popular Vote says makes the case for elbowing the Electoral College aside. If yours was not a battleground state, the candidates' election itineraries show, you got ignored. Anyone around in 2004 surely knows we saw a lot of the candidates.
But should our parochial interests trump national interest? Is there even a national interest at work here? Should someone's vote in Wyoming count more than a person's vote elsewhere? Is the Electoral College anti-democratic?
Certainly, we, as an Editorial Board, will arrive at an opinion. But we'd like to hear your best arguments to help us do that. And we'll be checking around for others as well.
If you put your thoughts in the form of a letter to the editor (being mindful of the guidelines published on the opposite page), we'll publish the best of them in next week's Sunday Symposium.
OK, let the debate begin. Should the president be elected by popular vote? Is the Electoral College an anachronism?