Neal Pierce: Abolish the Electoral College - It’s responsible for G.W.’s election!
by Owen Courrèges · 01/08/2007 7:09 amThe title just about says it all. Neal Pierce, a syndicated columnist generally run by the Chronicle for his advocacy of “Smart Growth” strategies, has penned a column claiming that if not for the electoral college, Bush would not be president today, and furthermore, if not for dual four-year terms, we’d have a new president very soon:
[Recently deceased former president Gerald] Ford, it’s worth noting, was a vigorous, life-long supporter of electoral reform…
For decades, Ford supported abolishing the Electoral College and giving the people the right to vote directly for president…
There’s another reform we might consider in these times: a single six-year term for president…
Think of it this way. With a direct vote for president in 2000, we’d almost surely not be bogged down in the disastrously ill-advised Iraq War. And with a single six-year presidential term, we’d be preparing for the inauguration of a brand new president in less than two weeks from now.
We already know Pierce is an intellectually dishonest hack. He continually cites rising numbers in transit usage, but fails to note that these numbers are rising far slower relative to automobile and highway usage. This is the art of lying by eliminating all context.
He does the same thing here. He insists that without the electoral college, Gore would be president today (and assumes, without argument, that this would be a good thing). The problem is that the electoral college completely changes the way campaigns are run. Instead of running with the popular vote in mind, candidates stay focused on a few battleground states, writing off all others as locks or lost causes. In this battle, Bush won.
Now, if Bush and Gore had run in a hypothetical popular vote contest, they wouldn’t have focused on a few battleground states but upon the entire nation - they would have put their money strategically in population centers throughout the country. The dynamic would have been entirely different, and in that hypothetical race, neither Pierce nor I can speculate as to what the outcome would have been. As things were, it was a very close election.
Alas, that context would have interfered with Pierce’s sound bite, and we can’t have that, now can we?
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
22 Responses to “Neal Pierce: Abolish the Electoral College - It’s responsible for G.W.’s election!”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Ever met/read an urban planner that was conservative? Me either.
Because their pie-in-the-sky, top-down solutions to to life’s problems can only be implemented by the other guys.
Always interesting to read, however their solutions are always the same—limited liberty.
Maybe Neal Pierce should fantasize about a fair minded media that doesn’t campaign against Republicans and doesn’t call states which have two different time zones (Florida)
Imagine if that were to have happened…GW Bush would have won Florida and be president. Wait, that happened anyways.
Thank God our founding fathers had the good sense to prevent our country from being run by a few elitists in a certain area of the country. If the Electoral College werer ever abolished, it would lead to being governed by California and the East Coast states. (worse that it is now) The middle of the country be damned. That would lead to civil war.
Leave it to the Crummyicle to put some wacko out there as if what he says is the gospel truth. The Crummyicle doesn’t offer a counterpoint or even questions the validity of his theory. But what else would one expect from a ultra left wing liberal rag!!!!!
Owen
I could be wrong but some states depending on the margin of victory stop tallying Presidential votes and concentrate on the other races like in California and New York to meet deadlines.
There is no mechanism, either in the numerous state laws nor in the Federal Election Code to tabulate such a vote. But you would know better)
Got to disagree with Pierce. The wisdom of the College is that no candidate can win by campaigning in the most populated states alone. He HAS to go and listen to folks in the small states and address their concerns as well.
Go with the popular vote and your Presidents will be elected by,and cater ONLY to the conerns of:]
San Francisco
LA
New York
Boston
Chicago
Detroit
Philadelphia
Houston
Dallas
Pheonix
Las Vegas
And if you live out in the county, or in Iowa, Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, or any other state in “fly over” country–you can forget about any poltician paying attention to you—because you can’t do him any good.
For my money, living in a big city ought to disquialify your from voting. Smart people live out in the country….
#6 Sarge
HEY! I live in HOUSTON!
(although I grew up where the meadowlarks sang!)
And this point of view will only be popular until the Dems figure they would have won under the electoral college instead of popular vote.
The electoral college guarantees that the smaller states will at least get lip service (or “ear” service) from the candidates. The popular vote will ensure only that the large cities will get the attention. Which will benefit which party? Hmmmm, let me zink on zis…
Digital #2, have to play fair. FOX was the first to call the Florida election. We now have the best example of the consequences of voters staying home, and what can happen when a party abandons their base.
I guess my comment was lost!
This guy is one of the pushers of the lie that we have Democracy! We have a Republic, which most people don’t even know or know the difference!
I agree Owen he assumes based on his account of FL that Gore would have won.
This totally false hood is going to ruin our country along with a zillion other things out there.
Notice how WELL the elections went in ‘06 when the Dems got control? No screaming for recounts all over the place like they started BEFORE the vote was 1/2 way through.
I pledge allegience to the flag and to the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. . .
If anyone wants to pay attention to the US constitution and their state constitutions you will notice that the electorial college does not function like many people think it does. That’s why the Florida election got so balled up.
The State appoints or elects electors according to the State constitution. They are bound to vote the way the State constitution says. Some States do not bind the electors to vote according to the winner of the poll. Ware “polled” for who we want. We do not vote.
The real vote for president is the electorial college. It would be real interesting if the electorial college did not go the way the press reported. I would like to see that some day.
I bet most of our teachers have never read their state or federal constitutions and let their students go away dumb.
If the electoral college is eliminated, then I’m going to have to re-write my “three biggest Constitutional Mistakes” blog entry.
I know it beats out the income tax, but I’m not sure it beats Marbury v. Madison, because without that, most of our problems couldn’t have occurred in the first place.
Forgive my ignorance, but I was educated to believe that whatever the popular vote count was in a state that the electoral votes in that state would go to that candidate. With that, I believe it is the fairest way of conducting the presidential election. If I am in error on this thought, please help me to understand what I am missing about this concept. I still don’t understand how a state determines the number of electoral votes it receives and how it determines what persons are chosen to represent those electorates.
Heading to my library so I can fully understand the process.
#3 I think something like that happen about 1860 something. Seem like the old boys that was writing this document had a pretty good set to about just the very same thing.Back then it was the north vs. the south and the north had all of the people. The south boys wasn’t about to agree on any kind of a union that put all the power up there in the north. Losers whine and winners say deal.
Just prior to the 2000 election several pollsters suggested that it was very possible that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore won the Electorial vote. The liberals did not think there was any thing wrong then. They did not change their view until it happened in reverse and did not favor them.
From Wiki heading “United States Electoral College”, just FYI:
Want to tack onto #6 as well with an additional reason.
Pierce seems to have forgotten that one of his peers in thought, Richard J. Daley, can be blamed for the electoral college continuing. If not for the electoral college, ballot stuffing could and would become more prominent and enter into the results of a presidential race. Electoral college helps to isolate these issues to the ONE state in which the stuffing takes place, instead of the entire nation having to deal with it.
13:
Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has Representatives and Senators combined.
How they choose electors varies from state to state, but it’s handled by the parties in most states. Electors names have to be certified by the state a certain amount of time before the election.
#13 and #19
The Several States decide how the electors are chosen, however they choose. It is totally up to the State how to do it.
From Article II, Section 1:
Most States are “Winner Take All.” Even if the margin is minuscule, all of the electors go to the winner, however, this can be changed by any State that wants to do it otherwise. I hope this does not happen.
If someone wanted to eliminate the Electoral College, this would be the most likely path: to get as many States as possible to start dispatching their electors according to popular vote, splitting the vote. This is the attempt I think we shall see in the next few years. We need to fight it, or else we’ll all become slaves to the Federal Government even more than we are now. It will make Daniel James’ posts seem like rosy wishes rather than dire warnings.
Wino,
I agree. When Hitlerly first suggested this a few years ago, I knew we were in trouble. Without the Electoral College, our president/vice president would be elected by the folk of New york, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. All the other states would be just chopped liver, with no choice at all. Keep the electoral college and keep the constitution. I do think that we could do much better in the primary/caucuses. Why is it that pig farmers from Iowa are the ones to select our candidates for the presidency? Seems it should be moved every year. Why some little populated states as New Hampshire, Iowa, etc.?
Note that with a biased-enough legislature, it would be possible for them to delegate the selection of the electors to the Governor, or name the electors themselves. The Constitution gives the choice to the Legislature, who is not obliged to follow the will of the people.