Three Democratic Senators Introduce Amendment to Abolish Electoral College
I question the timing.
The Hill (“Senate Democrats push plan to abolish Electoral College“):
Three Democratic senators unveiled a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College system Monday, just more than a month after President-elect Trump stunned the Democrats by sweeping all seven battleground states, knocking off three Senate Democratic incumbents in the process.
Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii,) Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), three leading progressive Senate voices, say it’s time to “restore democracy” by allowing for the direct election of presidents through the popular vote alone.
The senators are troubled that the Electoral College has twice elected a candidate who didn’t win the popular vote in the past 19 years. In both those instances, a Republican captured the White House — George W. Bush in the 2000 election and Trump in the 2016 election.
Their joint statement (“Durbin, Schatz, Welch Introduce Constitutional Amendment To End Undemocratic Electoral College“) makes some good, if well-trod, points.
“In 2000, before the general election, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College. I still believe today that it is time to retire this 18th century invention that disenfranchises millions of Americans,” said Durbin. “The American people deserve to choose all their leaders, and I am proud to support this effort with Senators Schatz and Welch to empower voters.”
“In an election, the person who gets the most votes should win. It’s that simple,” said Schatz. “No one’s vote should count for more based on where they live. The Electoral College is outdated and it’s undemocratic. It’s time to end it.”
“Our democracy is at its strongest when everyone’s voice is heard—and right now our elections aren’t as representative as they should be because of the outdated and flawed electoral college. I’m excited to partner with my friends and colleagues Senator Schatz and Chair Durbin on this important constitutional amendment, which will help empower every voter in every state,” said Welch.
In all but five presidential elections, the winner of the election received the most votes. Two of those five times came in the last 25 years, handing the presidency to candidates the majority of voters rejected. A handful of states now determine the leader for all 50 states, regardless of each candidate’s final vote tally. The proposed constitutional amendment would address this inequality by abolishing the outdated Electoral College system. Specifically, the constitutional amendment would provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States by a popular vote among voters in each state and the District of Columbia.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have joined a national plan to bypass the Electoral College by agreeing to allocate its electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote. The movement to abolish the Electoral College is also gaining popularity among voters with polls showing more voters preferring direct elections through a popular vote over the existing Electoral College system.
But here’s the thing: there have been ample opportunities to introduce this amendment when it has at least a marginal chance at passage and, certainly, at least be a debating point during an election cycle. We’re now in the lame duck period. The current Congress goes out of session Thursday and anything introduced now will have to be re-introduced when the new Congress comes into session on January 3.
One might say that it’s grandstanding but, given the timing, no one is really paying attention. The Hill—which covers Congress as its remit—is far and away the most prominent outlet covering the news.
********************@
The funny thing is, the Dems didn’t really get screwed by the EC this time. Not only did Trump win the popular vote (albeit a hair short of an absolute majority), but the tipping-point state was Pennsylvania, which he won by 1.7 points, just barely ahead of his 1.5-point national lead. There was virtually no pro-Republican skew in the EC this time (and, contrary to popular belief, there hasn’t consistently been one in the 21st century–there was a slight skew toward the Dems in 2004, 2008, and 2012), a consequence of Trump making his biggest gains in blue states.
Of course, whether the EC helps the Republicans or Democrats more should be irrelevant to the question of whether it should be abolished, but the modern mythology that it’s a problem for Dems and a boon to Repubs has become so ingrained that it continues to be viewed as a partisan issue, with Dems supporting its demise, and Repubs opposing it. The current election hasn’t changed that dynamic, and it most likely won’t change until we reach a situation in which a Republican wins the popular vote and loses the EC.
The GOP will defeat it and for the next four years the Dems will be able to point at that and say the GOP are hypocrites on the EC. If this is an indication of a new Dem strategy of getting the GOP congress critters on the record re issues, then I’m all for it. I don’t believe for a minute the three senators actually think or want it to pass.
Lame-duck periods are excellent for proposing legislation that has no realistic chance of passing at this point in time and to introduce the possibility in the public consciousness.
When you have a working majority, you don’t usually spend it on stuff that by and large won’t happen anyway. There is an opportunity cost even to proposing good ideas.
Regardless, the Electoral College should go, and people should be talking about this even if it doesn’t happen tomorrow.
Big deal… the minority of the minority made a proposal, which has no chance of passing through Congress as more than flatulent gas.
@Kylopod:
The 2000 and especially the 2016 inversions give the impression the GQP benefits most.
BTW, the other day I saw a brief item somewhere, I can’t recall where, that the felon claimed the Democrats oppose a popular vote presidential election in favor of the EC. I guess that’s why only deep red states have signed on to the popular vote interstate compact…
The EC will eventually go away because nothing lasts forever. Right now I feel it will perish along with the USA.
Three related thoughts
1. As is well known, I support abolishing the EC.
2. This is just symbolic grandstanding.
3. Were I waving magic reform wands, one of the things I would do away with is this lame duck period for Congress. Either do away with it entirely or limit what can be done (like deal with emergencies).
@Steven L. Taylor:
Even more than the lame duck period of Congress, I’d like to get rid of the weeks between the election and inauguration. Require the candidates to actually name who will be in their cabinet before the election.
Certainly a possibility. Is there still “a” USA, or do we only imagine it because it’s comfortable to and the belief holds the global economy together?
@Sleeping Dog:
At first, inauguration used to be in March. Partly because travel and communications were sloooow. With instant video comms now, the transition period could be reduced easily to January 1st, or even December 26th.
I think in the UK transition is about six minutes.
Mexico votes in June and the inauguration used to be Dec. 1st. Now it’s October 1st. Still too long.
@Kathy:
Given that most countries the transition period is only a week or two, there is no reason that the US couldn’t do the same. The difference is that candidates would need to reveal who their government was before the election, so that the confirmation process could begin immediately after the election.
@Kathy:
Way too small a sample size to make any generalizations.
I would agree, though, that what happened in 2000 and 2016 (and the fact that Repubs have so rarely won the popular vote in the past 30 years) is the main reason for the partisan split on this issue. Whether or not it actually proves the GOP benefits more from the EC, unquestionably that’s the common perception.
@drj:
Repeated for emphasis.
1) Passing new legislation and 2) making the case that existing legislation sucks are two separate exercises requiring different tactics. More often than not, 2) has to succeed before 1) can even start.
@just nutha:
Both? I’m not sure.
But, I’m confident it is true that the EC (and other anti-majority elements of our system like gerrymandering and the US Senate) are not helping with the “United” part of USA. As a Californian, I confess I’ve grown tired of subsidizing Mississippi only to be kicked in the teeth by Idaho.
@Kylopod:
Add “way too different times,” an you have my objection for generalizing presidential election results.
In particular the 2016 inversion was egregious. Clinton won the popular vote by around 3 million, and lost the EC over less than 100,000 votes.
@Kylopod: I submit that both campaigns would be operating VERY differently if the EC was gone.
I’m not sure either candidate spent more than 2 nights in America’s biggest state – California, and that was only for fund raising, not campaigning. 12% of America is ignored today, but we sure wouldn’t be if the popular vote mattered.
Bottom line: We can’t know if the EC has altered outcomes because we’ve never run parallel campaigns with and without it.
Either way, and regardless of who it helps or hurts, I think that it makes politicians more accountable to the people to have to fight for every vote, so the EC has to go.
@Tony W:
I agree 100%. This is a point that gets overlooked a lot. The biggest problem with the EC is not the occasional election in which the popular-vote winner fails to secure the presidency (which has only happened five times in our history). The biggest problem is the impact it has on every election, where the entire campaigns are structured to ignore everything but swing states, and voters in non-swing states are disincentivized from voting.
This is a problem that’s been amplified in the modern age by the historically low level of swing states. There were literally only seven battlegrounds in this election. In most close elections historically the number was much higher (it was 14 in 2000, I believe).
@Tony W:
@Kylopod:
You’d see fewer stops in PA, MI, WI, etc. and more in solid blue and red states. Perhaps more people wold vote Democrat in red states, and viceversa in blue ones. It might affect congressional races as well. You’d see a lot more surrogates in small towns. More joint campaign appearances and rallies with congressional and local candidates. Fewer, or even fewer, campaign events in smaller states. More money spent on advertising at all levels in all states. Polling would be simpler in many ways, and more representative of the whole country. Pundits would have less to talk about.
One thing is you’d expect turnout to increase, as now every vote matters. How would this affect other races
IMO, the Archivists have politely told some Democratic senators to eff off.
What I have wondered for a while is why there was a deadline for ratification of the ERA. It seems like someone got an attack of the clevers, and succeeded in outsmarting themselves.
To me, this amendment to abolish the electoral college is unserious trolling by these Democratic senators. As long as we’re talking about The Constitution, we know that Republicans are very serious about radical change, and they control a wide majority of the states. Democrats are well-advised to think and act strategically, not impulsively to troll Republicans.
Unintended consquences? You’d better believe that Republicans would love to convene a Constitutional Convention, and get on with the business of yanking things like birthright citizenship out of the Constitution. None of this happens overnight if at all, but why open doors for Republicans?
@Kathy: the same sort of ratification time limit shows up elsewhere, eg in the Twentieth Amendment. The general idea is to make sure that old amendment proposals don’t hang around for centuries as active possibilities. If there is a national consensus it should be able to generate results fairly quickly.