29 Comments - Ghost - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:56 am: this is a fascinating topic to me. I see both sides. On the one hadn I think we should just gather all of the votes in the COuntry and look at who recieved the majority. On the other I think there is strong concern about smaller States (smaller populations) being completely disenfranchised and losing any voice in nationaly politics. We would potentialy put huge amounts of control on national policy in the hands of California!!! Do we really want a national govt shaped by the will of CA? I like the idea that our sifferent States tend to collect a diversity of ideas within each of their structures. perhaps Giveng them each a voice to reflect their population is the better system. We are a republic after all, not a democracy. We would lose the republic nature of our govt if we do this. - BIG R.PH. - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:00 pm: What an idiot! Should we be surprised? He is endorsing giving away the sovreignty of the State of Illinios. Maybe those guys 200+ years ago were not NEARLY as smart as these guys that are in office now. - BIgWindy - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:02 pm: Wonder what the supreme court has to say about this? - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:06 pm: The Founding Fathers would be pleased with Illinois. They explicitly granted the power to state legislatures to cast electoral votes anyway they wanted in the Constitution. And remember, the northern states voted for a national popular vote to elect the new president during the Philadelphia debate. So if it was up to the non-slave states, we would have used a national popular vote to pick the president from the earliest days of the Republic. - BIgWindy - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:10 pm: So much for the rural vote…bye bye…no need to even think about showing up. - Levois - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:34 pm: This is only going to disregard the popular will of the people in this state. Illinois is not likely to vote Republican yet we’ll give our votes to John McCain. This legislation is shortsighted. - Puzzled - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:35 pm: 1. This is a terrible idea. 2. It stems from the dems’ belief that the 2000 presidential election was stolen. Where Illinois dems get the nerve to complain about stolen elections, I have no idea. 3. Looking at this initiative and at the nomination process the dems have put in place for their presidential candidate, some reasonable independents might say that this is a party that should never be allowed to run anything again. If they care so much about the popular vote, why don’t they use it to determine their candidate and dispense with the existence of superdelegates? I don´t mean to overlook the moral, intellectual, and practical shortcomings of the GOP here, but that´s a different subject. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:47 pm: As Ghost said, there are extremely valid points to both sides of this argument. That being the case, I think it should be left alone. - Dan Johnson-Weinberger - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:00 pm: We’ll have an opportunity to see what happens with the status quo in the next six months in Illinois. Does anyone think there will be any campaigning for the rural vote in Illinois — or anywhere in Illinois in this reliably blue state? Similarly, does anyone think that there will be any campaigning in the rural parts of Indiana in that reliably red state? Leaving it alone means leaving most voters alone. - grand old partisan - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:03 pm: Supporters of this idea think that it is an effective end-run around the Electoral College that will render it harmlessly obsolete. But it doesn’t. If anything, it only serves to further complicate and de-legitimize it, all while still leaving it in place as the legal mechanism for actually electing the President. We must remember: there is no such thing as the “national popular vote.” Each state administers its own elections, with its own rules, under the supervision of a state authority that is accountable to only the people of that state. What this proposal does, essentially, is award our state’s delegates based mostly on the results of elections over which we (through our Board of Elections) have no controlling authority. There is no firewall to isolate and minimize the effects of a ballot dispute. If there are disputed ballots in a state that could tip the race, every state’s EC ballots would hinge on the decisions and actions of that state’s board of elections and courts – unless the dispute is settled in federal court, which wasn’t a very popular notion back in 2000. The only fair and legitimate way to get around the Electoral College is to abolish it, via Constitutional amendment. - HappyToaster - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:09 pm: Doesn’t go far enough. The interests of the small states are protected by the Senate. The House needs to be expanded so that each district has an equal number of voters. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:16 pm: Some rules should be left alone. Clearly, there is a a balance of power between the population centers and the rural areas. The current system guarantees representation to the lower populated areas. Just look at how politics in Illinois has worked out. State government is dominated by Chicago politicians who hoover up scads of money for their pals and friends, while the rest of the state is left grasping for the crumbs. I believe that the top Dems are looking for a way to leverage their power in the urban areas to dominate the national political scene. They resent that despite overwhelming control or urban areas, they do not have a lock on the national scene. Seems to me that if you support the dissolution of the Electoral College, then you will end up with a disaster nationally mirroring what we have here in Illinois. And if you disagree with me, you are unpatriotic :’)! (That is a joke, for those who don’t get it) - Anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:41 pm: So, when all the big-Democrat-majority states pass legislation that makes them split their electoral votes between the candidates, and all the states in which the Republicans have at least a shot at winning keep the all-or-nothing system, you have loaded the dice in favor of the Republicans. Is it G-Rod’s true goal in life to destroy the Democratic Party? - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:49 pm: The republican versus the direct democracy ideals certainly are a hot topic in Springfield these days. I’m against this for a number of reasons. I’d like to maintain some sort of rural and regional influences on the election. This system heavily favors the large metropolitan areas and states. The current system, as practiced, usually gives us a clear-cut winner, which is good for the country. Kennedy/Nixon, Nixon/Humprhey, Ford/Carter, were extremely close in the popular vote, but the Electoral College vote was decisive in each case. Also, there are nightmare scenarios to this. State by state recounts. Disputed electors. Multiple candidates leaving no one with 270 electoral votes throwing the election into the House of Reps. Let’s leave it alone, unless done by Constitutional Amendment. This state compact is too flimsy for me. I take it this is in response to Gore/Bush. That was about as close to a Banana Republic election I’d care for a nuclear superpower to engage in I think this would lead to ever more indecisive, drawn out outcomes. In fact, the proportional representation resembles nothing more then the current Democratic Party rules that have led to the Clinton/Obama Death March. Bush/Gore was a statistical tie; 500,000 difference out of 101 million votes. Only one could win, and the Supremes picked W. But Al got a nice Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize on his mantle. And in 2012, he’ll only be 65…. - Legal Eagle - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:07 pm: This is a short-sighted idea. There is no provision to protect against a purely regional candidate getting a national plurality in a multiple-candidate field, and thus winning the White House with all of our electoral votes (say, a George Wallace of the future)! Under this proposal vote fraud will occur in every state in a close election; at least now there is an incentive to steal only in the close states. And each state administers its elections differently. A really bad idea, clothed in a false populism! Amend the US Constitution if you want a pure popular vote, and think you are smarter than the founding fathers at minimizing a regional candidate’s chances. - Anonish - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:14 pm: I personally like the way Nebraska and Maine do it. Aportion out by congressional district and the overall majority winner gets the 2 senate electors. - BIG R.PH. - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:43 pm: Bush did not steal the election. The votes were re-counted no less than 6 times by different organizations (press, libs etc.) and EACH time the results were the same. Gore is only going to be 65? He looks 75 already - anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:44 pm: i think the founding fathers had it right by giving everyone an equal vote in the republic and not letting the large states dominate perhaps if the parties had provided better candidates the election would not have been so close. - Squideshi - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:15 pm: Article I, Section A, Subsection 11 of the Platform of the Green Party of the United States provides, “The Electoral College is an 18th century anachronism. We call for a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and providing for the direct election of the president by Instant Runoff Voting. Until that time, we call for a proportional allocation of delegates in state primaries.” - The Rookie - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:22 pm: Weren’t the founding fathers concerned about slave states who had most of their population tied up in slaves? Granted there was discussion about “small” states by the founding fathers, but the South was where the money came from in the early years. Their economy carried the fledgling nation. They needed to have them on board with this electoral process. - This Guy - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:29 pm: Blagojevich and Ray LaHood pushed the same resolution onto the U.S. House floor at the turn of the Century. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:38 pm: Horrible decision. - PhilCollins - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:59 pm: Because of the electoral college, few presidential candidates campaign in Illinois, for the general election. Both parties know that the Democrat will win Illinois’ 21 electoral votes, and they campaign in swing states. If only the popular vote was used, more presidential candidates would campaign, in IL, because they would want to get as many votes as they could, in every state. In each U.S. Senate election, the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election. In each congressional election, the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election. The presidential election is the most important election in the U.S., so the election should be the most democratic. Now, it’s the least democratic. - Levois - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:01 pm: Republic vs. direct democracy eh? Debated in Springfield? I’d like to see that. - dc - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:15 pm: Why even sign it into law? This is an interesting twist for the Governor: he signs bills into law that are generally symbolic and fluffy, but on truly substantive issues, he ignores the constitution and the legislature and does whatever he wants. If a bill to change the process for electing a president is important enough for to warrant legislative approval, his signature and a press release, I would aruge that legislative approval to expand health benefits is no less deserving of the same constitutional process. I’m surprised he doesn’t have a bill signing declaring the sun as the official state light. His priorities are enough to warrant inclusion on the “Dee-duh dee” segment on the Mind of Mencia show. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:25 pm: Here’s my concern about the proposal. What if we have an exceedingly close race where it’s not clear who the winner is? Do we want to be in the position of doing a national recount with every local authority trying to game the system for their candidate? I think there should be some sort of protection that if the national popular vote is closer than a certain amount then it goes to the state-by-state system of counting votes. - muon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 7:00 pm: Another defect that is overlooked in this national vote proposal is its failure to deal when the winner has less than 50% of the vote. In some ways the electoral college srves as a runoff body, even if imperfect. This addresses the danger that in a race with more than two major candidates, a candidate that represents an electoral fringe doesn’t win with as little as 30% of the vote. A runoff provision is not unusual in national elections. In Chicago elections there is a runoff between the top two if neither gets 50%. The Green platform mentioned by Squideshi uses Instant Runoff Voting to provide the same runoff protection. Even the attempt to amend the US Constitution in the 70’s with a nationasl popular vote had a 40% minimum to win outright. Because a constitutional path was not available, the proponents have created this NPV compact with this dangerous flaw. Hopefully, enough other states see the danger in enacting it. - Frank Booth - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 7:13 pm: Oh what a meaningful piece of legislation. It’s effective just as soon as states representing a majority of the electoral college votes pass the same laws. Kinda like passing a law that declares the Cubs world champions effective upon all other teams losing. Never gonna happen. - the Patriot - Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 8:22 am: What if Obama wins 75% of the popular vote in IL but loses the nation wide popular vote to John McCain by 1 vote. If IL electoral votes go to Obama he could win the election, but with this bill IL electoral Votes go to McCain and he is president. This does not solve a problem, it just creates new ones. For our legislators and Governor to think they have a better plan then the founding fathers is absurd. Mike Madigan=Thomas Jefferson, Rod Blagovich=Alexander Hamilton, Emil Jones=James Madison…I think not. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.