Abolishing the electoral college would be more complicated than it seems: NPR



[ad_1]

The presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., At an event held in February. Warren says that she wants to get rid of the constituency and vote for the president using a national popular vote.

John Locher / AP


hide legend

toggle the legend

John Locher / AP

The presidential candidate, Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., At an event held in February. Warren says that she wants to get rid of the constituency and vote for the president using a national popular vote.

John Locher / AP

According to polls, most Americans want the electoral college to disappear and choose a president based on the highest number of votes in the country.

Democratic presidential candidates also weigh.

"Every vote counts," said Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, on Monday. In Mississippi. "And the way we can get there is that we can have a national vote and that means getting rid of the constituency."

This line sparked one of his biggest applause for the evening.

Former Beto representative O 'Rourke said that there was "a lot of wisdom" Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Also stated that she was open to this idea.

Politicians are taking advantage of what has become a popular position among many voters, especially Democrats. In the United States, 65% of adults believe that whoever wins the popular vote should be the highest in the country, according to a recent Atlantic / PRRI survey conducted last year.

In the current system, voters in each state voted for voters, 270 of whom are needed to win. It is therefore possible for a candidate to win more votes across the country than a rival but not to be inaugurated due to insufficient support from the Electoral College: a scenario that is s & # 39; It has already been produced twice in the last two decades.

But experts say the reform of this practice is not likely for a number of reasons. First, there is the constitutional problem.

The amendments

A complete overhaul of the manner in which the President is chosen would take a constitutional amendment, which would require the votes of two-thirds of the US House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and three-quarters of the States.

Support of this magnitude has become rare in the highly divided United States. An amendment has not been adopted since 27 January 1992 and a step rather quickly since 26 November, which took 100 days between a proposal and its adoption in 1971.

President Trump has already supported the abolition of the electoral college – he already felt it was a "total disaster for democracy" – but since his presidential victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016, in which Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but Trump received 304 electoral votes he changed his mind.

Now, Trump thinks that the electoral college is "much better for the United States". like him wrote on Twitter on Twitter.

This position, shared by many Republicans, makes it very unlikely that there will be enough support to change the system.

"There is no realistic chance that a constitutional amendment will abolish the Electoral College," said Jacob Levy, a professor of political theory at McGill University.

The way of the state

However, there may be another way.

A number of states have signed a pact that guarantees the vote of the winner of the popular vote to their constituencies, regardless of the outcome achieved in their respective states.

The pact will only come into effect when the number of states involved will exceed the threshold of 270 votes required by the constituency to obtain the presidency.

Today, the pact enjoys the support of states – and Washington DC – totaling 181 electoral votes, mostly those who have been elected Democrats in recent years.

The pact raises issues peculiar to it for democracy: it creates a situation in which Colorado voters, for example, can vote for the majority of the Democratic vote in a presidential race – but the state could end up giving voters to the Republican. according to the national result.

This could lead to legal challenges from candidates or groups of electors, if applicable.

The cases for and against

Proponents of a national popular vote argue that something must be done. the electoral college disproportionately inflates the influence of rural areas while undervaluing the cities vote. According to critics, this also means the devaluation of the votes of many non-white voters.

"This really represents an overrepresentation of some sparsely populated states, and that gives us bias and bias in our system that I think is no longer healthy," said Paul Gronke, a political scientist at Reed College.

Gronke notes, however, that there would be major administrative problems if the United States came to the point of moving to a national popular vote.

Would the federal government be in charge of administering elections or would it leave state and local officials, as it does today? Could Washington administer a national recount if there is a close result?

"How would it work?" Gronke asks. "You look at the situation in Florida in 2000 – it was already taking a lot of time and effort, but imagine if it was done all over the country, you simply do not know how you can do it."

Gary Gregg, who heads the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, said that if the current system privileged rural states, a national popular vote would be just as unfair in the other direction.

Trump had advanced a similar argument earlier this week, warning that "small states, then the entire Midwest, would eventually lose all power."

Gregg says that change would radicalize politics.

"The game will no longer be a board game [politician who is] Liberal but able to appeal to a rural Ohioan, "he said. The game will be: be a Liberal – as far as I can maximize votes in major urban centers. "

Jacob Levy, of McGill University, did not agree with this argument.

"That's precisely what proportional benefits do for people," said Levy. "And places where there are more people become more important when you count the votes."

Nevertheless, Levy added that if he were to bet on the fact that the United States would still use the electoral college within 20 years, he thinks that will be the case.

Youtube

[ad_2]

Source link