NEw York Times rant

[schromf]

Just ran across this jewel:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should abolish its electoral college because it creates the possibility that the president will be a candidate who loses the popular vote, the New York Times said on Sunday.


The electoral college "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis," the paper said in an editorial.


In the last presidential election in 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) by more than 500,000 votes.


"Most people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors," the editorial said. "It's a ridiculous setup."


The paper, one of the most respected in the United States, said "there should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president."


"The main problem with the electoral college is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote," the editorial said.


It said the system unfairly favored small states, which were awarded a minimum of three electoral votes regardless of how many residents they had.


"The majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal -- those are reasons enough to scrap the system," the Times said.


It cited other factors: "A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate.


"We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers."

My response to this is it is Moose KaKa. What makes them think that the smaller midwestern/western/southern states would ever ratify such nonsense. The elections would be limited to NewYork/ California/Texas and a couple of other high population states, and the rest of the county wouldn't matter. I find the remark about Nevada's Yucca Mountain particulaly offensive, this is a important issue to residents of that state. In the New York times suggestion, it wouldn't matter, you don't have enough votes to be a concern. I sure dispise the New York Times, what a crock newspaper.

 

[boofus]

The entire purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that small states were never completely out of the picture. Yet another 'journalist' needs to go back to grade school.

[Low Road removed.]

 

[Rawlings]

"Most people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors," the editorial said. "It's a ridiculous setup."

I realized this when I was 16. When it was taught in my 10th grade American History class. In a PUBLIC SCHOOL no less!

 

[Gunsnrovers]

The only part of the electoral college I don't like is the "winner takes all" policy of some states.

 

[AZRickD]

The Electoral College system was set up at the behest of the smaller states who refused to ratify the Constitution in 1787. Remove that, and the deal is off.

The thing about that op-ed piece from Reuters (yes, I said op-ed), is that the writer knows the arguments behind the system but didn't mention them. The purpose of the piece was to foment dissent, not to engage in debate.

Rick

 

[hillbilly]

Not many folks understand the true need for an electoral college.

Here it is as simple as I can put it.,

The Electoral College prevents RUN-OFFs.

Here's a bit of logic for you all.

If there were no Electoral College, then Bill Clinton would have had to go to runoff elections TWICE.

He won in 1992 with something like only 43% of the popular vote.

Bill Clinton would never have become president without the electoral college.

Quite simply, the office of President of the United States is an office that is too important to have candidates involved in another two or three months of runoff elections.

Having protracted runoffs for Pres is the kind of setup to make Civil Wars more likely.

hillbilly

 

[Sergeant Bob]

What amazes me is that the New Jerk Grimes is actually admitting that President Bush was "Elected" not "Selected".

 

[parsec]

I don't believe there is a run-off if any candidate fails to win a majority. In that case I believe the House chooses the next President. Without the electoral college this would happen just about every time. The people would actually be further removed from the election process and would become even more disenfranchised. How's that for democracy?

 

[Waitone]

Want a preview of a national election without the electoral college?

Take a gander at the red // blue map. Go to the southwest and change the blue to red and enjoy.

The election would be fought entirely in the largest media markets; NY, Chicago land, LA, FL with a few others thrown in. Iowa, New Hampshire, SC, where we sweat so much now will disappear from the scope. The media would become even more important to an outcome than it is now.

The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with direct elections. It was the state that was supposed to elect the president.

The idea of direct election of the president is bad mojo.

 

[Standing Wolf]

"The main problem with the electoral college is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote," the editorial said.

If it's already happened three times without dire consequences, I'd say it's apparent we don't have a problem, after all.

 

[longeyes]

The NY Times does not believe in states or that there is anything of importance west of the Hudson. They became the U.S. arm of Pravda some time ago.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Pravda is the monument to truth compared to the Ol' Gray Lady.

 

[rde]

This is a republic...not a democracy.

 

[AZRickD]

Someone who doesn't like the Electoral College probably doesn't like how the World Series is decided either.

The Yankees can win Game 1 with a score of 10 to zip; Game 2 with a score of 1-0, Game 3 with a score of 1-0.

The Red Sox (fantasy time) can win the next four games 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0.

They win the Series even though the Yankees scored more runs (12 to 4) over those five games.

The Electoral College is designed to make sure that support is broad across the country. Not unlike the World Series which makes sure that a team with just one super pitcher, or one lucky night, is tested a bit more thoroughly.

Rick

 

[R.H. Lee]

The New York Times is an ideological soulmate of Hillary Clinton, and it seems, serving as her mouthpiece for 2008. They are both irrelevant.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

"The majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal -- those are reasons enough to scrap the system," the Times said.

Apparently they believe the US is a simple democracy. Sad that the Grey Lady has fallen so far her editors couldn't pass a 6th grade Civics test.

 

[Rebar]

OK, let them try to amend the consitution then. It's chances of being ratified are exactly zero, but they are welcome to try.

 

[Atticus]

"It said the system unfairly favored small states, which were awarded a minimum of three electoral votes regardless of how many residents they had."


Imagine that- a liberal New Yorker saying that states like Wyoming and South Dakota are ruining it for him.

 

[SWMAN]

Gotta tell ya for what its worth that I prefer the original system where each Senator was elected by their state legislature. That way the state represenatives get a say in how the REPUBLIC is run. The House is directly elected by the people, so we get a say in the Federal Government, and the Electors were supposed to be able to choose the best two candidates for President and Vice President during any given election. The whole US political system was originally intended to "filter out" passions and balance conflicting interest. The only reason liberals want direct elections for everything is so they can promise the urban areas everything from the Treasury to get and stay elected, all in the name of democracy, which we weren't and aren't.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

AZRickD - Excellent analogy!

 

[raz-0]

I realized this when I was 16. When it was taught in my 10th grade American History class. In a PUBLIC SCHOOL no less!

heck, I was taught this in 4th grade in the mid 80s in a public school that was still convinced Amercia was going to go metric any day now.

As it is, places like LA and SF hold sway over a HUGE number of electoral votes. They effectively disenfranchise half of the largest state in the nation if you look at a detailed red-blue map. However, I know better than to think a popular election fixes this problem.

ANybody railing against the electoral system for concentrating the attention of the campaigners on a few states shoudl ahve enough brains to figure out that a popular vote will make them focus on even FEWER locales.
Wait till you get an election where san francisco, LA, DC, NYC, Chicago, and a handful of other cities are the only places that people really care to put an effor into getting the message out.

Of course LA and SF might become swing states when the ensuing carnage of said election had their water cut off by the folks who minded not being counted in those insignificant states over yonder, but I think the exercise in second order thinking that would provoke might teach them something.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

If it comes down to a choice between giving the big states too much power or the little ones too much power, I'll take the latter.

The majority rules.........did our betters at the NYT ever study the founding documents of this country? This is not a pure democracy, as the FF completely intended.

If you want no electoral college, NYT, then pass an Cons. amendment. Good luck.