March 29, 2007
Pure Horserace: Electoral College Ending?
Maryland Moves To Make Popular Vote Count — Maybe
-
(AP/CBS)
-
Who's Who 2008 Republican Hopefuls McCain and Giuliani head up the Republican pack chasing the presidency.
-
Who's Who 2008 Democratic Hopefuls Clinton, Obama and Edwards lead the chase for the Democratic nomination.
The Washington Post reported today that Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley is prepared to sign a bill passed by the legislature that would assign the state's presidential electors based on who won the nationwide popular vote, even if that result contradicts the wishes of Maryland voters.
The bill has a one big catch though: It only goes into effect if similar legislation is adopted by other states that, combined, possess 270 electoral votes, which is required to win a presidential election.
According to National Popular Vote, which is pushing similar legislation in 50 states, the plan has been approved by at least one house of the state legislature in Colorado, Hawaii and Arkansas — where Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe has said he'll sign such legislation if passed by the state Senate.
In other states, however, legislation is languishing. Opponents say such a plan would ensure that presidential candidates only visit a handful of urban areas. And states that now bear the "battleground" label may be reluctant to give up clout for the sake of now-ignored Texas Democrats and California Republicans.
However, there is one member of the California GOP who has already signaled disapproval for the proposal: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Earlier this year, he vetoed legislation that would have made California and its 55 electoral votes subject to the plan.
What Happens When The Trees Go Bare? The 2008 presidential candidates are launching last-minute blitzes to haul in campaign cash before the first-quarter fundraising deadline Saturday. The final tallies will be ones politicos (like us) will obsess over the way overzealous teens do about "American Idol."
While we're sure to see some eye-popping amounts, CBSNews.com's Jennifer Hoar reminds us that the law of diminishing returns may come into play for these money-hungry campaign machines. Federal law limits individual contributions to $2,300 for the nominating process, and political action committees are limited to $5,000 for candidates accepting PAC money. Hillary Clinton reportedly raised nearly $3 million on one night alone at a Hollywood fund-raiser last weekend — but there are only so many of those events to be had.
"I'd be surprised if she couldn't tap the trees in L.A. But remember, this is the low-hanging fruit, for everybody…the money comes harder now," communications/PR expert Mike Collins tells Hoar.
A strategist from the Democratic side also put the prodigious fundraising into context. "Can candidates maintain the same level of fundraising in the second quarter after all the low-hanging fruit is picked?" says Cutter Media Group's Stephanie Cutter.
So while you can expect a few candidates to make a first-quarter splash, the challenge will soon be to demonstrate an ability to maintain the pace — something that will be harder now that so much of the easy money has been gobbled up.
Changing The Subject: CBS News' Brian Goldsmith reminds us: One of the most important lessons of political combat is the necessity of changing the subject, shifting the campaign debate away from your weaknesses and toward your strengths. The political scientists call it agenda-setting, and it's an exercise that Rudy Giuliani is involved in right now.
Giuliani knows that as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, thrice-married estranged father, he isn't exactly a favorite son as far as social conservatives as concerned.
But, luckily for Rudy, evangelicals and abortion opponents are not the only important constituency in the GOP. In fact, there's a pretty large semi-libertarian business segment piece within the party — and it may be one of the most underestimated.
So Giuliani is agenda-setting — focusing on his 9/11 national security credentials, and more recently on his fiscal conservatism. His first ads on the radio, featured the phrase "supply side policies" — code to GOP leaders that Rudy's a conservative on the economy.
And just yesterday he landed the endorsement of Steve Forbes, known to most of America as the preppy billionaire magazine heir who dropped tens of millions on two runs for president — but known to fiscal hawks as the heroic champion of a flat tax (an idea Giuliani disparaged as New York mayor).
Next week, Rudy and surrogates will fan across America talking about — not abortion, not gay marriage, but his new favorite subject: the flat tax.
And, in doing so, Giuliani is picking a fight he just might win.
Editor’s Note: Pure Horserace is a daily update of political news as interpreted by the political observers at CBSNews.com.
By Vaughn Ververs
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From Politics
Add a Comment See all 28 Comments
- Eliminating the electoral college is a deliberate attempt by liberal democrats to control the vote. The huge population centers vote democrat. The rest of the nation votes republican. Thus, the president would always be a democrat. The founders provided for the electoral college in order to insure against this deadly situation.
In my long life (80 years) I have learned that in general, people are the opposite of what they believe. Thinking they are very intelligent and knowing is a good clue that they are not so smart and they are ignorant. This observation seems borne out by the many comments in this forum which have no connection with reality. - Reply to this comment
- Or there would never have been a 9/11 attack and the country would be a much different and better place. Bush was a sleep at the wheel on 9/11 (clearing brush on his "ranch"). I dare say that Gore would have been paying attention and perhaps thwarted the attack. This I believe.
Posted by Scott4261 at 11:53 PM : Mar 30, 2007
Absolutely! The idea that there would have been ANY 9-11 attack if Gore was president, let alone 3 or 4, is just a neocon fantasy. In the first 8 months of his presidency Bush was on vacation more then 40% of the time! it sure would have been nice to have a real president who was actually doing his job and paying attention in the months before 9-11. It would have saved many lives. - Reply to this comment
- Or there would never have been a 9/11 attack and the country would be a much different and better place. Bush was a sleep at the wheel on 9/11 (clearing brush on his "ranch"). I dare say that Gore would have been paying attention and perhaps thwarted the attack. This I believe.
- Reply to this comment
- veteran71 "If there were no Electoral College, Al Gore would be President today, and there wouldn't be any War in Iraq, and Bush would be getting drunk on his fake ranch in Texas.....and Cheney,....well, he'd be overseeing daily activities in Hell, as usual..." AND, there would have been 3 or 4 or 5 9/11 type terrorist attacks (with someone like Algore as President...)
- Reply to this comment
- THE FORFATHERS,AND ALL PRESIDENTS IN THE OLD DAYS WAS ELECTED FROM THE VOTES OF EVERYPERSON THAT VOTED AND COUNTED. THATS THE WAY IT IS SUPPOST TO WORK. AND IF THAT WAS THE WAY IT SHOULD OF BEEN, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE MESS WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE BUSH LOST ANYWAY BUT IT WOULD OF NEVER NEEDED BUSHIES TO FRAUD THE ELECTION.
- Reply to this comment
- With only 2 political parties to choose from, it's a lot like having to choose between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Either way we're in trouble!
- Reply to this comment
- skyk,
Yes, there is TV and Internet, but a majortity of campaign money is spent on local oranizing. If there was a direct popular vote, campaign workers, and dollars would be spent in the big cities, and litte elsewere. In addition, Candiates would be tempted to ignore issues important to voters in smaller states,and candidates from those smaller states would have a much smaller chance of ever getting elected. - Reply to this comment
- I also have problems with the Electoral College, but a pure popular vote would have it's problems too. What happens if we have 3 or 4 candidates from differnent parties running, and the winner ends up with only 30 percent of the vote? I also think with a pure 'popular vote' system, that small states with no large cities will be left out. I think a system were the Electoral College is reformed so candidates get a proprotion of the votes in each state, by congressional district, or by the percentage of the vote they received would be a better system.
I don't see anything changing though, unless we have a strong 3rd party candidate and no candidate gets the required 270 Electoral votes. In that case Congress would choose the next President. If that happens, I think there will be a public outcry for reform of the Electoral College system. This almost happened in 1968 when George Wallage won the elctoral votes of 5 southtern states. - Reply to this comment
- Without the electoral college, campaigning would be restricted to New York, California, Florida, Texas and Illinois. For the rest of the country, there is no point in waisting time campaigning. So much for having the folks in the remaining 45 states count.
Posted by on_alert247 at 09:16 PM : Mar 29, 2007
LOL Right! You clowns act like the TV was never invented or that we do not now have the Internet where canidates can speak to us as one person. This is garbage and rediculous. We are not and we should forever give up this stupid idea that because I live in one state I'm better or worse than a person who lives 10 miles away in another state. It's just plain STUPID!! - Reply to this comment
- And, as you stated in your first post, if the electoral college is archaic, then why wouldn't the entire constitution be archaic? Why would you crticize Bush for supposedly "violating" the constitution? The constitution gave the federal government a republican form: the electoral college is necessary to retain that form.
Posted by jdweymouth at 05:01 AM : Mar 30, 2007
+ report abuse
Is it possible that WE the PEOPLE want to change how our founding fathers wanted to do things. Can't we change one thing and not tear up the entire document. Maybe they INTENDED that this nation be a Republic but WE the PEOPLE, long ago, found out that a Republic would not nor did not work. So we changed it. We addopted the 14th Amendment and went to direct election of our Senators. Now is time for all states to trash the Electorial College as well. WE are ONE Nation not a collection of States anymore. As Radical and Liberal as the founders were for their time they were just men and they knew that the document they had drafted would not work IF we the people were not able to change it. The State of Maryland has taken the first step, now it's time for the rest to follow suit and lets start acting like ONE Nation and not a collection of several States. - Reply to this comment
- "The constitution gave the federal government a republican form: the electoral college is necessary to retain that form."
Popular election of the president is hardly a threat to democracy. We can evolve... - Reply to this comment
- "The reason the electoral college is in place is because the founding fathers knew that the average citizen couldn't elect a president intelligently..."
That's right, only aristocratic elitists are "intelligent" enough to vote for the greater good... - Reply to this comment
- The piece I remember hearing about the electoral college is that it is to insure there is a majority vote, rather than a plurity. Here in Minnesota our present Governor has been twice elected with less than 50% and Minnesota consitently has the highest number of registered voters voting. This is called a plurity, not a majority. And yet Pawlenty operates as if there was a strong mandate for him to be in office.
Yes I think it is time to really think our voting, both locally and nationally. - Reply to this comment
- The reason the electoral college is in place is because the founding fathers knew that the average citizen couldn't elect a president intelligently, it would require great thought, insight, and eventually have a group of experienced electors elect the president.
Posted by jdweymouth at 01:34 AM : Mar 30, 2007
Right now tho seriously what is the point to our voting???? a president can loose the popular vote as bush did the first time he was elected and still become president!!!! So your so called group of "experienced electors" put Bush's incompitent arse in the white house!!!!
Wanna see how absolutely retarted he is???? search for "bushism" on any search engine. Check out the long lists of entirely idiotic things bush has said over his career and tell me who was watching our back on that election.... - Reply to this comment
- Since we are brainwashed to choose between Democrats and Republicans, we don't really have much of a choice at all.
- Reply to this comment
- RandaIDS:
I don't think every American citizen is an idiot. Neither did the foudning fathers, but, at least this is what I read, they believed it was best for experienced statesman elect the leader of the country. Indeed, at that time the only federal officials popularlly elected at that time were representatives: Senators were elected by the states as well. This was the way it was designed: the Senate represented the state governments, the House represented the people, and the President headed the government elected indirectly by the states. He is the President of the United States; not the President of the American people.
And, as you stated in your first post, if the electoral college is archaic, then why wouldn't the entire constitution be archaic? Why would you crticize Bush for supposedly "violating" the constitution? The constitution gave the federal government a republican form: the electoral college is necessary to retain that form. - Reply to this comment
- The reason the electoral college is in place is because the founding fathers knew that the average citizen couldn't elect a president intelligently, it would require great thought, insight, and eventually have a group of experienced electors elect the president.
Posted by jdweymouth at 01:34 AM : Mar 30, 2007
I don't happen to think that the average American citizen is an idiot like you do. As was proved in 2000 the average Americans elected Al Gore, but the system defeated their will. There is no possible way to explain this as a good thing. As a free thing. As an American thing. We were asked to choose between two candidates for the most important civil service job in our day to day lives. Who did we want to lead us in these troubling times. Who did we see as the best person to guide our nation. We chose Al Gore. Yet we have George W. Bush as president. There is no way to explain what happens that makes that right. We picked Al Gore, we got Bush, we got fu*cked by the system. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by Scott4261 at 09:17 PM : Mar 29, 2007
Posted by tomar0317 at 09:53 PM : Mar 29, 2007
BRAVO! Well stated! The Electoral College has long out lived it's usefulness and unlike the idiot jdweymouth thinks it's obvious most of us have read the Constitution, but still disagree with the need for an Electoral College in today's age. Perhaps a proportionate division of a states Electoral College votes based on popular vote would serves as a good transition to a straight popular vote. There is something just wrong, just unAmerican, about awarding all of the votes from one state to one candidate just because they got 51% of the votes of that state. It marginalizes the votes of everyone else in that state. It wipes out their opinion, their votes and it's just plain wrong! It re-enforces in a bad way the two party system. I look forward to a transition that would lend itself to members of government having to form alliances with minority parties such as happens in Canada or Great Britain. All parties should have an equal chance of being represented such as happens in parliamentary form of government. Surely there is a way for us to work this out and get rid of the winner take all system that is fu*cking our country up so badly. Surely we're better and smarter than this. - Reply to this comment
- A state can't abolish/revise the electoral college: it would require a constitutional amendment because it's written into the federal constituion.
The reason the electoral college is in place is because the founding fathers knew that the average citizen couldn't elect a president intelligently, it would require great thought, insight, and eventually have a group of experienced electors elect the president. We are not a democracy: we're a democratic republic, the democratic part being the states while the republican part being the federal government. You liberals whine, and cry about the constitution, but you barely know the constitution, and you're willing to get rid of the parts that you don't like. The electoral college is necessary if we're to remain a republic.
And by the way, the founding fathers called us a republic, we've historically been referred to as a republic, and the U.N. recognizes us as a federal republic. The states may be more democratic, but the issue here is the federal government. - Reply to this comment
- Fact: contributions to the GOP Nazi party runnning at an all time low, while DNC contributions are at an all time high. Finally, the GOP Nazi party, now nothing more that a regional party of Southern State Fascists is a sore in America that's finally coming to an end.
- Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
