ShareThis Page
Elizabeth Warren wants to kill the electoral college | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

Elizabeth Warren wants to kill the electoral college

The Washington Post
903069_web1_878525-9bf6adde01ec487c8c98108fdb2d325b
AP
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed ending the electoral college, arguing for a system where “every vote matters.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Monday endorsed ending the electoral college, arguing for a system where “every vote matters.”

Many Democrats, including Warren, have disparaged the electoral college following the presidential election results in 2000 and 2016, when Al Gore and Hillary Clinton both won the national popular vote, yet lost the electoral college vote and, as a result, the presidency.

The announcement from Warren, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, came during an hourlong town hall at Mississippi’s Jackson State University and amid a wave of (blue-leaning) state action to do the same.

On Sunday, Colorado joined 11 other states and the District of Columbia in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Members pledge to give their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.

The bill will only take effect, however, if the law is passed by states representing at least 270 electoral college votes, which is the number needed to win the presidency. With the addition of Colorado, the tally now sits at 181.

Jurisdictions that have enacted the legislation include Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia. New Mexico, whose Senate approved the legislation last week, and Delaware, whose House passed a comparable bill Monday, could be the next states to join.

But Republican-controlled legislatures haven’t embraced the effort.

Reed Hundt, chairman and co-founder of Making Every Vote Count, told The Washington Post last month that changing the electoral college delegate procedures in enough states could be difficult. The remaining states where the initiative may pass are smaller and left-leaning, he said.

Under the Constitution, states have the power to determine how they award their electoral votes in national elections. Most states have winner-take-all laws, which award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes within the state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, split their electoral votes.

Because many states are dominated by either Republicans or Democrats, the winner of a presidential election is largely a foregone conclusion in those states. Also because electoral votes are reflective of the representation within the U.S. House and Senate, some states have very large electoral college contingencies, while others are much smaller. As a result, presidential hopefuls focus attention primarily on a handful of battleground states.

In the 2012, 2016 and 2020 elections, nearly 40 states, with about 80 percent of the country’s population, were or will be ignored by both candidates, Hundt said.

Five of the nation’s 45 presidents have taken office without winning the national popular vote, including President Trump, who has said “campaigning to win the electoral college is much more difficult & sophisticated than the popular vote. Hillary focused on the wrong states!”

Republican lawmakers have countered states’ bills, suggesting Democrats want to change election rules because they cannot win on merits.

Warren and other supporters of the change argue that Trump’s 2016 victory – via a system that ignores the national popular vote winner — defies “the sign of a healthy democracy.”

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.