The legislature definitely needs to meet every year, so much to do, so little time.

It's our generation's Bottle Bill!! Except that (a) it's not our idea, and (2) it's not a good one.

Excuse me for violating the terms of my permanent banishment from this site, but because this attempts to end run the requirements for legitimately amending the Constitution by the use of a multi-state compact, it actually raises some fascinating questions under the "Compact Clause" of Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

The short answer is that, at best, it requires congressional consent, but probably it is invalid in any event (particularly insofar as it attempts to impose itself on all states once states representing a majority of electoral votes have enacted it).

It's because of idiotic, moronic stunts like this that Oregon is irrelevant, Ben
Cannon. Please join retired Grampy on the irrelevant heap.

It would all be quite interesting if the state had most of its act together, but there is so much it needs to do and so little seems to be getting done. What next in Salem: a treaty with North Korea?

The hits keep on comin'

What's next is a resolution condemning George Bush and the Vietnam war.

I wish the Oregon legislature would go away. I am not sure anyone would miss them. If they were needed, they could be given three months to meet by a majority vote of Oregon citizens.

Oh Ben, you are from my distict. Must you embarass us so? We are one stupid moment from the Great Depression II. Focus young man. FOCUS!

Awful lot of smoke and bluster there, which overlooks the fact that Oregon has simply given itself a rule for awarding its electoral college votes, which is its perfect right to do under the Constitution.

(As Benito Scalia says, you haven't even GOT a right to vote for president; your STATE has the right, through the electoral college.)

Thus, this is perfectly unobjectionable under the Constitution. It is a legal nullity unless enough states ratify it (representing 270 electoral votes or more). So it can't be challenged, because nobody has standing. And then, when it is in effect, each state's electors will have the same issue that all electors do -- do they stick with their commitment or do they become "faithless electors" .... in other words, just like today.

What exactly is the problem with one person, one vote at the Presidential level? There isn't one.

What exactly is the problem with one person, one vote at the Presidential level?

What a great idea!

Too bad the founders rejected it.

Talk about your nullities...

Like they rejected dealing with slavery by punting, giving the slaveholders 20 more years to import people like cattle; like they rejected human dignity with the 3/5ths clause and by requiring free states to return escaped slaves.

I have a lot of respect for the humans we call the Founders. They were, however, human, and the electoral college is an artifice that has long outlived its purpose (which was to help paper over the divisions over slavery, which came undone anyway).

However, because they enshrined the electoral college blunder in the Constitution, there is little hope for a direct, rational abolition because of yahoo arguments like the above ("How dare they put the national interest first!").

Therefore, the indirect method will have to do --- and it works. It preserves the electoral college as provided in the Constitution. It simply allows states to do what states have the Constitutional prerogative to do: decide how to allocate their electors. What's the beef? That we're not going to have more George Ws appointed?

The way to fix the U.S. Constitution is to amend the U.S. Constitution. It's been done many times.

I can't wait for the first recount - it will have to be the entire county.

And, this is a way for dead people in Chicago to outvote the rest of the country.

Ben Canon is a fool on both this and climate.

Thanks
JK

"The way to fix the U.S. Constitution is to amend the U.S. Constitution. It's been done many times."

We'll be a lot closer to getting that done as more states pass the National Popular Vote -- that's the only way we're going to get states like Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska, ND and SD to consider amending to abolish the EC.

Meanwhile, this doesn't alter the Constitution at all. I don't see the hysteria over Nebraska and Maine divvying up their electoral votes, which is not provided for in the Constitution at all. So what exactly is the beef? We're supposed to be scared of "dead people voting in Chicago" -- odd, no one mentions Kitty Harris and Jews for Buchanan in Florida . . .

I sent this to my rep:
"What a laugh. Maybe with outstanding legislation in dire times, legislative meetings should occur no more than once in 5 years.

e.g..: Oregon House votes to end the Electoral College. Ahhh the importance of being important."

"The way to fix the U.S. Constitution is to amend the U.S. Constitution. It's been done many times."

Isn't that what John Calhoun said about the compromise of 1850?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

Ah, what mayhem ensues when people are rudely reminded of the fact that they don't actually live in a democracy, are not spreading democracy, do not get to participate in a democracy.

and even if Oregon passes the bill, it doesn't really matter. at the Presidential level, those electoral votes are, 99% of the time, socially controlled by the national party organization.

in other words, your one vote for president has rarely, if ever, mattered, except as a social statement.

I used to believe in the popular vote method but no longer do so. The reason? I've watched Oregon politics and come to the realization that southern, central and eastern Oregon views/wants/needs don't matter.

This is exactly why the founders started the electoral college for us. Politicians actually have to spend at least a little time pandering to the smaller populations. Now I want an EC for Oregon, that way our elected officials have to step out side of the Valley and listen to what those citizens want too.

Darrin, I've heard that view expressed many times, but I don't understand it and it doesn't make sense to me.

From what I can tell, our current electoral college system does not force a presidential candidate to spend any time in small states. Instead, what it does is force presidential candidates to spend ALL of their time in swing states. What this does is raise swing state issues to an abnormal importance level, while relegating issues that may be vitally important to the rest of the country to the back burner.

For example: Wyoming and Maine are both very small states (population wise). However neither got any attention in the most recent presidential election because the election outcome was never in doubt (Wyoming for McCain, Maine for Obama).

However, small states are not the only ones hurt by the electoral college's focus on swing states: New York, Texas, Alabama, California, Illinois, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are all states whose issues were rarely - if ever - discussed in campaign promises. Why? Because under the electoral college system they are irrelevant, because their voting outcomes are known.

Instead, issues that may be of little importance to the country as a whole (e.g., policy towards Cuba) are promoted to important policies because those issues are crucial to single-issue votes in a state that, simply by coincidence, happens to be a swing state (Florida in this example).

I don't mean to pass judgment on the system - certainly there are pros and cons to it - but I think it is important to make clear that the system does not help out the small states. (Unless they happen to be swing states).

At least that's how I see it - is my analysis wrong?

it's a fallacy that the electoral system "forces" candidates to do anything--that's marketing hype. electoral voters are party voters, and there's really no proof at all that blitzkrieg campaign stops do anything to change elections by changing electoral votes. or the popular vote, for that matter.

D.J., I think your analysis is spot-on. It's why I support this move. Let's make EVERY state count, not just the "swing" states.

Ecohuman, I have no idea what you are talking about. Technically, yes, there are electoral "voters," but in all but the most rare circumstances, those voters don't make a decision on how to cast their vote. In 2000, nobody was tussling over electoral voters in Florida; the court cases were about winning the popular vote there because everyone knew with certainty that whichever candidate got one more than the the other guy would get all the electoral votes. (I now await your sympathy at my naivete.)

Technically, yes, there are electoral "voters," but in all but the most rare circumstances, those voters don't make a decision on how to cast their vote.

that's exactly what I said. note my earlier comment.

the court cases were about winning the popular vote there because everyone knew with certainty that whichever candidate got one more than the the other guy would get all the electoral votes.

I don't think everybody knew that at all. notice that the electoral votes got awarded anyway, without a clear popular vote winner. that wasn't based on a court decision. the popular vote closeness was a symptom of the electoral/party rep closeness.

DJ, as it is with EC the politicians at least have to visit the so called locked up states at least once to keep their opponent from stealing it. You saw this in the last election cycle where one canidate would visit a locked up state just to force the other one to spend money there.

Here in Oregon, along with a lot of other states, it is the indepents they are after and can swing the vote one way or another. We have roughly 1.5 million voters in the state. National averages I've seen is around 45/45/10 split amongst the parties. That means 150,000 decide which way our state goes.

150,000 people decide our 7 electoral votes and those can be valuable votes depending how the polling looks for a canidate. 150,000 popular votes that will still be split up even farther between the canidates wouldn't look to attractive of a target to spend millions of campaign dollars on. Even more so here in Oregon since we like to vote for 3rd party canidates like Ron Paul.

That is exactly why the EC was created by our founders. It makes it more attractive for canidates to visit more then just the major population centers. No, not required but definatly more attractive.

Darrin,

I just don't see any evidence of what you are saying. As I mentioned in my previous post, neither candidate visited Maine or Wyoming during the general election.

The states that were visited to "force the other one to spend money there" were swing states, not small states. In my opinion, there is a big difference between the two.

-------------

And while I support forcing Oregon statewide candidates to address Eastern Oregon concerns, I think you are wrong that an electoral college system would make them do that.

As I said before, an electroral college system only makes candidates go to the swing districts. There is no guarantee that Eastern Oregon would be a swing district - in fact, it would likely be solidly red, and therefore not a swing district and not visited at all. Instead, the focus and attention would be on the swing districts. Who knows where they would be - it would depend on how they draw the lines. Maybe suburban Washington County? Or a district similar to the 5th Congressional?

Fortunately Ben Cannon, like most of us, is smart enough to multitask. Is your opposition to this only that the legislature should focus on the top five issues for the entire session, and nothing else?

The way to fix the U.S. Constitution is to amend the U.S. Constitution. It's been done many times.

This has no impact on the U.S. Constitution at all. It's no different than Maine choosing to split its electoral votes, or Oregon chosing not to. Under the constitution, states have the right to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit. Do you believe that states don't or shouldn't have that right?

Darrin, that just isn't true. Neither Obama nor McCain came to Oregon or Washington after their party conventions. In fact, what we saw last election was a greater haste in pulling the plug on states once they fell out of viability. Recall that five weeks before the GE McCain pulled his advertising and cancelled direct-mail in Michigan.

As for what the Framers intended, they certainly weren't attempting to motivate candidates to "visit more than just the major population centers." For starters, candidates rarely did campaign events until well into the 19th century. But more importantly, the Framers' intent was clearly to avoid having the president directly elected by the people. They set up the EC more as a nominating mechanism, with the expectation that in most years Congress would end up electing the president. (BTW, it wasn't until 1828 that most states begin selecting their electors by popular vote.)

"Elector," it's fascinating that you post from a City of Portland computer.

But more importantly, the Framers' intent was clearly to avoid having the president directly elected by the people.

exactly right. they had lots of reasons for doing so. what annoys people, I think, is that there's *still* this cognitive dissonance that the people elect the President. Even presidential candidates and Congress perpetuate the myth.

You are right, the canidates were not visiting "locked" up states themselves and were concentrating on actual swing states. I don't blame them for that, between the primary and election there is a lot of things to do and essentially limited time. What they did do is send surrogates and spend advertising money.

Now answer me this. Would a canidate bother spending that time and money in any state where only a few thousand votes were on the line? I maintain the money and time would be spent in places where they can get more bang for their buck. Why spend several million in Oregon for a couple thousand votes when that same money can potentially impact several hundred thousand in Los Angeles instead. That's my point.

Both Mr. Bogdanski's description and the headline of the Oregonian article are incorrect. Nobody is rewriting the US Constitution. The 12th Amendment to the US Cnstitution talks about Electoral College electors. It most definitely does not tell the states how the electors are supposed to vote. it is perfectly legal for the Oregon legislature to pass a law directing the way that Oregon's electors shall vote.

"Elector," it's fascinating that you post from a City of Portland computer.

It's odd what you find "fascinating."

it is perfectly legal for the Oregon legislature to pass a law directing the way that Oregon's electors shall vote.

What if a state changes its mind? What happens if the compact reaches 270 then dips below it? What if a state drops out in the middle of an election cycle? So many ins, outs, and what-have-yous.

Further...

Let's rerun 2000. Say Florida is part of the compact. Gore wins the popular vote, yet Florida is governed by Geroge Bush's brother AND has majorities in both legislative chambers. What's to stop the governor and legislature from stepping in and changing the law between the election and when electors vote? Talk about a MESS. This thing is a bad idea and needs to be stopped.

Save us, Governor Walden!

Ben Cannon and Jules Kopel-Bailey must have some sort of contest to see which one can out-liberal the other.

Wait, I'm not done yet.

This is coming from the state that actively disenfranchises independent voters ...

Butterbean: What's to stop the governor and legislature from stepping in and changing the law between the election and when electors vote?

What's to stop them now? You scenario is imaginative, but no more likely to occur than one I can imagine unfolding without a compact.

Darrin: Why spend several million in Oregon for a couple thousand votes when that same money can potentially impact several hundred thousand in Los Angeles instead. That's my point.

Ever hear of the concept of CPM? A few million dollars could very well gain a candidate many more votes in less expensive, less media-saturated markets, like Oregon, than, say, Los Angeles. Look, your fantasy, that the EC invites candidates to pay attention to issues throughout Our Great Land, is lovely. But it's just that: fantasy.

Let's be plain here: The reason this bill is submitted is to dis-empower the conservative middle of America by giving control to the high-density population regions. Conservatives used a comparable plan to disrupt entrenched seat holders with the Term Limits movement a few years ago.

The electoral college specifically protects smaller states from being overwhelmed in the same way that the US Senate does.

Remember, if you break a functional, valuable system, you will be a victor for a while, but when it turns against you, it will turn hard.

Thank you Concordbridge, for repeating a warning that's quite helpful. I always tell people that, when considering any reform, that they should first imagine their worst enemy using it against them.

That's why I support the National Popular Vote -- I don't have any problem with the concept of the candidate getting the most votes in the federal republic of the USA winning the right to serve as the executive for the federal republic, even if that means my candidate loses when there was a scenario where they could have won under a vote-rigging scheme that gives Wyoming residents 55 times the electoral power of a Californian.

I've lived in bis swing states, small swing states, and in big and small ignored states, and it's clear that anyone who thinks the electoral college brings attention to a state based on size is delusional. The only thing that matters under the current system is whether the state is in play, whether that be WV, NM, or OH, FL, or PA. Everybody living elsewhere is pretty much irrelevant. With national popular vote, every vote has the same power. Pretty terrifying huh?

It's odd what you find "fascinating."

And it's fascinating what you find "odd".

This has been a very interesting discussion, but does it really matter how electoral college votes are allocated or even whether the electoral colleges exists when the popular vote count and voter registration process have no integrity?

There were some news stories around the time of the November election explaining how the Republicans routed vote counts in certain states through servers they controlled during the 2004 election and were able to change vote totals. This probably also occurred as far back as the 2000 election. And of course there were the usual stories about voter registration difficulties and challenges.

A bill addressing these issues would make a real difference even if it would only be a resolution urging the federal government to do more and do it before 2012.

George -- In congressional delegates California already out represents Wyoming by 53:1. I would say that the interest of the citizens are already out of balance.

Sometimes I think we would be better off if the Seventeenth Amendment were repealed.