Proposed Joint Resolution Could Abolish the Electoral College

SJ 4 is an extremely important piece of legislation that was introduced back on January 8th and has not moved at all since it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why is it important? This joint resolution (keep in mind that this is not a bill-- Bills cannot amend the Constitution. Joint resolutions can) will basically abolish the electoral college and leave the election of the president and vice president up to the people. However, it might not happen as fast as you think and may not be put into effect in time for 2012 even if the committee acted on it right now and it passed both houses by the end of the week. This is because a Constitutional amendment must be passed by 38 states in order for it to become law. Believe it or not, abolishing the electoral college is not easy and it will not get overwhelming support even though, we the people, will get more power to elect the President and Vice President. Much of it has to do with state's rights and the power of smaller states in electing a president. To better understand this, I am going to give you a summary of what went on when this was lasted debated back in the late 1960's-- the closest this amendment came to become part of that forgotten document called the Constitution. This was in the 91st Congress. The reason for the debate was the 1968 general election which Nixon won. Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey with 301 electoral votes against Humphrey's 191. It may seems as if Nixon was the clear winner and in electoral college standards, you would be right, but the popular vote was extremely close. Nixon had received 511, 944 votes more than Humphrey-- or less than 1%. George Wallace, a Democrat that joined the American Independent Party for this election, received the remaining 46 electoral votes (you don't hear too much about a third party candidate winning even 1 electoral vote today, do you? That is because of state access laws that block smaller parties from being put on the ballot but that is for another post). Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote. Nixon did surpass the "magic number" of electoral votes needed for him to be president so this was not debated, but the American people had concerns over the disparity between the two votes (this concern came to light in 2000 and two other times in the 1800's but was never acted on by Congress). Rep. Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded by introducing House joint resolution 681 which was more specific than the current joint resolution that is the subject of this post. HJ Res. 681 would have abolished the Electoral College but did not end there. It would have then been replaced with a system where the candidate (President and Vice President) that won at least 40% of the national popular vote would win. If no candidate reached 40% because of the popularity of a third party candidate, a runoff election would be set up between the top two candidates. On April 29, 1969, the possibility of such a measure to pass was looking good as the House Judiciary Committee voted 28-6 to approve it and move it on to the House floor where debated ended on September 11, 1969 and was approved with a vote of 339 to 70. President Nixon gave his endorsement for the proposal on September 30, 1969 and encouraged the Senate to sponsor their own version (Senate joint resolution 1). However, not all states were happy with the idea. The New York Times reported on October 8, 1969 that the legislatures of 30 states were going to approve it if it passed the Senate and was sent to all 50 states for approval. Only 8 more states would be needed but the US Senate still had to approve the measure. The New York Times also reported that 6 states did not yet know if they would approve it while 6 were leaning towards opposition and 8 were solidly opposed.On August 14, 1970, more progress was made when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure 11 to 6. This moved it to the Senate floor where it was considered by all Senators. Out of the six members that opposed the plan, 3 were Democrats and 3 were Republicans. They all gave the same argument which was that while the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh, the sponsor of the measure in the Senate, stated that they were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed to pass the amendment and send to the states.He called on Nixon's help to persuade undecided Republican Senators to vote yes but Nixon had decided not to make any further appeals to back the legislation although he did not pull away from his endorsement. Open Senate debate started on Tuesday September 8, 1970 but was quickly faced with a filibuster. The leaders in objection came from Southern Senators and conservatives that represented small states and included both Republicans and Democrats. These Senators concerned that abolishing the Electoral College would reduce the political influence of states with smaller populations, which is one reason why the Electoral College was established in the first place-- in order to secure and acknowledge states' rights for smaller states. A vote was conducted on September 17, 1970 to end the filibuster but failed to receive the 67 votes, or 2/3 of Senators present that was necessary to pass. The vote was 54-36 (60% in favor). A second motion for cloture was held on September 29, 1970-- it failed 53 to 34-- 5 votes short of what was needed. The Senate Majority Leader at the time decide to put the legislation aside so that the Senate could work on other measures. It was never considered again in the 91st Congress and officially died at the end of 1970. Could today be any different? On Votetocracy, 55 users have voted with a 60%-40% result. Nothing has moved in our government. In the past few years, current representatives and Senators have argued that the Electoral College should stay but advocated for the "tweaking" of the current system. For example, they want to make states with larger populations, such as California (which has the most electoral votes and has voted Democrat in every presidential election since Reagan), change from a "winner take all" system to a system that would require at least larger states (like California) to distribute their electoral votes in proportion to the way their state's population voted. Make your voice heard and vote now on this important issue and tell your Representative and Senator what you think. If you have any question regarding this post or would like me cover other issues or would like me to explain or describe any specific aspect of government for the "education" portion of our blog that you would like to learn more about, please contact me at anthonykraljic86@gmail.com and I will post your request or respond as soon as possible.