In 2000, when Al Gore out polled George W. Bush in the popular vote but was bested by Bush in the Electoral College to become President, it became clear we need Electoral College reform. In Adams vs.Jackson in 1824, Hayes over Tilden in 1876 and Harrison over Cleveland in 1888, the loser of the Electoral College won more popular votes than the candidate who became President.
The answer is not in direct popular election, which puts a premium on ACORN- style voter fraud and vote buying – staples of big city Democrat machines. I propose we scrap the Electoral College and preserve the electoral count and apportion it based on the popular vote in each state.
The proponents of a constitutional amendment that would mandate a direct popular election would hand our elections over to union-funded operatives who engage in voter fraud and vote stealing. Andrew Breitbart has accurately highlighted the incredible electoral frauds perpetrated by ACORN and I have written extensively about the shady and illegal voter fraud activities of New York’s left-wing Working Families Party (WFP).
Well-meaning reformers who propose a direct popular election will inadvertently put a premium on voter fraud and corruption. There is a better way: the Stone Electoral College Reform Plan which Congress could put on the ballot with a two-thirds vote. Under my electoral reform proposal, each state is first apportioned two votes, one for each Senator – the Federal principle of balancing the rights of big and small states – and then one vote each for each House member, reflecting population size and majority rule. Each state’s total number is divided proportionally in the tally based on percent of the votes received by each candidate.
To illustrate my proposal, if you preserve the electoral vote as a counting device, in a state with ten electoral votes, eight would represent the Congressmen (that is, population) and two would represent the Senators (that is, the federal principle). If the Republicans, for example, received 30 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election, they would get three out of the state’s ten electoral votes and the Democrats would get seven. Under the present system, the Democrats would get 10 – winner take all.
My plan favors neither party and protects the interests of big and small states alike. It is simple and fair and protects the rights of the the minority. And history proves it is necessary.
In 1948, John Dewey carried New York over Harry Truman – 46 to 45 percent – with lefty Henry Wallace draining “Give ‘em Hell” Harry, but Dewey got all 47 Electoral College votes. Under the current system, electors who are political hacks not even bound by law to vote for the candidate the voters selected. In 1960, one elector from Virginia voted for segregationist Senator Harry F. Byrd Sr. rather than vote for Nixon or Kennedy. The current system could lead to more mischief.
If no candidate earns a majority in our current system, the decision is thrown to the House where each state has one vote. Again they are not bound to vote for any candidate. The wheeling, dealing and inside politics could select a President with no need for a popular election majority. The horse- trading to swing the votes within each big or small state would be fierce, and small states have the same vote as big states.
The likely result – scandal and deadlock – is not possible under my plan. With all votes being apportioned and reflected, the entire popular vote will be reflected and someone will earn a majority. A Congressional scandal can be avoided.
The Electoral College was actually a gathering (usually at the state capitol building and usually in January) of so-called presidential electors – persons chosen in the November election. At the Electoral College meeting, these electors are supposed to vote precisely as the people have voted but they are not legally bound to do so. On occasion, some of them cast votes contrary to their voters’ choice.
Several Republican electors from Alaska voted for the Libertarian candidate for President rather than Richard Nixon in 1972. My proposal would eliminate anti-voter shenanigans by rogue electors and insure the will of the people was reflected in the awarding of electoral votes
The Stone Plan for a constitutional amendment to reform the electoral system exactly as I have outlined actually passed the US Senate, when sponsored by the redoubtable Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., by an amazing two-thirds vote of 64 to 23 in 1950. It failed in the US House.
My proposal could garner the votes from Senators and Congressmen in small states who are likewise disadvantaged under a strict popular vote system. Under our current system, no candidate for President will travel to Vermont, Montana or Rhode Island unless it’s for money.
Under the Stone Plan, no state could have less than three electoral votes and even these could be apportioned.
Electoral College reform as I have outlined it is fair and disadvantages no group or party in our presidential elections. The time for Electoral College reform is now.