If I were to write an article (and I am not quite ready to do that yet), the title would likely be The Electoral College as “Overkill.” The Electoral College (although not named that until the early 1800′s) and not called the “college of electors” (its official name) until 1845, was created by the original constitution.

It was seen as a check and balance on the popular vote and a way of giving smaller states more power in the process of picking a president. Well, in 1776, I think that was probably a smart move.

As such, however, it DOES MEAN that if you live in a more populous state, your vote in a presidential election is worth LESS than the vote of a person in a less populous state. Essentially, the Electoral College controls the outcome, and not the popular vote. However, the only times that the Electoral College has “overthrown” the the popular vote were 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. So, it has not happened that often, but it is problematic.

I think the crucial question is “Should the electoral college be allowed to overthrow the outcome of the popular vote in a presidential election?” I say “no.”

It is speculated that such a change to the Electoral College might change the dynamics of campaigning and it can be speculated that it might make it easier for presidential candidates to “ignore” smaller states and smaller state issues, however, I don’t buy that speculation.

We are a very different society now than we were even 20 years ago. The power of small groups and the communication capabilities of small groups is very different than it was even 20 years ago. I can’t for a minute believe that any candidate for president could get away with ignoring small states, campaigning in only big states, without tainting their campaign so heavily that there would be such an outcry that it would damage their campaign rather than enhance it. We just aren’t the country that existed when the Electoral College was created.

The old argument was that the Electoral College makes it harder for a candidate to narrow their focus and the rationale was that candidate would have to appeal to a wider array of interests and would thus be less likely to be a demagogue or an extremist. This argument is no longer relevant. The crucial question is “what is the definition of ‘wider array of interests.’”? Currently, minorities often don’t exist is many of the smaller states and won’t be large components of many smaller states for years to come. Currently, because of the huge variety in populations in larger states like California and New York, the idea that “wider interests” would not be represented if the Electoral College didn’t exist, just doesn’t fly as an argument anymore.

The biggest obstacle to Electoral College reform is the Republican Party. Most, if not all of the so-called smaller states have a fairly long history of voting Republican in presidential campaigns. The Electoral College, thus, gives the Republican Party a leg-up in presidential campaigns. This, in essence, subverts the significant primary rationale for having an Electoral College in the first place — “to force presidential candidates to appeal to a wider array of interests.” In fact, the Electoral College may have worked that way in the years when populations were quite different than they are now, but now it works to disenfranchise many minority groups and actually allows small states to “demagogue” the rest of the population.

I would start Electoral College reform by passing a law that makes it mandatory for the Electoral College to give the vote to the winner of the popular vote, period. There are other aspects of the Electoral College which may necessitate it staying in place for emergencies, such as the death or incapacitation of the winner of the popular vote, or some such unpredictable kind of situation.

Similarly, I would start superdelegate reform only after caucuses are outlawed. There is no point to reforming superdelegates to be more “democratic” when the process before it reaches the superdelegate stage is as unrepresentative as it is. Once we have a more representative process, then I would reform the superdelegate process similarly, and make it mandatory for them to validate the popular vote.

I’ve taken some heat here from a few of the old Kerry crowd that came around here on a regular basis but all in all I think most are all wise enough to keep our eyes on the prize. I have an edited version of my comment above sitting in the drafts – I’ll probably post it later tonight – or not.

The party can weather a good contest just fine. Bill Clinton didn’t clinch until June of ’92, if memory serves.

We miss your voice of reason around here. I was just browsing around AoF – this is a great post – http://articleofaith.blogspot.com/2008/03/nanny-brigade.html

Some of our Clinton supporters here should read it.

Although this primary season has gone on longer than the last, I can tell you categorically that John Kerry and his online supporters were treated as bad if not worse (than Clinton supporters) by the media and supporters of other candidates in the blogosphere in ’04.

The animosity towards Kerry winning the nomination from some in the blogosphere remained prevelent through out the election cycle and in the end, in my opinion, as a writer and moderator on the Kerry ’04 blog, the attitude towards Kerry DID NOT help him — it hurt him.

Many of the blog boyz in the blogosphere who now support Obama were Dean supporters. They whined and bemoaned publically about every damn move that Kerry made during the general election and it hurt not only his candidacy but his long time supporters as well.

I was on board with Kerry from Spring ’03, as Todd can confirm, and my memory is long concerning the damage done to Kerry from the media and the blogosphere (left and right).

The right wing has one thing over the left that we may never get — that is the understanding that no matter how you feel about the nominee, no matter whether the nominee is your first choice or your last — they coalesce around the nominee and give that nominee unbridled support.

Mark my words here Janis — If you think the bloggers calling for Clinton to step down will support her wholeheartedly if she ends up winning the nomination — Think Again. They will not — particulary those who cry out loudest against her now.

I speak from experience of 5 years in the political blogosphere, working for one presidential campaign under my belt and a continued relationship working with John Kerry’s press staff after the ’04 election, as the ONLY, yes the only blogger for quite sometime who still supported John Kerry after the ’04 election.

I know full well what I am talking about and IF Clinton supporters don’t coalesce around Obama if he is the nominee, likewise IF Obama supporters don’t coalesce around Clinton if she is the nominee — it will hurt us in November.

So if you don’t want to be “gobsmacked” when McCain picks Condi as his running mate — and if you don’t want another friggin neocon in the White House, you had better think long and hard about not supporting WHOEVER our nominee is. And that goes for all the readers who who think it’s fine and dandy to threaten not to support the nominee.

And um… I know it’s bad to say what I said out loud. If you go back and read my post you’ll note that I also said: “Saying this out loud ruins it, which is why I’m more than annoyed at having to do so.” Pwned.

Here’s an interesting poser — why are we all going to act gobsmacked and like we never ever saw that coming when McCain picks Condi Rice as his VP?

Um, you realize that you undermine your position when you state “like bluffing up a band hand in poker”, right? Obama’s side views her campaign at this point as a bad hand, and they know the Hillary supporters are bluffing in their threats to vote for McCain in the fall.

Telling everyone “don’t say what you just said publicly” is, to continue the poker analogy, like standing up at the table and saying “this hand sucks, everyone knows I’ve got nothing, but I’m going to pretend that it isn’t and I’m not going to tell you I know.”

Everyone already knows it. This is silly.

I am as well — but what I’m saying is that openly SAYING what you want or will do is not always the best path to achieving it. GETTING it matters more than loudly declaiming that you want to get it. And something that path to getting it is paved with shutting up about it.

Like with the Welsh Assembly — Plaid had to bite their tongues so hard they bled in order to get what they wanted. And they got it.

Again — I know what I’m going to do this fall — what I’m saying is that, whatever you plan on doing, you’d better be ready to promise to throw the election. Vote however the hell you want when you’re in that booth — but don’t telegraph that ahead of time.