Crossposted from my personal blog on the nether reaches of the Internet.
Back in the Constitutional Convention, a big fuss was made about the people. Not that they were being shafted and not having enough of a say, but that they might have too much of a say. People were subject to wild changes in opinion and susceptible to charismatic leaders- thus the Framers wanted a government that would withstand an assault by the people, strange as it may sound.
So all parts of the government originally were chosen differently. The House of Representatives was indeed the People’s chamber, elected directly by them. The Senate was an indirectly elected body, its membership selected by state legislatures until early in the 20th century. Judges were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. And finally the President himself, while influenced by popular vote, was actually chosen by a number of electors, who comprised the Electoral College.
For a number of years there was not even popular voting for President in many states- electors just chose a favorite candidate. Eventually the practice came about that whoever won the popular vote in the state (with a few exceptions) won all the electors. Sounds like there’s no problem, right? Hang on. Because this depends on winning states, not the overall vote, it has led to a difference between the Electoral College results and the popular vote.
Three times in our history, 1876, 1888 and in the recent debacle of 2000, the popular vote winner didn’t win the electoral college. In 2000, Gore won over a half a million more votes than Bush, but nope, no Florida no dice. We are essentially alone in not having a straight popular vote for president.
The reform proposal is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, whereby states would pledge their electors to the winner of the national, not state popular vote winner. This wouldn’t abolish the Electoral College, which would take a Constitutional amendment, but could be done with normal legislation in the states.
Some other fossils that need to be dealt with:
The Size of the House: It’s too small. Germany has 80 million people and 650 members in their lower house. We have 435 and 310 million people. The average district approaches a million people in California. How can you represent that logistically?
DC Statehood: DC needs at least a voting US Rep, if not Senators. It has more people than Wyoming, why do we treat it like it doesn’t exist, or like Puerto Rico? They pay the same taxes.
The Filibuster: The Senate needs to make all filibusters “talking” ones, meaning if you aren’t giving a speech without stopping, and with all the normal restrictions, you aren’t blocking legislation. The whole procedural filibuster is a bunch of new-age malarky, if I may sound like Yosemite Sam for a bit.