Reforming the Electoral College

Many people want to reform the Electoral College.

The Maximum Leader's new minion Molly, as a Texas Democrat, perhaps feels a bit frustrated that, for the foreseeable future, her votes in presidential elections will be meaningless.

Many people who live outside the "battleground states" would like to see more attention lavished on their area of the country.

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but it t'aint gonna happen.

According to Article V of the United States Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Amending the constitution is hard. First you have to get a two thirds majority in both houses. Than you have to get three quarters of the states to ratify it. For a reform of the Electoral College, this hurdle is insurmountable.

Lemme 'splain.

The Electoral College favors Republicans; the smaller, more sparsely populated states are heavily Republican. Their Republican Senators would never vote to diminish the proportional influence of their own constituents or of their own party. So a proposed Amendment would never be able to pass the Senate, let alone get ratified by three quarters of the states.

Well, many people would argue, if the Electoral College can't be revised out of existence, than let each state pass a Colorado style measure. That's not going to happen either.

States that want more attention in national elections currently don't receive attention because their citizens will reliably give a majority to one or the other party. But the political party that has the majority in each of those states will not support a proportional allocation of electors because that political party would essentially be giving away a percentage of their own party's votes in the electoral college.

As Molly may have noticed from the redistricting fights, Texas Republicans play for keeps. Can you imagine the Republican-dominated legislature of Texas agreeing to give away forty percent of the electoral votes by abandoning the winner-take-all status quo? I can't either. The same could be said for Massachusetts.

Colorado is anomalous. Other states will be loathe to follow her example. Ironically, Colorado may be giving up the attention she is currently receiving from Bush and Kerry. If the proportional allocation plan passes, party strategists will acknowledge that Colorado's electoral votes will probably be evenly split; why would they spend money and effort to shave a few percentage points and get one more elector when they can get more bang for their buck in a state that remains winner-take-all?

So basically, folks: Get used to it. The electoral college is here to stay.