One person, one vote?

With the 2008 Presidential Election fast approaching, Maryland State Sen. Jamin “Jamie” Raskin had a rather definitive view of the Electoral College, the system used to determine presidential elections.

“The Electoral College is an accident waiting to happen, because it doesn’t respect the principle of majority rule,” said Raskin.

In light of recent electoral complications, several legislators, at both the state and federal level, have put forth plans to either ignore the current rules of the Electoral College or abolish them altogether. While these plans have strong advocates, opponents are quick to point out questions as to the practicality and legality of these plans, which may prevent them from becoming a reality.

Under the current system, most states award their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in that state, ignoring the national popular vote. Because of this, it is sometimes possible, though rare, that a candidate who loses the national popular vote will still win the presidency. This last occurred in 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in the Electoral College and won the presidency without winning the popular vote.

The plan put forward by the National Popular Vote organization proposes that instead of pursuing a constitutional amendment (the only way to outright abolish the Electoral College), state legislatures should vote on whether to join the National Popular Vote compact. Once the electoral votes of the states in the compact reach 270 (the number needed to win the Electoral College) all of the states in the compact will pledge their votes for whichever candidate wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of who won each individual state.

“The rationale is pretty clear; to get to a popular vote for president,” said Chris Pearson, an organizer for National Popular Vote.

Some supporters of the plan believe the Electoral College, as it currently exists, is a thing of the past.

“The bottom line (is) that the times have changed, communications are what they are, the view is you really need to have a popular vote,” said Peter Tammarano, who worked as a lobbyist for National Popular Vote in New Jersey, the second state to pass the legislation.

In addition to being outdated, many supporters of a popular vote see the Electoral College as a deeply flawed system.

“The way that we practice the Electoral College today marginalizes and sidelines two-thirds of the American people,” said Raskin, who was the driving force behind the legislation passing in Maryland, the first state to do so.

Raskin argued that if a state regularly votes for the same party in the presidential election, a so-called “safe state,” it is ignored by both parties, who prefer to focus on states where the outcome is in doubt, so-called “swing states.”

“The safe states have every reason to try to get out from under this ridiculous system,” said Raskin.

Pearson agrees with Raskin.

“It excludes most Americans, not by design, but by whether or not you happen to be a battleground state,” said Pearson.

Opponents of the plan say they disagree with this logic, claiming that the plan will hurt the less-populous states that the Electoral College was designed to help, by making them beholden to the whims of the more populous states.

“If you do away with the Electoral College, the tendency of most candidates would be to gravitate towards the places where there are the most people,” said Assemblyman Richard Merkt, of New Jersey.

Merkt is a vocal critic of the popular vote legislation and has introduced legislation to repeal New Jersey’s commitment to the inter-state compact.

Having a national popular vote "essentially eliminates New Jersey from having any significance whatsoever in national elections,” said Merkt. "The plan treats us like we’re almost another county in California.”

Richard Benedetto, adjunct professor at American University School of Public Affairs, agrees that such a thing would be detrimental to smaller states.

“The popular vote would just overwhelm them,” Benedetto said.

Another polarizing feature of the National Popular Vote legislation is the fact that the plan seeks to find a way to change the Electoral College without involving the Constitution.

Supporters of the plan argue that what they are doing is necessary.

Raskin compares their legislation to civil rights legislation, which he says was in many cases enacted at the state level before going national.

“The states were the laboratory of democracy,” Raskin said. “We can get there first and show Congress how to do it.”

Those opposed to the plan, however, disagree.

Benedetto doesn’t see the plan happening without some deal of litigation involved, particularly given the precedent established by Al Gore, when he involved the courts in the Florida recount.

“If they tried to pass it and they did pass it, the first thing that would happen would be somebody would go to court over it,” said Benedetto.

Merkt is more adamant in his objection.

“Those that want to change the law ... are willing to evade the Constitution to do it, and I’ll go into the street to fight that, because I think it’s so wrong,” said Merkt. “It’s an attempt to amend the Constitution by other means, and that in my view is unacceptable.”

There is, however, another plan that seeks to have a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

This amendment was proposed in June 2006 in a bill sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-Fla.). The Nelson bill might sound familiar, since legislation of this nature has been attempted before, said Bill Couch, Nelson’s legislative correspondent for banking, housing and labor issues.

“It’s certainly not something new,” acknowledged Couch, citing similar legislation proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein, (D-Calif.).

Couch also was sure to emphasize that Nelson’s plan to abolish the Electoral College is not his primary focus, but one component of the senator’s larger “One Person One Vote” initiative.

Nelson was inspired to propose this plan following “all of the havoc in Florida following the 2006 Democratic Primary,” said Couch.

“Senator Nelson’s approach would make it more equitable across the board,” said Couch. “The person has (a) more powerful voice in casting their vote for president or vice-president.”

Couch acknowledges the National Popular Vote movement, but feels that Nelson’s plan is a more effective method to effect change.

“To actually have this change occur, you need to have a constitutional amendment,” said Couch.

However, Couch acknowledges that the timeline of Nelson’s bill will not be a brief one.

“This is something that would be a significant change to one of the fundamental aspects of our democracy," Couch said. "Clearly something of that magnitude deserves the most attention that you could possibly give it.”

Despite these factors, Couch remains dedicated to his cause.

“I think,” said Couch, “that this is a fight worth fighting.”

While Couch is optimistic, others believe the bill does not have much chance of passing.

“In order to amend the Constitution, you’ve got to get three-fourths of the states to go along,” said Benedetto. “I just don’t see it happening.”

Benedetto feels that the public support for such a measure simply does not exist.

“It would require a groundswell of public support to change the Electoral College,” said Benedetto.

Benedetto believes that unless some major event was to occur to sway public opinion, support will not materialize. And even then he feels it still might not change, citing the apparent dissatisfaction over the Florida recount in 2000.

“It happened in 2000, but there was not a groundswell of support to change it,” said Benedetto.

“I come down on the side to just keep it the way it is, it seems to be working okay,” Benedetto said.