ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Democrats, liberals and progressives are the haters of America and enemies of the Constitution if you listen to the Right Wing rhetoric. Yet those same Right-Wingers are the very people who are constantly proposing Constitutional Amendments and seemingly attacking every Amendment with a number higher than ten. I have long been on record as being happy with the Constitution as it stands with the exception of the Electoral College. The only other Amendment I have ever advocated is one overturning Citizens United as advocated by Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. The only reason I support that amendment – which would supplement the Constitution – is because, considering today’s Supreme Court makeup, I saw no other way of the Court righting what I consider a grievously wrong and dangerous ruling.
Of late the Electoral College has received a lot of attention. This prompted me to do even more soul searching and research. Therefore I considered this an appropriate time to commit my thoughts, observations and ideas to the essay form.
What is the Electoral College?
{My domestic readers may choose to skip this section, although I’m certain almost everyone will learn something. My international readers will be intrigued and be amused.}
When Americans vote for the President and Vice President they actually are not voting directly for the candidate. Instead they are electing electors who are pledged to the particular candidates and do the actual selection of the President and Vice President. Consistent with our representative democracy form of government, the reality is that 538 people actually elect the President and Vice President. Each of these electors has one electoral vote. The electors meet in their respective state capitals, (Washington, DC in the case of the District of Columbia – covered in more detail later), on the Monday after the second Wednesday of the December subsequent to the General Election. At that time they cast their votes which when combined with the required paperwork and notifications actually elect the President and Vice President.
There have been a very few cases of electors not voting for the candidate that they were pledged to and who were the will of the people. Thankfully, these occurrences have been extremely rare and have never even come close to affecting the outcome.
Each state is awarded an elector for each member of Congress that it has; one for each member of the House of Representatives and one each for its two United States Senators. Therefore the minimum number of electors a state may have is three. The District of Columbia has electors equal to the number granted the least populated state, which again is three. Therefore with 435 members representing the various 50 states in the House of Representatives, 100 Senators representing those same states in the Senate and three electors being granted to the District of Columbia there are 538 electors. Since a majority of electors is required to elect the President or Vice President 270 electoral votes are needed for election.
Interestingly the names of the electors are never on the ballots Americans use in voting. You see the names of the candidates. I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972 and have never known the names of the electors that I technically voted for. Those votes include ten Presidential Elections and have been cast in the three different states I have lived in over those 40 years. While in our history it has never been a problem, the system certainly lacks transparency.
How did the Electoral College get to where it is today?
The Electoral College was born out of compromise among the founding fathers and is authorized in the body of the Constitution. It has morphed over the years and those changes are enshrined in various amendments.
The Right Wing loves to refer to the founding fathers as if they were this group of wise men who sat around and pontificated reinforcing each other’s ideas because they were of a single and brilliant mind. Here is the reality: they disagreed on many issues, paramount among them the small states vs. large states rivalry and slavery. Neither was truly resolved in the original Constitution and both entered into the creation of the Electoral College. When today’s Right Wing extremists talk of compromise being a dirty word, remember that if the founders hadn’t compromised there would be no United States of America today.
The large states favored a legislative system based on population. The small states favored a legislative system where each state was equally represented. Hence was born the compromise by which we have a House of Representatives based on population, (more on that later), and a Senate were every state has equal representation.
Slavery – the repercussions of which many would content we are still battling today – reared its ugly head when trying to determine exactly how to measure the population. Since slaves were not allowed to vote non-slave states did not want them counted as part of the population. Slave states wanted to count them to increase their representation in the House. That issue was resolved with the three-fifths compromise under which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person.
The three-fifths compromise was usurped by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which was one of the results of the Civil War. Sections 1 and 2 of that amendment dealt with making former male slaves eligible to vote. They read:
SECTION 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due recourse of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
SECTION 2:“Representatives shall be appointed among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied any male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
On paper male former slaves had the right to vote. In the former Confederate States law and reality proved to be two different things for another century. Social pressure which often took violent forms including murder combined with Jim Crow laws that placed undue hardships on non-Caucasians seeking to vote made it something other than a reality for many. Constitutionally this was remedied in 1964 by the 24th Amendment which reads:
Section 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President or for Senator or Representative in Congress shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
Section 2: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
I included Section 2 of the 24th Amendment because in 1965 Congress did in fact pass the Voting Rights Act, provisions of which are still in effect today in many southern states, to help facilitate African-Americans’ access to the ballot box.
To this point you have probably noticed two oddities. Women were excluded from the vote as were citizens under the age of twenty-one.
In 1920 the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. It simply reads:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article with appropriate legislation.”
To me one of the most amazing things about American history is that women have only been able to vote for less than 100 years!
The history of the military draft in America is colorful to say the least. The first draft actually was enacted by some states in the Revolutionary War. The draft as most current Americans remember it dates back to World War I. Today we have an all volunteer force, but during the Viet Nam War the draft existed and was controversial to the point of violence on American college campuses. At that time males needed to register for the draft and were subject to conscription into the military as of their 18th birthday. At 18 you were old enough to fight, but too young to vote. That argument resulted in the 26th Amendment in 1971 which granted 18 year olds the right to vote.
There is still one more dangling participle to get us to today’s Electoral College, and that is the status of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia was created by Congress in 1790 from land donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia. It is the seat of America’s federal government basically consisting of the city of Washington and is America’s version of a political no man’s land. It is neither a state nor a territory, but a unique political subdivision. In 1961 it was included in the Electoral College and its residents became eligible to vote for President by virtue of the 23rd Amendment. While it has a non-voting Representative in the House of Representatives it does not have representation of any sort in the Senate. Section 1 of the 23rd Amendment reads:
“The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in a manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purpose of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”
That is a brief version of how we got to the present day Electoral College.
V. A. P.
There is a term in politics called voting age population, (VAP), it is the number of people living in a political subdivision, (i.e. nation, state, congressional district), that are of voting age or older. It does not take into account if they are eligible to vote, merely that they are 18 or older and are alive on the day of the census. The VAP is what is used to determine the number of Representatives a state gets in the House of Representatives. Since in almost any political subdivision the number of people of voting age exceeds the number of citizens – and it certainly exceeds the number of registered voters – it offers opportunities to play games in the redistricting process. The theory is that the representative must represent the interests of these people regardless of their citizenship or ability to vote. A non-citizen could become a citizen in most cases. An unregistered citizen could register in most cases. In many states an ex-felon can become a registered voter, (in some states it is a simple as registering in others there is a hearing/appeals process). A favorite trick in redistricting is to include a prison in a district to manipulate the racial diversity. Non-Caucasians have a much higher incarceration rate in America so you can include a prison in a district to make it look more racially diverse without the “risk” of having that population effect election results because prisoners don’t get the opportunity to vote.
According to the 2010 Census, (which is the basis of the current Congressional districting), the United States had 18,890,000 non-citizens of voting age. Only two states gained more than one House Seat for 2012: Texas with 4 and Florida with 2. Those two states alone accounted for 3,974,000 or 21% of the non-citizens. Florida is a battleground state that is completely controlled by the Republicans at the State level. Texas is a red state all the way. To be fair there are three blue states with high non-citizen populations; California, Illinois and New York. California’s delegation to the House stayed the same while Illinois lost 1 seat and New York 2. Interesting how the Party that advocated self-deportation benefited the most from non-citizen residents. While all 50 states and the District of Columbia have non-citizens living in them the benefit of them in terms of House seats is certainly not equally distributed.
Are all votes equal?
There are two ways to analyze that question and they provide two of the most compelling cases against the Electoral College. Since most states, and an even higher percentage of Congressional Districts are heavily skewed to one Party or the other the meaning of a single vote within them is sometimes questionable to the point that people feel their vote doesn’t matter. In the case of the Presidential election there is merit to that argument.
If you are a Democrat living in heavily Republican Utah or South Carolina your Democratic vote means nothing. The state is going to go Republican and with it all its electoral votes. The reverse is true in heavily Democratic Massachusetts for a Republican.
Without getting into a big lecture on the value of voting, you still need to vote because downticket races are becoming more important every election and your vote very much matters there. Besides in not voting you disenfranchise yourself and that is un-American. We fought the Revolutionary War over taxation without representation. If you fail to vote you have abdicated your voice in determining who represents you but you can bet you will still be taxed! More importantly, if nobody keeps an eye on the elected officials what is to keep them in check? Your informed, intelligent vote is the best political watchdog ever invented!
The even more compelling and seldom stated answer to this question is the relative weight of an individual’s vote based on what state they vote in. It is amazing just how unequally Americans are treated!
Wyoming has one electoral vote per 137,000 residents of voting age. In contrast California – which has the most total electoral votes at 55 – has one electoral vote per 497,836 residents of voting age. A vote cast in Wyoming has over 3.6 times the weight as a vote cast in California. Are the residents of Wyoming more American? America is a very mobile society; I for example have cast votes in three different states: New York, Florida and North Carolina. In New York it takes 516,344 residents of voting age to be “granted” an electoral vote, in Florida 490,586 and in North Carolina 466,533. That means on average a Wyoming voter had a more important vote than I ever had by a factor of 3.58. How is that fair? How is that representative? Small population states enjoy a tremendous advantage under the current system.
Ever since the 2000 election Republicans have loved to show their maps of America where the counties that voted Republican for President, (for George W. Bush), were colored red and the counties that voted Democratic, (for Al Gore), were colored blue. The map was disproportionately red despite the fact that Bush lost the popular vote. Other than being a good propaganda tool the map is mostly useless; American people vote; not American soil. What it does illustrate is the inherent unfairness of the Electoral College with its skewing toward territory not voters.
Makers and takers?
The theme of makers and takers was a favorite of Republicans in the 2012 election. It was supposed to be a contrast between those who contributed to American society by their labor and/or job creation, (the makers), and those who lived off of the fruits of their endeavors, (the takers). Interestingly this rhetoric played well in the red states because if you look at the relative weight voters in states that receive more federal dollars, (taker states), than they contribute in federal revenue it becomes apparent that taker states get a disproportionately large say in spending the money that largely states that pay in more than they receive in federal spending, (the maker states), contributed.
Of the 12 political subdivisions that have either three, four or five electoral votes – which we already have established are unfairly weighted in their favor – nine or 75% are taker states. One, (Rhode Island), is the only balanced state in the union that roughly gets its tax dollars back in the form of federal spending. I could not find data on the District of Columbia so I erred on the side of caution and did not count it as a taker, although it probably is. Only two, (Delaware and New Hampshire), are maker or donor states. Just for the record the nine taker states are: Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming with three; Hawaii, Idaho, Maine with four; and Nebraska, New Mexico, and West Virginia with five.
Seems like states who are not pulling their weight, in conservative Republican thinking, are making out disproportionately well under the current Electoral College system! Of the 17 maker states only Texas voted Republican in the 2012 election. 16 of 17 or over 94% of the states adding to the “kitty” voted for President Obama. Texas was the only state that on net is financially contributing to the fiscal welfare of America that voted for Willard Mitt Romney. Of the 32 taker states 23 or 71% voted Republican in 2012 while 9 voted Democratic.
Of the 24 states that voted for Romney 23 or almost 96% were taker states. In other words the vast majority of Romney’s supporters were voters from states that wanted to tell the band what song to play but didn’t want to pony up to pay it at the end of the dance.
| STATE/DISTRICT | ELECTORAL VOTES | VAP IN (1,000′s) | MAKER OR TAKER | 2012 VOTE | VAP PER ELECTORAL VOTE |
| Alabama |
9 |
3,526 |
T | R |
391,777 |
| Alaska |
3 |
498 |
T | R |
166,000 |
| Arizona |
11 |
4,831 |
T | R |
439,181 |
| Arkansas |
6 |
2,140 |
T | R |
356,666 |
| California |
55 |
27,381 |
M | D |
497,836 |
| Colorado |
9 |
3,768 |
M | D |
418,666 |
| Connecticut |
7 |
2,648 |
M | D |
378,285 |
| Delaware |
3 |
667 |
M | D |
222,333 |
| District of Columbia |
3 |
489 |
? | D |
163,000 |
| Florida |
29 |
14,227 |
M | D |
490,586 |
| Georgia |
16 |
7,119 |
T | R |
444,937 |
| Hawaii |
4 |
965 |
T | D |
241,250 |
| Idaho |
4 |
1,114 |
T | R |
278,500 |
| Illinois |
20 |
9,619 |
M | D |
480,950 |
| Indiana |
11 |
4,777 |
T | R |
434,272 |
| Iowa |
6 |
2,278 |
T | D |
379,666 |
| Kansas |
6 |
2,059 |
T | D |
343,166 |
| Kentucky |
8 |
3,250 |
T | R |
406,250 |
| Louisana |
8 |
3,314 |
T | R |
414,250 |
| Maine |
4 |
1,034 |
T | D |
258,500 |
| Maryland |
10 |
4,279 |
T | D |
427,900 |
| Massachusetts |
11 |
5,097 |
M | D |
463,363 |
| Michgan |
16 |
7,513 |
M | D |
469,562 |
| Minnesota |
10 |
3,982 |
M | D |
398,200 |
| Mississippi |
6 |
2,113 |
T | R |
352,166 |
| Missouri |
10 |
4,506 |
T | R |
450,600 |
| Montana |
3 |
753 |
T | R |
251,000 |
| Nebraska |
5 |
1,323 |
T | R |
264,600 |
| Nevada |
6 |
1,957 |
M | D |
326,166 |
| New Hampshire |
4 |
1,024 |
M | D |
256,000 |
| New Jersey |
14 |
6,581 |
M | D |
470,071 |
| New Mexico |
5 |
1,489 |
T | D |
297,800 |
| New York |
29 |
14,974 |
M | D |
516,344 |
| North Carolina |
15 |
6,998 |
T | R |
466,533 |
| North Dakota |
3 |
488 |
T | R |
162,666 |
| Ohio |
18 |
8,642 |
T | D |
480,111 |
| Oklahoma |
7 |
2,695 |
T | R |
385,000 |
| Oregon |
7 |
2,974 |
M | D |
424,857 |
| Pennsylvania |
20 |
9,631 |
T | D |
481,550 |
| Rhode Island |
4 |
812 |
- | D |
203,000 |
| South Carolina |
9 |
3,453 |
T | R |
383,666 |
| South Dakota |
3 |
602 |
T | R |
200,666 |
| Tennesse |
11 |
4,745 |
T | R |
431,363 |
| Texas |
38 |
17,847 |
M | R |
469,657 |
| Utah |
6 |
1,929 |
T | R |
321,500 |
| Vermont |
3 |
490 |
T | D |
163,333 |
| Virginia |
13 |
5,873 |
T | D |
451,769 |
| Washington |
12 |
5,095 |
M | D |
424,583 |
| West Virginia |
5 |
1,420 |
T | R |
284,000 |
| Wisconsin |
10 |
4,291 |
M | D |
429,100 |
| Wyoming |
3 |
411 |
T | R |
137,000 |
Sources:
VAP numbers – 2010 U.S. Census
Makers/Takers – A report from the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.; 2007 report based on 2005 information.
Justifications for the Electoral College
One of the original major justifications for the Electoral College was that it would make candidates campaign in all states small and large. In the late 18th Century communication bore no resemblance to communication in the early 21st Century. Radio, network nor cable television, the internet and recording devices simply did not exist. You either heard a candidate speak or read about their positions in the newspaper – that is assuming you could read – literacy rates were much lower than they are today as was the access to a newspaper for that matter.
Today we often hear Presidential candidates speak live regardless of where their words originate from. There is the Rose Garden Strategy whereby certain incumbent Presidents have chosen to campaign by simply issuing statements from the White House and not going on the road. Had early Presidents tried that the only receivers of their message would have been the roses. It is the normal course of affairs to hear excerpts of major candidates’ talking points on the nightly news every night of the campaign while not leaving the comfort of your home.
What was a legitimate and valid concern in the 1700’s isn’t relevant in the 2000’s. In fact a two different dynamics are in play today. Candidates in the general election spend most of their time in battleground or donor rich states. Ever wonder why the Republican candidates spend so much time in New York or California? Or why the Democratic candidate makes multiple trips to Texas? The answer is the same in both cases – raising money. In recent Presidential elections no Republican has really thought they could win New York or California; nor has a Democrat felt they could win Texas – but they could raise a lot of cash in those states.
In the 2012 election both campaigns spent a lot of time and millions of dollars in the nine battleground states. The Obama campaign won eight of the nine and with it the election. States like Virginia and Florida should be purple for at least the next few cycles and stand to benefit financially from large ground operations and spending on media. They would be acting against their self-interests to change the current system. While Florida would still receive candidate attention for fundraising purposes much like New York, California and Texas the ground operations and media spending would be severely diminished without the current winner take all Electoral College system in those states.
My proposal
My solution to the current problem is simple and straight forward – go to a straight popular vote. The candidate who gets the most votes is elected President. One person, one vote – nobody counts more or less than any other American citizen.
The normal path to this goal is via a Constitutional Amendment that would nullify the Electoral College. This will require a lot of states to act in the interest of the country and against their selfish self-interest. To amend the Constitution a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the Congress is required and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. There is actually another method involving state conventions but that would be even more difficult to achieve. To say this would be extremely difficult to envision happening anywhere in the foreseeable future is an understatement!
An underpublicized movement known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been going on for a few years now. Currently eight states, (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington), along with the District of Columbia have agreed to cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular votes contingent on enough other states joining them so that the total of their combined electoral votes would be at least 270. I think it is worthwhile noting that all nine of these entities normally vote Democratic. There are two flies in this ointment. Structurally, there is nothing to prevent an individual state to pull out of the agreement after the 270 has been reached causing the new total to fall below 270 and effectively killing the deal. In practicality this approach still requires some entities to vote against their self-interest, (which the District of Columbia, Hawaii and Vermont already have).
In my mind a fair and equitable solution is rather simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, it may be at least equally difficult to achieve.
Another huge advantage of going to a straight popular vote system is that it circumvents the problems that arise if no candidate gets a majority vote in the Electoral College. In that case the election gets thrown into the Congress and the will of the people gets buried even deeper. Let’s assume that a third Party candidate, in today’s politics say a Tea Party candidate, has some support it can get really ugly.
That candidate would have no chance of winning but could conceivably win one or a few states and thereby denying any candidate the needed 270 electoral votes. The electors will meet in their state capitals or in the case of the District of Columbia in the District and cast their votes on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They never meet as a whole. They may go an unlimited number of ballots and varying by states they are released from their earlier pledge as ballots go on. Interestingly they are only morally not legally bound to their pledge. It is totally conceivable that no candidate could get the 270. If so, the election of the President gets turned over to the House or Representatives.
The House gets broken into delegations by state and D.C. and each of the 51 delegations gets to cast one vote. The candidates are the three top vote getters in the November election, presumably the Democrat, Republican and Tea Party candidates. The current breakdown is 28 Republican delegations, 20 Democratic delegations and 3 that are evenly split. I have no idea of how the split delegations cast a single vote; most likely they find themselves unable to do so effectively reducing the “pool” to 48 delegations. Conventional wisdom is that the Republican candidate would be elected President. Not so fast. Remember five of those delegations are single member delegations. It doesn’t take a lot to have one individual do something wacky. Many of the newer Republican representatives have a split loyalty between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. It is a stretch but not totally insane that the Republicans couldn’t get the need 26. Keep reading it gets more interesting.
While the House is electing the President, the Senate is electing the Vice President. The Senate operates under different rules. Each Senator has a vote, 51 needed for a victory. Their “pool of talent” is the top two vote getters in the November election, assuredly the Democrat and the Republican. The conventional wisdom is that since there are 53 Democrats plus 2 Independents that caucus with them vs. 45 Republicans that the Democrat wins. With a few defections and/or a change in the seats between now and then it is not totally beyond the pale that the Democrats couldn’t get 51. Let’s throw another wild card into this mix and assume for the sake of argument that the filibuster/cloture rules come into effect and nothing gets resolved. Had the House been unable to name a President by the Inauguration the Vice President elect becomes the acting President. With no resolution from the Electoral College, House or Senate our Constitution does provide a final solution; the Speaker of the House becomes the acting President. That’s right; the Speaker of the House would be the President at noon on January 20th without ever having received a single popular vote.
If the last three paragraphs alone didn’t convince you that the current system is froth with danger I don’t know what will.
Open to manipulation
The first paragraph of the second clause of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution describes the way States may choose to pick their electors. It reads: “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”
That is a lot of legalese to say that each State may apportion its electors as its legislature chooses. In recent weeks Republicans in several states where they control the Legislature and the Governorship but voted for President Obama in 2012 have introduced legislation to go from a winner take all format to a method based on Congressional Districts. In Virginia the proposed legislation went so far as to propose awarding the “Senatorial” votes to the winner of the most Congressional districts not the winner of the popular vote. This system would render the popular vote in Virginia meaningless.
Keep in mind this is after the 2010 gerrymandering which skewed results heavily to the Republicans. The example that most easily comes to mind is North Carolina which has 13 Congressional Districts. Despite the fact that in 2012 over 50% of North Carolinians’ Congressional votes were cast for Democrats; Republicans won nine of the thirteen seats. If it were a card game this would be like stacking the deck and then dealing from the bottom of it.
As of this writing public outcry and attention appears to have the Republicans backing off in at least the majority of those states. This situation still illustrates how the system is open to manipulation. The current system allows the team in the lead to change the rules on how the game is going to be played as long as it retains the lead.
Conclusion
My recommendation is simple and straightforward: go to a simple popular vote. Whoever gets the most votes wins. Sounds like Democracy to me.
The biggest criticism I have heard of this method is the possibility of a recount. In the last ten elections the smallest margin in the popular vote was 543,816 in 2000. (Incidentally that was Al Gore over George W. Bush. Think of what a better world it would be if George W. Bush had never occupied the White House.) The next closest was in 1976 when Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford by 1,683,247 votes.
With the very real possibility of a serious fracture in the Republican Party I think there is a far greater chance of no candidate being able to get 270 electoral votes than the need for a justifiable nationwide recount. That 543,816 vote margin is greater than the VAP in four states, (Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming), and the District of Columbia. Those five currently account for 15 electoral votes, just like North Carolina. Remember that margin is the smallest in 40 years and the only time in the period that the margin was under one million votes.
The Electoral College was an imperfect system, born of necessary compromise, at its inception. The passage of time and progress of technology has only made it more imperfect. The votes of all Americans should be equal and the only way to achieve that is by going to a straight popular vote to elect our President.
Larry Marciniak
February 2013
This article is the property of tellthetruthonthem.com and its content may not be used without citing the source. It may not be reproduced without the permission of Larry Marciniak.