Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/10/24/The_Electoral_College_and_National_Popular_Vote
Stanford University computer scientist John Koza explains the National Popular Vote Bill, a plan that, if enacted, would effectively circumvent the role of the Electoral College in determining the President of the United States.
—–
The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents.
However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.
Come hear our panel of distinguished experts discuss the merits and pitfalls of the two systems, and the wisdom of moving from a tried and true process to something new – The Commonwealth Club of California
John R. Koza received his Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Michigan in 1972. He published a board game involving Electoral College strategy in 1966. From 1973 through 1987, he was co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Scientific Games Inc. where he co-invented the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries. In the 1980s, he and attorney Barry Fadem were active in promoting adoption of lotteries by various states through the citizen-initiative process and state legislative action. He has taught a course on genetic algorithms and genetic programming at Stanford University since 1988. He is currently a consulting professor in the Biomedical Informatics Program in the Department of Medicine and in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University. He is co-author of the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote with Barry Fadem, Mark Grueskin, Michael S. Mandell, Robert Richie, and Joseph F. Zimmerman.
Duration : 0:5:34
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I put forth an …
I put forth an observation making no claims to be for or against the current system. All I did was list the previous presidents and indicate that if you change a player or two, the outcome might be different. I made no ertions that one system was better than the other.
I disagree with your umption that anyone but Bush would have pushed as hard to link Iraq to 9/11 when the evidence, and his advisors, indicated that there was none. He sold congress a doomsday scenario and they bought it.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
“Sorry Charlie”, we …
“Sorry Charlie”, we AREN’T a Parlimentary system, but a Representative Democracy. NPV focuses on half the important equation and ignores ALL the problems it would create. You like 2000? With NPV, would you have liked to have recounted ALL the NPV due to a tight race instead of just FL? B-T-W, IRAQ is a USA war, not Bush’s War – Congress voted for it &
funded it for 7 years & the intelligence used was info ANY Pres. would have used – certainly GORE, since he always used polls for his decisions!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Use your heads for …
Use your heads for something besides a hat-rack, folks!! 80.8% of the US pop is in the cities and suburbs. National Popular Vote would allow 6 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA) to decide ALL presidential elections, the other 44 states be ed. Those 6 have 123 MILLION population & at 60% voting, more than enough to carry ANY election. THAT’S FAIR?? Under Electoral College they have 189 EC votes (70% needed). Under EC smaller states at least have a chance their voices will be heard. KEEP THE EC!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
The electoral …
The electoral college would never go away since small population states have more of an effect on the election with the electoral college then without. I also totally do not like the law he is talking about.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
WRONG!!!! Indiana …
WRONG!!!! Indiana was indeed a battle ground state
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
The following won …
The following won the popular vote:
1968 Richard Nixon
1972 Richard Nixon
1976 Jimmy Carter
1980 Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan
1988 George H. W. Bush
1992 Bill Clinton
1996 Bill Clinton
2000 Al Gore
2004 ????????????? (perhaps Al Gore again)
2008 Barack Obama (depending on how much of a bump he got due to the unpopularity of Bush)
It is possible that our economy would have been strong and we might not have been manipulated into a war with Iraq if we used the popular vote.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Not persuasive.
Not persuasive.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
“Discarding it …
“Discarding it would ensure mob rule indefinitely.”
I don’t know what universe you live in, but here on Earth our planet has been under mob rule since the dawn of time. Ultimately, it’s always the choice of the ‘mob’ what we end up doing. The great thing about a Republic isn’t that we take the power of the mob away, but that we 1. acknowledge its rightful authority (unlike monarchy) and 2. acknowledge that certain individuals are more capable of working its will efficiently (unlike democracy).
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
“The electoral …
“The electoral college does little today…”
It doesn’t do ANYTHING.
“…our voting process has become distorted (due to the 12th Amendment…)”
By allowing two distinct ballots for president and vice president? HOW?!
“Originally the electoral college was more effective…”
Hilariously wrong. The EC has NEVER been ANYTHING but a dancing bear for the popular vote. Since it’s inception, people have always voted for the EC chairs that vowed to support their candidate.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Youre right. The …
Youre right. The electoral college does little today to prevent mob rule because our voting process has become distorted (due to the 12th Amendment, all-or-nothing state practices, etc.) Originally the electoral college was more effective at distributing power throughout the country. Today a few cities rule over the rest of us. We need to reform the nomination & voting process. The electoral college remains a crucial ingredient. Discarding it would ensure mob rule indefinitely.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Pass this son of a …
Pass this son of a .
My vote isn’t worth a donkey dick in my state.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Gimme a Break
…
Gimme a Break
Clinton & Dole instituted a policy in 1994 to keep independents out
The USA has one more choice than the old Communist Soviet Union!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
“Ending the …
“Ending the electoral college would remove the safeguard preventing a mobocracy…”
What a crock of bullshit. The electoral college just follows the popular vote anyway. , in most states it even says the presidential candidates’ names on the ballot, instead of the college candidates!
Anyone who thinks the electoral college does anything but create a weird voting distribution (due to the all-or-nothing system most states use) needs to take a political science class.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
I swear I learned …
I swear I learned that Ralph Nader visited every state!!!
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
This distinguished …
This distinguished computer scientist needs a consultation with a Constitutional specialist who will explain that the National Popular Vote Bill can not circumscribe Gore v. Bush, a decision that effectively did aware with state sovereignty in this matter.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Another attempt to …
Another attempt to undermine our Constitution. “to the REPUBLIC for which it stands!” Not “to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands” Ending the electoral college would remove the safeguard preventing a mobocracy in which the majority can vote to abuse a minority. This is the same phenomenon that occurs in a lynch mob, when the mob or majority decides to take the law into their own hands thus violating the rights of the victim (the minority) who’s vote is over-ruled. The electoral college is crucial.