There have been past attempts to abolish the Electoral College. In 1950 Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and Texas Representative Ed Gossett introduced a reform plan known as proportional allocation in the 81st Congress as an amendment proposal that would abolish the Electoral College as it was known, replacing it with a proportional electoral vote. In this case, electors and the college would remain in place, but electoral votes would be allocated to presidential tickets in a manner directly proportional to the popular votes each ticket received in the states. The proposal was amended in the Senate to also require a 40% threshold of electoral votes for a ticket to be elected to the Presidency and Vice Presidency. If no one received such a threshold, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in a joint session, would then choose among the top two presidential candidates and their running mates. The Lodge-Gossett Amendment passed the Senate with a super majority by a vote of 64-27, but was strongly opposed in the House of Representatives. Opposition in the House came primarily from liberal groups.
In 1956 Hubert Humphrey's S. J. 152 proposal of reform was introduced in the 84th Congress. In this plan, the Electoral College would be abolished as known, but the then 531 electoral votes would still be put to use. Two electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate winning the overall popular vote in each of the then 48 states voting for president. The remaining 435 would then be divided nationally in proportion to the nationwide popular vote. The proposal passed the House of Representatives, but later died in the Senate.
In 1969 House Representative Emanuel Celler introduced a proposal in the 91st Congress which would abolish the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular election with a 40% threshold and a runoff if no threshold was achieved. The bill was wildly popular in the House, passing 338-70, yet failed to pass in the Senate due to a filibuster.
After the close election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in 1976, Senator Birch Bayh introduced a proposal in the 96th Congress in 1979 to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with direct election. The measure failed the Senate by a vote of 51-48 in 1979. Because of its failure in that chamber, the House decided not to vote on its version of the proposal. In 1992 & 1997 hearings were conducted to consider reform possibilities, but no proposal left the committee chambers.
In 2004 Colorado proposed by ballot measure 36, to amend the way it allocates its electoral votes. Instead of remaining a winner-take-all state, the proposal would have changed the state to proportional allocation. Also Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. introduces the first proposal for Electoral College reform since 1979. HJR 109 proposed a majority direct election of president, but this proposal was unsuccessful as well.
There have been more recent attempts to abolish the Electoral College. California Senator Dianne Feinstein announced on August 30, 2007 that she would introduce a resolution to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct popular vote of the President. California Senator Feinstein devised a voting method for the state she represents, as well as the rest of the U.S. Currently, California gives all of its 55 electoral votes to the candidate winning the popular vote statewide, a method used by almost all the states. Under the initiative drive being circulated in California, the state would give Presidential candidates one electoral vote for every Congressional district that they win, plus two electoral votes for the candidate that gets the most votes in the state.
Senator Feinstein introduced the resolution in September 2007 in the 110th Congress. Several states were currently exploring ways to enter into a compact to guarantee that the Presidential candidate receiving the most votes wins; that each vote counts the same; and that each vote is cast for whom it is cast. The proposed "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" had 364 sponsors in 47 states for the 2007 state legislative sessions. Since there are 538 electoral votes in total, and a majority is 270, the compact would go into effect when enough states to cast the 270 Electoral College votes pass it. It has been approved by the Maryland state legislature and signed into law. A similar bill was approved by the California state legislature in 2006, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Several other state legislative bodies have passed the proposal in 2008: In Arkansas, Colorado, and North Carolina, one house of the state legislature has passed the proposal in 2008. In Hawaii and Illinois, both houses of the state legislature have passed the proposal in 2008. The Hawaii governor vetoed the legislation. The Illinois governor signed the legislation, which made Illinois the second state to enact the proposal into law.
Florida Democrat Bill Nelson proposed legislation with a three-part initiative. The most vital part of it is the proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the 18th-century Electoral College, plus the establishment of regional primaries and other reforms. His principal argument for getting rid of the Electoral College is the system permits a candidate with fewer votes nationally to win the presidency by capturing narrow victories in big states. The second part of Nelson’s initiative, gives voters more say than political party bosses in picking the presidential candidates by establishing six rotating, interregional primaries beginning in March and ending in June every four years. It pairs large and small states into six different regions; and, the states in each region take turns going first, removing exclusive power from the nation’s first primary and caucus states. Under the third part of Nelson’s broader election plan, all voters would get to vote early and could cast absentee ballots on demand, which a number of states already allow. Then, all voting machines would have to produce a paper trail, and states that develop mail-in balloting would be eligible for federal grants. The next step in the process, Nelson said, is to gain support from enough lawmakers, while also pushing hard for congressional hearings. The initiative is drawing positive reaction from several voting rights groups including Why Tuesday and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, that seek to make election reform a national priority.
