Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Elections topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resolution to abolish Electoral College fails in Utah House

Utah House of Representatives · February 22, 1993
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposal asking Congress to abolish the Electoral College and move to a direct popular vote (HJR2) failed in the Utah House after floor debate that split members along small‑state protection and democratic‑principle lines; the resolution lost 13–57.

House Joint Resolution 2, introduced by Representative Birmingham and urging reconsideration of the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president, failed in the Utah House on Feb. 22 by a vote of 13–57.

Representative Birmingham framed the resolution as a long‑held concern about the Electoral College and said the state should signal support for national reconsideration. He argued that “the people's choice should be elected president” and cited historical elections as evidence of the Electoral College’s odd outcomes.

Opponents emphasized the constitutional role of the Electoral College in protecting small states’ political influence. Representative Davis said recent electoral outcomes demonstrated the college’s value in providing a governing mandate and cautioned against upending long‑standing constitutional checks. Representative Preston and others warned that eliminating the college would concentrate election outcomes in a small number of populous states.

Floor exchanges highlighted historical examples (1876, 1888, 1824) and contemporary concerns about small‑state representation. After proponents and opponents each gave summations, the House closed debate and recorded the vote; the resolution will be filed with the House as defeated.

The debate reflected both philosophical concerns about electoral fairness and practical concerns about constitutional design and states’ political protections.