Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?

[Jade Margery]

This is something I have wondered about for years. Why don't we just make the presidential election a popular vote? I think it would encourage a lot of people to vote who didn't before, since it's common for people in states that swing solidly to one side or the other to just not bother with it since their vote will mean nothing. Right now, if you are in a swing state your single vote is more important than the vote of someone in, say, California or Carolina.

Can someone explain what purpose the electoral college still serves?

 

[NightHawkeye]

This is something I have wondered about for years. Why don't we just make the presidential election a popular vote? I think it would encourage a lot of people to vote who didn't before, since it's common for people in states that swing solidly to one side or the other to just not bother with it since their vote will mean nothing. Right now, if you are in a swing state your single vote is more important than the vote of someone in, say, California or Carolina.

Can someone explain what purpose the electoral college still serves?

It still forces candidates to listen to individual states.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

And, it has withstood the test of time. I may disagree with how it works out this election, but I do not disagree with our Republic and the US Constitution. But, it ain't over til it's over, as LSU found out tonight

 

[scraparcs]

It seems to further regional interests well.

Should have been abolished many years ago, at the very least twelve years ago.

 

[TomCS]

It should be abolished. It creates too many absurdities.

The winner-take-all format renders millions of Republican votes in New York and California meaningless; and it does the same to Democrat votes in Texas. Knowing that ones vote will be turned into a nullity by the Electoral College is a powerful disincentive to bother voting at all. I know it is for me. I've voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote in 1992. Every time, the Democratic candidate carried New York and won a clean sweep of New York's electoral votes. That makes me feel like I wasted my time voting. I want my vote to count for something more than a mere symbolic gesture.

The electoral college also effectively elevates Florida and Ohio (and perhaps three or four other states) to the status of kingmaker. It is undemocratic and anti-democratic for five or six "swing states" to choose the president for the entire country. If "all men are created equal" then the votes of all men should be equal in value. It is not right that the vote of a citizen in Florida is more important than the vote of a citizen in a non swing-state.

I am glad that Bush became president in 2000, but I am willing to be honest enough to admit that he should not have won the presidency. He lost the popular vote, more people voted for Gore than for Bush; and therefore Gore should have been the president.

 

[dysert]

The popular vote should prevail. This year, for example, there are probably 9 states that could go either way. So much effort has been made to woo these 9 states that the other 41 (and DC) have been virtually ignored by comparison.

If you're not in one of the few swing states, your vote doesn't matter as a practical issue. That's a tremendous disincentive for someone to not even bother voting at all.

Since the country is now so polarized, razor-thin elections are becoming the norm. Why should the fate of the country rest with the relatively few swing states and ballot recounts? Every vote should count since the President supposedly serves at the pleasure of the individuals.

It still forces candidates to listen to individual states.

... but not to the individuals ourselves

And, it has withstood the test of time. I may disagree with how it works out this election, but I do not disagree with our Republic and the US Constitution. But, it ain't over til it's over, as LSU found out tonight

Prostitution has withstood the test of time, but I don't think it's a good idea. And while the Constitution allows for the electoral college, Article II, Section 1 grants states exclusive control over the manner of awarding their electoral votes. It would be constitutional to have the states allocate their votes proportionate to the state's popular votes. The current winner-take-all approach essentially throws away half the votes.

It seems to further regional interests well.

Should have been abolished many years ago, at the very least twelve years ago.

Again, it only furthers regional interests in the few states that matter. Whatever happened to the interests of the people themselves?

 

[Drekkan85]

It furthers regional interests... in swing states. Those states that are predisposed to one particular party don't get much attention to their interests. I have to ask, are you REALLY comfortable with a system where, theoretically (assuming 100% turnout), 20% of the population could dictate who the President is? That is a possibility with the EC.

Things get a bit better if you require states to distribute their electors according to proportional voting within the State. But you'd have to enact this across the board to prevent accusations of bias or attempts to rig the election. You also have the problem that for some arcane reason Americans are ok with the US system being animal farm - all citizens are equal but some are more equal than others. A vote in Ohio should count the same as one in Rhode Island. California has ten fewer electors than it should - their citizens votes counts for less than Wyoming. One Wyoming vote is worth four Californians.

That is fundamentally unfair.

But there's a bigger problem. I find it odd that so many Americans [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and moan about the lack of third parties when their system makes a 2-party system for President necessary. If no Candidate wins 270, then the House makes the choice (and in the most retrograde way ever). This system forces voters into strategic voting systems that whittle down the vote to a 2 party system.

I'd advocate giving this a gander:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=fvwrel

 

[Yekcidmij]

Can someone explain what purpose the electoral college still serves?

When the constitution was originally formed, the states were viewed as sovereign entities. The electoral college is a way of ensuring that the interest of urban areas don't elimininate the interests of rural areas.

The electoral college may currently elevate a few swing states (though this has not always nor will always be the case), but a direct popular vote has the downise of elevating the biggest cities. A direct popular vote disenfranchises voters as well.

 

[Drekkan85]

When the constitution was originally formed, the states were viewed as sovereign entities. The electoral college is a way of ensuring that the interest of urban areas don't elimininate the interests of rural areas.

The electoral college may currently elevate a few swing states (though this has not always nor will always be the case), but a direct popular vote has the downise of elevating the biggest cities. A direct popular vote disenfranchises voters as well.

Did you not watch the above video? Even if you go all the way down through the top 100 cities in the US to Spokane in terms of "big cities" (and that's a pop of 200K - hardly a "big city", more like a large town) that's still less than 20% of the population.

Also, how does it disenfranchise to ensure that every single American's vote counts exactly the same as every OTHER American's vote. I'd also point out that increasingly the areas that are heavily courted are Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (and usually the urban and sub-urban areas of those states). The farm belt area gets almost completely ignored by Presidential candidates.

The only fair solution, the only solution that ensures that an American from New York is equal to an American from Rhode Island, is a popular vote (or to completely overhaul the system to give population proportional electors). Anything else says American A is better or more deserving of their vote than American B.

Why would someone oppose equality amongst Americans? Why would someone insist that all Americans are equal, some are just more equal than others?

ETA: Even if you add up every city or incorporated area of greater than 100K people that still sums to less than 30% of the US population. I hardly think "Broken Arrow, Oklahoma" is a thriving urban sprawl metropolis.

 

[Drekkan85]

When the constitution was originally formed, the states were viewed as sovereign entities. The electoral college is a way of ensuring that the interest of urban areas don't elimininate the interests of rural areas.

The electoral college may currently elevate a few swing states (though this has not always nor will always be the case), but a direct popular vote has the downise of elevating the biggest cities. A direct popular vote disenfranchises voters as well.

Really? No response?

I agree, the system really IS so dumb there's no rational defence for it.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Really? No response?

I agree, the system really IS so dumb there's no rational defence for it.

Says the Canadian. Mind your own business.

 

[Drekkan85]

Says the Canadian. Mind your own business.

Let's hear it for the xenophobia absent conscious thought. Has it occurred to you that perhaps foreigners have traveled and lived in your nation? Studied at your institutions of higher learning? Studied your political system?

Beyond that, do you really think there's no insight that can be given by foreign observers of your democracy? Reagan certainly thought there was (witness, his "Evil Empire" speech where he referenced de Tocqueville as one of the great examiners of American Democracy).

Ultimately I take it as an admission that you do in fact concur - that there are no reasonable arguments in favour of a system that establishes certain people as more equal than others.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Let's hear it for the xenophobia absent conscious thought. Has it occurred to you that perhaps foreigners have traveled and lived in your nation? Studied at your institutions of higher learning? Studied your political system?

Beyond that, do you really think there's no insight that can be given by foreign observers of your democracy? Reagan certainly thought there was (witness, his "Evil Empire" speech where he referenced de Tocqueville as one of the great examiners of American Democracy).

Ultimately I take it as an admission that you do in fact concur - that there are no reasonable arguments in favour of a system that establishes certain people as more equal than others.

Don't me mad because you hate my way of life.
The electoral system prevents states from having power over eachother. A popular vote method gives the power to regions of the country with the most people.
In every election but the election for President, we elect people who represent only us. In a Presidential election we get to vote for the representative of another person. In this regard the Presidential election is unique and it should have a unique structure around it. Hense the electoral college.

 

[Redac]

Don't be mad because you hate my way of life.
The electoral system prevents states from having power over eachother. A popular vote method gives the power to regions of the country with the most people.
In every election but the election for President, we elect people who represent only us. In a Presidential election we vote for who will represent every citizen. In this regard the Presidential election is unique and it should have a unique structure around it. Hense the electoral college.

What? The electoral system is giving control of the entire Presidential race to a handful of states.

 

[Drekkan85]

Don't me mad because you hate my way of life.

Where did I say I hate your way of life? This is bordering on outright flaming. I actually quite like America and the American way of life. I just find the electoral college is awful. Similarly, Canada's first past the post parliamentary system is ALSO awful.

The electoral system prevents states from having power over eachother. A popular vote method gives the power to regions of the country with the most people.

Except the "states" are largely arbitrary designation and borders decided in centuries past. A citizen from NYC has vastly different needs and desires than someone from Albany.

The current method gives power of certain states over others. Again, a person from Wyoming has massive power over someone from California - because a Wyoming resident's votes is worth 4 times what the Californian's is.

Furthermore, since those areas are going proportional as well (since it's striclty about the population), it's highly unlikely the highly populated regions will vote as blocks. Particularly since the most likely areas to vote as blocks (highly urbanized areas) make up less than 30% of the population. Heck, by any reasonable interpretation, it's likely less than 20% of the US population (in proper cities, at least 300-400K people).

I'd also argue that while there are density advantages to campaigning in urban areas, those areas also have the highest concentrations of non-voters (including dissatisfied peoples who don't vote, and illegals who can't).

In every election but the election for President, we elect people who represent only us. In a Presidential election we get to vote for the representative of another person. In this regard the Presidential election is unique and it should have a unique structure around it. Hense the electoral college.

You're aware that is just as good an explanation for, "The Presidential election is unique and should have a unique structure. Therefore, we will continue with our process of electing magic hamsters to represent us and pick our leader with their magic noses of truth-sniffing".

You still elect someone that represents you... the President. The President is the person that represents you, as an American, as the Head of State.

So again - are you going to admit that you believe certain Americans are more equal than others, or are you ready to admit the EC is a stupid system? Or do you have another explanation for why, despite their vote having 4 times the weight of a Californian's, a Wyoming resident is NOT valued more highly in the electoral scheme?

 

[Jade Margery]

Don't me mad because you hate my way of life.
The electoral system prevents states from having power over eachother.

How? A couple people have said this but it makes no sense to me. Right now certain states are more powerful than other states BECAUSE of the electoral college. They get more attention paid to them and their needs and issues because they are 'swing' states. Turning it to a straight popular vote would take the states out of the equation entirely. One citizen, one vote, no matter where you live.

A popular vote method gives the power to regions of the country with the most people.

Which sounds a lot better to me than giving power to the regions of the country with the most undecided people. A) I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion (see above) and B) what's wrong with the most people having the most power? Isn't that the point?

In every election but the election for President, we elect people who represent only us. In a Presidential election we get to vote for the representative of another person. In this regard the Presidential election is unique and it should have a unique structure around it. Hense the electoral college.

This just makes no sense at all. EVERY election is a vote for someone who will be the representative of other people too. The presidency is no different, it just accounts for a greater scale. And even if you could provide a legitimate reason why the presidential election needs a unique structure, it does not follow that the electoral college is actually a good one.

It was formed for a historical purpose--what I want to know is if it serves any purpose TODAY. So far, the cons (uneven weight of votes, discouraging voters in sided states, over emphasis and power given to swing states) are not worth the nebulous pros that a few people have spoken of.

 

[SnowCal]

The Electoral College remains an absurd system. It disenfranchises most of the American population in favor of allowing a handful of special people in "special battleground states" to decide the fate of American politics.

Why should they get to decide?

Our system doesn't "prevent" a handful of large states from dominating politics. It creates a tyranny by a diminutive population in states. The rest of us have little say.

 

[dysert]

So far, the cons (uneven weight of votes, discouraging voters in sided states, over emphasis and power given to swing states) are not worth the nebulous pros that a few people have spoken of.

To be honest, I don't recall seeing *any* pros, nebulous our otherwise, that hold any water. It's so ridiculous... California, for example, is worth 55 electoral votes. With a population of, say, 38,000,000 (to keep the arithmetic simple), that means that if 20,000,000 people vote for the winning candidate, it's as if the remaining 18,000,000 voters have been ignored. At the same time, the roughly 18,000,000 people in Florida account for 29 electors! What's wrong with allocating 20/38's of 55 to the one candidate and the remaining 18/38's of 55 to the other? That way, each voter is proportionately represented. No rocket science involved.

 

[Drekkan85]

To be honest, I don't recall seeing *any* pros, nebulous our otherwise, that hold any water. It's so ridiculous... California, for example, is worth 55 electoral votes. With a population of, say, 38,000,000 (to keep the arithmetic simple), that means that if 20,000,000 people vote for the winning candidate, it's as if the remaining 18,000,000 voters have been ignored. At the same time, the roughly 18,000,000 people in Florida account for 29 electors! What's wrong with allocating 20/38's of 55 to the one candidate and the remaining 18/38's of 55 to the other? That way, each voter is proportionately represented. No rocket science involved.

But you're still missing the larger point - which is that those totals are LOW. California should have more votes and states like RI and Wyoming should have fewer.

 

[Nabobalis]

It is time it was removed. It serves no purpose. It disfranchises so many voters.