Why do we need the Electoral College?

[jayem]

It's an obsolete, archaic relic of 18th century thinking. I suspect the US is the only democratic country in the world where a candidate getting more total votes can still lose the election. We are now living in the 21st century. The EC is absolute idiocy.

 

[Desk trauma]

We don’t.

 

[zippy2006]

It's an obsolete, archaic relic of 18th century thinking. I suspect the US is the only democratic country in the world where a candidate getting more total votes can still lose the election. We are now living in the 21st century. The EC is absolute idiocy.

It sounds like you haven't the slightest idea why the EC exists, nor have you bothered to do any research.

 

[probinson]

If the electoral college didn't exist, there would be large swaths of the country that would not be fairly represented.

I am, however, in favor of a reform of sorts for the EC. Instead of the current winner-take-all approach, I think it would make campaigns (and polling) far more interesting if they were divided based on popular vote percentages. For example, my state of PA has 19 electoral votes. Imagine a system in which the candidates get a portion of the electoral votes based on how they perform in the state's popular vote. Let's say the result is 51% - 49%. What if the votes were divvied up so that the one with 51% got 10 of those votes and the one with 49% got 9 of them, instead of awarding all 19 votes simply for edging out your opponent. This would be far more representative of the will of the people in each state while still empowering smaller states to influence the outcome of an election.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It sounds like you haven't the slightest idea why the EC exists, nor have you bothered to do any research.

So small states and slave states could have disproportionately more power than their voting rolls otherwise would.

If the electoral college didn't exist, there would be large swaths of the country that would not be fairly represented.

Representation is a matter for Congress.

It is already the case that large swaths of the country are essentially ignored during the campaign.

 

[SimplyMe]

It sounds like you haven't the slightest idea why the EC exists, nor have you bothered to do any research.

Sure we do, it was to allow the 3/5ths compromise to apply to Presidential elections, otherwise the Southern States (where those that counted as 3/5ths of a person couldn't vote) would have been at a huge disadvantage in Presidential Elections. Granted, they used arguments such as how it gave small states a voice in Presidential elections to get the Constitution approved but those are not the arguments that were made during the Constitutional Convention.

Now, you can also claim that it was a compromise between those that wanted a direct election for President and those who wanted Congress to select the President but that reason is really just as outdated as the slavery component. It largely went away when state legislatures quit selecting the electors and allowed a popular vote in the state to choose the electors -- as well as allowing a popular vote to approve the nominees, rather than having the delegates at the Party conventions chose the nominee.

And, as for the "representing small states" -- as pointed out above, they already are. It is the swing states that get the attention; even with the Electoral college, small states aren't worth the candidates time. Additionally, it is the Senate (2 Senators per state) that actually give the small states power -- including checks on the President, since they have to approve his major appointments.

 

[NxNW]

If the electoral college didn't exist, there would be large swaths of the country that would not be fairly represented.

Right now everybody but the swing states are being ignored.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's an obsolete, archaic relic of 18th century thinking. I suspect the US is the only democratic country in the world where a candidate getting more total votes can still lose the election. We are now living in the 21st century. The EC is absolute idiocy.

I am beginning to believe we should reconsider the whole "voting" thing as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It sounds like you haven't the slightest idea why the EC exists, nor have you bothered to do any research.

Which is, ironically, sort of why the EC exists lol.

When I first learned why it was created....I felt a bit insulted. Who were these British muppets deciding who is too stupid to give political power to?

As I've gotten older....yeah, I get it now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure we do, it was to allow the 3/5ths compromise to apply to Presidential elections, otherwise the Southern States (where those that counted as 3/5ths of a person couldn't vote) would have been at a huge disadvantage in Presidential Elections.

I think it's fair to say the 3/5ths compromise was influenced by the EC....but not the other way around.

Granted, they used arguments such as how it gave small states a voice in Presidential elections to get the Constitution approved but those are not the arguments that were made during the Constitutional Convention.

Sounds like historical revisionism. Land owning white men were the only ones consistently allowed to vote in every state.

Now, you can also claim that it was a compromise between those that wanted a direct election for President and those who wanted Congress to select the President but that reason is really just as outdated as the slavery component. It largely went away when state legislatures quit selecting the electors and allowed a popular vote in the state to choose the electors -- as well as allowing a popular vote to approve the nominees, rather than having the delegates at the Party conventions chose the nominee.

And, as for the "representing small states" -- as pointed out above, they already are. It is the swing states that get the attention; even with the Electoral college, small states aren't worth the candidates time. Additionally, it is the Senate (2 Senators per state) that actually give the small states power -- including checks on the President, since they have to approve his major appointments.

I'm not sure where you got this....but I'd like to know.

 

[jayem]

It sounds like you haven't the slightest idea why the EC exists, nor have you bothered to do any research.

Of course I have. I've studied Article II, Sec. 1 and 2. And the 12th Amendment. Which was intended to fix the problem of political opposites being elected as President and Vice President. The EC may have made some sense 220 years ago. But this is the 21st century. The worst result of the EC is that voters are disenfranchised. Example: Michigan has 16 EVs. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden got just over 2.8 million votes. Donald Trump got about 2.65 million. Under the state's EC rules, all 16 EVs went to Joe Biden. The Trump votes counted for nothing. Which essentially disenfranchised all of his voters. (Only 2 states--Maine and Nebraska--split their EVs. But they have only 5 EVs each. ) This brings up another EC drawback. Which is that the candidates generally focus their campaigns on high EV states. Not many Presidential candidates will personally visit Montana, or the Dakotas, or Rhode Island. I know that electing the President and VP by direct popular vote will have glitches, and recounts, and possibly court challenges. But at least, every voter's choice will count.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure we do, it was to allow the 3/5ths compromise to apply to Presidential elections, otherwise the Southern States (where those that counted as 3/5ths of a person couldn't vote) would have been at a huge disadvantage in Presidential Elections. Granted, they used arguments such as how it gave small states a voice in Presidential elections to get the Constitution approved but those are not the arguments that were made during the Constitutional Convention.

With out that 3/5ths the slavers would be unable to control any political power for the people the enslaved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course I have. I've studied Article II, Sec. 1 and 2. And the 12th Amendment. Which was intended to fix the problem of political opposites being elected as President and Vice President. The EC may have made some sense 220 years ago. But this is the 21st century. The worst result of the EC is that voters are disenfranchised. Example: Michigan has 16 EVs. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden got just over 2.8 million votes. Donald Trump got about 2.65 million. Under the state's EC rules, all 16 EVs went to Joe Biden. The Trump votes counted for nothing. Which essentially disenfranchised all of his voters. (Only 2 states--Maine and Nebraska--split their EVs. But they have only 5 EVs each. ) This brings up another EC drawback. Which is that the candidates generally focus their campaigns on high EV states. Not many Presidential candidates will personally visit Montana, or the Dakotas, or Rhode Island. I know that electing the President and VP by direct popular vote will have glitches, and recounts, and possibly court challenges. But at least, every voter's choice will count.

The Electoral College fits with the modern progressive's idea of "equity" creating equal outcomes. That is the effect of the Senate on the EC. Everyone gets two votes....equal outcomes. The concept of "procedural fairness" or equality...is played out by the House of Representatives....even if imperfectly.

I suppose "perfect procedural fairness" would be the result of the removal of the Electoral College....but I wouldn't be in favor of it without more strict proofs that only citizens are voting than we currently have.

 

[eleos1954]

It's an obsolete, archaic relic of 18th century thinking. I suspect the US is the only democratic country in the world where a candidate getting more total votes can still lose the election. We are now living in the 21st century. The EC is absolute idiocy.

Why the Electoral College is vital, not outdated - Washington Examiner

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why the Electoral College is vital, not outdated - Washington Examiner

None of those claims are valid.

1. It protects the liberty and role of diverse states.

That isn't true. A large non-swing state like California or Texas can basically overpower the votes of several small states in one go. In 2020, Trump lost California despite having 6 million votes - because of how electors are assigned, all 6 million of those votes wound up counting for Biden. That's almost as much as the total vote count (6.1 million) in the smallest 11 states + DC combined. Trump lost 11 states worth of votes because of the EC. Likewise, he lost a total of 5.7 million votes worth of electors (call it 10 small states' worth) across WI, AZ, and GA because he lost those states by a combined margin of 43,000 votes.

The only thing the EC does is make swing states, especially big ones, more important. Without the EC, swing states wouldn't exist. The candidates would have to focus on swing voters, wherever they are.

2. It stabilizes national politics.

What stabilizes national politics into two parties is the first-past-the-post system of choosing a winner, not the EC. If this claim were true, we'd see thirds parties at the state level all of the place, since none of them use the EC to select at-large state-level positions like governor.

3. It limits contested elections and fraud.

This one doesn't even make any sense. Problems like this are localized because the administration of elections is localized, not because of the way the winners are picked. Yes, if you had one national system for administering elections, then any problems would have the potential of scaling nationally. But we don't have that and AFAIK, nobody is proposing that.

 

[FenderTL5]

The Electoral College fits with the modern progressive's idea of "equity" creating equal outcomes. That is the effect of the Senate on the EC. Everyone gets two votes....equal outcomes. The concept of "procedural fairness" or equality...is played out by the House of Representatives....even if imperfectly.

I suppose "perfect procedural fairness" would be the result of the removal of the Electoral College....but I wouldn't be in favor of it without more strict proofs that only citizens are voting than we currently have.

I would agree whole heartedly if the House of Represntatives were allowed to keep pace. Fixing the number of representatives to 435 seats with the Reapportionment Act of 1929 messed that up.
There are a number of suggested ways to bring this back to Constitutional proportion(s). As is, an individual in rural Wyoming has more voting "clout" than someone living in a metropolitan area.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would agree whole heartedly if the House of Represntatives were allowed to keep pace. Fixing the number of representatives to 435 seats with the Reapportionment Act of 1929 messed that up.

I think that would be more likely to happen if we weren't counting illegals as people in the census. They aren't supposed to vote for representatives so why would we count them for representatives?

If they were removed from the calculation of citizens to representatives, I think the left would have a stronger argument for more representatives.

 

[Palmfever]

To avoid mob rule.
When U.S. citizens go to the polls to “elect” a president, they are in fact voting for a particular slate of electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most votes (that is, a plurality) in the state receives all of the state’s electoral votes. The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. (The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, which is the number of senators and representatives it would have if it were permitted representation in Congress.) The electors meet in their respective states 41 days after the popular election. There, they cast a ballot for president and a second for vice president. A candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected president.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.

As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president. But that is less a product of the Electoral College and more a product of the way states apportion electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So if a candidate wins a state by even a narrow margin, he or she wins all of the state’s electoral votes. The winner-take-all system is not federally mandated; states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they wish.

The Electoral College was not the only Constitutional limitation on direct democracy, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves got an even worse deal, as a slave officially was counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted (male) former slaves the right to vote. The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.
The reason for the electoral college

 

[FenderTL5]

I think that would be more likely to happen if we weren't counting illegals as people in the census. They aren't supposed to vote for representatives so why would we count them for representatives?

If they were removed from the calculation of citizens to representatives, I think the left would have a stronger argument for more representatives.

I would venture a guess that very few illegals are counted, since it could lead to arrest, deportation etc..
However, non-citizens living here legally have been counted and they should be counted as the Constitution has always provided.

 

[Richard T]

If the electoral college didn't exist, there would be large swaths of the country that would not be fairly represented.

I am, however, in favor of a reform of sorts for the EC. Instead of the current winner-take-all approach, I think it would make campaigns (and polling) far more interesting if they were divided based on popular vote percentages. For example, my state of PA has 19 electoral votes. Imagine a system in which the candidates get a portion of the electoral votes based on how they perform in the state's popular vote. Let's say the result is 51% - 49%. What if the votes were divvied up so that the one with 51% got 10 of those votes and the one with 49% got 9 of them, instead of awarding all 19 votes simply for edging out your opponent. This would be far more representative of the will of the people in each state while still empowering smaller states to influence the outcome of an election.

Any state can manage their EC votes like Nebraska and Maine. The winner get the two Senate Electors, and the winner in any Congressional District get that Elector.