Should We Abolish the Electoral College?

[VoteClark]

I think we should. I think if we want to increase voter turn out we should start with making people's vote actually count. Why should Wyoming residents vote count more then someone's in California. Also, most people live in a state that voted heavily Democratic or Heavily Republican, making it pointless to vote. If you live in a state that votes 60% everytime for the same party, it is kind of pointless to vote if you know that it is not going to make a difference.

To add insult to injury, a State legislature can throw the popular vote out and replace the electors with whoever they want. Of course you could vote the state legislatures out of office, but that doesn't change the fact that they voted for you already, and if they are retiring members of the state legislature, or if they are promised higher positions in the new Presidential administration, or if they are sheltered in a district that heavily voted for the winning party, nothing you can do about it at all.

Should we get rid of this insulting feature of the election process? Or should we keep it because we are not smart enough to decide who really want for President? Your thoughts?

:kick:
J4Clark

[True_Blue]

1. We should

I believe if you got the most votes your the President. It's kind of like some like Michael Jordan getting the most votes for the all star game then replaced for John Crotty. In a democracy majority rules.

[tedoll78]

2. Yes!

You bet! It would result in candidates concentrating their efforts in major cities, in ALL states. Bush would be forced to boost turnout in rural areas - his strongpoints - and we could go from major airport to airport. States that haven't seen major campaign focus would get visits and focus. Very egalitarian.

[VoteClark]

5. That is a very good point

It would be difficult and more time consuming for the Republicans to visit tiny towns where their support is, while the Democrats can get votes in all the major cities where most the votes an support are concentrated.

:kick:
J4Clark

[pansypoo53219]

3. fuckin yeah

so much for being in a retardican souhern state.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Get rid of the damn thing

Let the people vote directly for president

[rogerashton]

6. Yes -- popular election of the president

by preference voting with instant runoffs.

But don't base the argument on advantages to democrats. It can cut either way. In 1960, Kennedy had a big lead in the electoral college but nearly lost the popular vote -- and a shift of a few tens of thousands of votes would have made him a minority president. (Kennedy won the big states by close margins but Nixon won some small ones by large margins), On the basis of that, my 2000 prediction was that Bush would take the popular vote but Gore would win the electoral college. OK, I was wrong -- but y'know what? I wasn't wrong by a very large percent of the vote. The problem with the electoral college is not that it favors the Republicans, but that it deviates from the majority will in absolutely unpredictable ways. Chaos!

[VoteClark]

7. The last three Presidents that won the electoral vote but lost the popular

were republicans. Hays, Harrison, and GW Bush. So I think it would have favored the most if you look at the long run.


:kick:
J4Clark

[dubyadiprecession]

8. the publican party wouldn't like that

unless it was gore who won the presidency by just the electoral college. they would definately find a way to recall him.

Remember, this is the party that pushed for and passed the 22th amendment to limit the presidencial terms in office to two, because they couldn't handle losing to Roosevelt.

For the record, Roosevelt never won any of his four terms by just the electoral college.

[mndemocrat_29]

19. I'd like to debate this amendment as well

I think that we shouldn't have term limits on public office (or age limits, as several judgeships are). I think that if a candidate wants to run for a third term, they should be allowed to do it.

[rock]

9. Before we go muckin' with the rules

I suggest we try enforcing and/or obeying the ones we got. We didn't do this in election 2000, notably in Forida and the electorial votes were improperly assigned. If the government is not going to obey it's own laws, it is quite beside the point what those rules are.

[VoteClark]

10. Actually they are not, that is the problem

According to the Constitution the electoral division is based on the US Census. So the electral votes were based on the 1990 Census,which is what the Constitution states.

Further, according the Constitution it is entirly up the State's legislature how they decide to select their own electors. So it doesn't really matter what the popular vote is in Flordia. If the Republican Legislature decides they want them to go to Bush even if he only gets 1% of the vote, they go to Bush. The Supreme Court ruled this as well. The reason we think that we have a choice is because the indiviual legislatures pass laws to let the popular vote decide. However, the legislature never loses the power because the US Constitution is higher than state governments regarding Federal Law.

So my answer is to lessen the rules and let the "one person, one vote" rule apply. It is simple, and counts each person's vote the same.

:kick:
J4Clark

[slackmaster]

11. We're more likely to fully adopt the Metric System

It ain't gonna happen, folks. As long as there are at least 13 states with legislatures that believe the EC is to their advantage, the required Constitutional amendment to abolish it stands zero chance of passage.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I agree.

I agree. The Electoral College is partly in place to increase state and regional influence on the election. Without the electoral college rural states and voters would be left out.

[wakfs]

27. And that's a bad thing?

n/t

[VoteClark]

17. Actually there is not 13 states that agree it is to their advantage

States are not people. Individuals want their personal vote to count. Only party loyalists residing in the smallest states does this pose an advantage. Most people don't vote because they know their vote doesn't count. They also aready have regional advantage with two senators per state regardless of size. They don't need two advantgates, any one senator can fillibuster a bill and defeat it.

We are not 13 different countries anymore. People don't consider another state another country like they use to when the electoral college was created. They already have changed the way the electoral college works about 4 times.


:kick:
J4Clark

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Montana is woefully underrepresented

Montana is woefully underrepresented. We have only one US Rep for the whole state. That's 902,195 people in the 2000 census.

[VoteClark]

24. Montana is over represented.

Less then 1 million people, 1/3 of 1% of the population of the US has 2% of the vote in the Senate. That is 6x the representation in accordence with its' population. Granted, it is under represented in the house. Having only 1 vote out of 435 votes. Or .225 of 1% the vote. However, this is made up for in the Senate. It has one vote for every 333,000 persons.

One the other hand, look at California. It has 12.15% of the population, and 55 members of the house, and only 2 Senators. They get one vote for every 607,000 people. So I would tend to think that Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Rhoad Island, and Utah are the most represented in the Legislature and the Presidential elections. While California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and New Jersy, are highly underrepresented.

I agree that of the top ones, Montana was screwed out of a Representative, but so was Utah, which was short changed too and Idaho is getting close too. I would imagine in the 2010 census, that at least two of the following states: California, Utah, Montana, Nevada, and Idaho will get another seat at the expense of the East Coast states.

:kick:
J4Clark

[mndemocrat_29]

26. Utah will receive another vote, and so will California

n/t

[VoteClark]

39. They already are

Congress is introducting a bill to add two more members of the House. One for DC, which has none, and one for Utah. California will have another 2 million people at least by 2010, probably more.

:kick:
J4Clark

[Ediacara]

29. Oh BS!

Montana has twice as many people as Wyoming, but the same representation in congress, and the same number of EVs.

EVERY SINGLE STATE BUT WYOMING IS SCREWED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ediacara]

34. An almost acceptable compromise

1) Reduce each congressional district to 100,000 people. This would increase the size of the House of Representatives to almost 3,000 people, but they can build a bigger room.

2) Remove the "Senate boost" from each state, making the electoral votes equal to the number of House districts period.

[VoteClark]

35. 2500 more Politicans pushing and shoving?

No, no, no. Just give one person one vote. The Senate protects the small states anyway. If people are so against the "one person, one vote" idea they should move to a country like Iran or China, where the vote doesn't count at all. I don't see why someone should have a greater or lesser say who is president based on where they choose to reside. Also, people can vote twice in the electoral college.

College students living out of state vote in the state they are going to college in and vote absentee in their home state. It is perfectly legal to do this because it is seperate states.


:kick:
J4Clark

[LewisJackson]

13. The argument for it

I guess I'm going to be fighting an uphill battle today.

My problem with eliminating the college is that where will all the candidates go? New York, California, Chicago, Dallas, San Antonio. What would be the point of going to smaller states? I mean, seriously. People would go where the votes are- specifically, the states with the highest populations, and that's it. What would be the point of going to say, Colorado or Minnesota? No point at all.

The way the electoral college is great is because it forces candidates to spread their message, and tour with it. Granted, there are states that will always vote Republican or Democrat- states like Alabama and Massachusetts- but the college puts far more importance into states themselves, as opposed to just large cities.

And frankly, this would reduce voter turnout to the point of extinction. Why bother voting if you're in North Dakota? Or Wyoming? Or anywhere?

Also, think recounts. If we have an election that is within a thousand votes.....well, you can just imagine the mess yourself. If you thought Florida was bad, just imagine it in ALL fifty states. At least with the college, the problem is condensed.

I'm for keeping it. It makes things more interesting, anyway.

[VoteClark]

16. You should be against it for the reasons you listed

"My problem with eliminating the college is that where will all the candidates go? New York, California, Chicago, Dallas, San Antonio. What would be the point of going to smaller states? I mean, seriously. People would go where the votes are- specifically, the states with the highest populations, and that's it. What would be the point of going to say, Colorado or Minnesota? No point at all."


Actually, they would have to visit everystate. If a Democrat can get up to 45% of the vote in a state, it is worth going to visit. Those votes count toward the total. If a state can only deliever up to 45% of the vote to a candidate, there is not reason from them to visit because if they 45% of 10% of the vote it doesn't help them. If one candidate doesn't go to the state, the other one is even more unlikely to go as well.

"The way the electoral college is great is because it forces candidates to spread their message, and tour with it. Granted, there are states that will always vote Republican or Democrat- states like Alabama and Massachusetts- but the college puts far more importance into states themselves, as opposed to just large cities."

Actually the opposite is true. The Presidential candidates don't go to all the states. They usually only visit states when they are likely to win and get some votes. In 2000, the presidential candidates were visiting Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Arkanasas, Tennesse, Missouri, Iowa,Illionis, and Pennslyvania. They didn't go to Wyoming, Texas, New York, California, Arizona, and New Jersey. An open playing field rules nobody out of the election.

"And frankly, this would reduce voter turnout to the point of extinction. Why bother voting if you're in North Dakota? Or Wyoming? Or anywhere?"

No, exactly the opposite. Why should a Democrat vote in North Dakota when the vote is 66% Republican. Their vote does not count. It helps their candidate out in no way. The 33% of that voted for the Democrat would count if it was totaled in the general popular vote.

"Also, think recounts. If we have an election that is within a thousand votes.....well, you can just imagine the mess yourself. If you thought Florida was bad, just imagine it in ALL fifty states. At least with the college, the problem is condensed."

There would not be a recount ever if we had a popular vote election. Even if the election was with in a 1/10 of one percent that would be 100,000 votes. No need for a recount. It is clear who won. It is when it answer resides one county in the entire country that the numbers are so small it is hard to tell who won. 1% difference in a county of 1,000 votes is harder to figure then a 1% difference in the national election where 1% is a greater number of votes. The electoral college is more likely to lead to a recall. If one state can determine who the winner is, regardless of if one candidate has a 400,000 vote lead, the loser can challenge the popular vote in one county, which changes the vote in the state, giving the loser a chance to win.


States should not vote, People should vote.


:kick:
J4Clark

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. "Actually, they would have to visit everystate."

"Actually, they would have to visit everystate."

There is just no way a sparsely populated state like Montana, Wyoming, or North Dakota would get any attention in a Presidential election without the electoral college. Sure, maybe candidates would visit more large cities in states that they couldn't carry as a whole but rural states (and rural issues) would be ignored.

[VoteClark]

31. LOL, they don't get any attention now.

I am calling Montana for Bush Now, I know it is a little earily in the race, but I am safe on this one. I am also going to call Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota for Bush. Want to bet I am wrong. LOL

Now, why would anyone go visit a sate that is surely in the hands of the Republicans?


:kick:
J4Clark

[SyracuseDemocrat]

14. I think we should

The people as a whole should elect the president.

[nedlogg]

15. Absolutely!

The Electoral College was nothing more than an attempt by the elite to keep the presidential election out of the hands of the common man.

[mot78]

22. Actually...

It was just one of many compromises our Founding Fathers made in the Constitution. It was viewd as an electoral safety-net, because many people thought voters would make bad decisions, and because we were the first modern Democracy. It was also created, because at the time, our Founding Fathers created a country that they viewed more as a EU-style confederation, not a powerful nation-state. But today our country is differant, because people are better educated (yet most Americans think we choose by popular vote) and because the public perceives this country as a nation-state, not an American EU.

[mndemocrat_29]

20. The Electoral College should stay

The major problem with having a popular vote would be if it was close, like in 2000. With a margin that small, they could have recall after recall afer recall, with the vote margin always changing.

Additionally, little states would be ignored. Republicans would spend all of their time in North Carolina and Texas, while Democrats would jump from New York to California. With the electoral college, big states can't be ignored because without those electors, the candidate can't win, but they also have to focus on small states, like Iowa and New Hampshire, because those swing states are also necessary.

If one wanted to change the system, the best thing to do would be to look at Maine's plan. Whoever wins the majority of one House district receives one elector and whoever wins the majority of the states votes receives the two statewide electors (representing the senators).

[mndemocrat_29]

21. This way, in a state like Texas

Where Democrats picked up 40 percent of the vote, but received no electors, then they would be rewarded for those votes that they did receive. Using the current maps, the vote for Gore-Bush would've been 11-23.

[VoteClark]

23. The electoral system doesn't count Democratic Votes in Republican states

s

All the millions of people that vote Democratic for President in Texas don't count.

Let me put it to you this way.

1/3 of the Democratic votes don't help the Democratic Candidate. Is that fair to the 17 million people that vote? Or is one person, one vote not matter.


:kick:
J4Clark

[diamondsoul]

32. BINGO!

Instant Runoff Voting. That's my answer to the Electorate. Takes a little longer to get the results but at least your vote would mean something!

[zorkpolitics]

28. Be careful what you wish for

If you go to District voting, it favors the Republicans:
If all Electors in 2000 were awarded to the winner of each Congressional District, plus 2 to the winner of each state. Bush would have won 288 EV (228 CD plus 30 states) instead of 271 in 2000 (see http://www.polidata.org/prcd/wpr1c19a.pdf)

There is a simpler alternative that would only require 11 states to turn the Electoral College into a mechanism to select the National popular vote winner:
Since the Constitution gives each state the right to select electors by any method, if the 11 largest states each passed a law saying their electoral votes would be awarded to the National Popular vote winner (regardless of who won that state), then the popular vote winner would be elected! Thus, no constitutional amendment would be needed to abolish the EC.

Of course it doesn't have to be the 11 biggest states, any combination of states which have electoral votes equal to, or greater than, 270 could pass state legislation that would effectively end the small state bias of the EC. If the Democratically controlled states of NY, CA, MI, IL, PA, and NJ took the lead and pushed for this simple democratic reform, maybe the biases of the EC would be history.

[arcos]

40. Recall or recount?

:shrug:

[Ediacara]

33. It should go

For a number of reasons:

1) Every state but one (Wyoming) is underrepresented. The electoral college is inherently unfair to states that have more than 450,000 people living in them. Montana has double that, yet has the same EC representation. Why is a Wyomingite's vote twice as valuable as my own? It only gets worse, the higher your state's population.... Even if congressional districts were re-drawn to include about 100,000 people it would STILL be unfair because of the 2 point senate boost given to small states.

2) It's an artefact of pre-civil war America. Like the 3/5ths rule in the House, this was used to artificially boost the power of slave states while reducing the actual number of people voting.

3) Presidential candidates don't go to small states now, so the "point" about them not visiting small states is moot. You can't visit a state any less than zero times can you?

[govegan]

36. The EC is a ridiculous piece of rubbish!

It was ridiculous when they put it in with all of the other rubbish that they allowed, e.g. slavery, only male Anglo landowners could vote, etc. It is still ridiculous today.

The mathematical absurdities allowed by such a system, with fifty states and nearly 300 million citizens, are evidence enough of the absurdity of the concept.

The conflict which arose in Florida would be nearly impossible with a popular election of the president. That type of close vote count would be at least 50 times less likely to occur at the national level. A close count in any particular state would have no bearing on the outcome of the popular total unless the national vote count was equally close. Besides, in the event of no decision, the current president should remain in power until such time as the issue could be fairly resolved. American "democracy" today is a sham. We are definitely not governed "of the people, by the people and for the people." A popular vote would also perhaps give a chance for American territories to have a vote for the president, e.g. Puerto Rico.


The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 - 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term "college" (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800s, the term "electoral college" came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

So do we need to emulate an aristocratic monarchy in a twenty-first century democracy?

So now we have the Emperor Chimp.

The ruling elite does not want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The behavior of both of the major parties these last couple of decades is fairly deplorable when compared to the ideals of democracy. Of course, the repukes are worse by an order of magnitude.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Maybe the political scientists like it because it gives them something to write and lecture about. Obviously, the common citizen has no use for it.

[election_2004]

37. What about this as a compromise....

Divide every state's electoral votes proportionately, based on what percentage each candidate receives in the state's overall popular vote total. This would make much more sense than the current "winner-take-all" system we operate under.

For example, in 2000, operating under the popular vote totals in Florida, since Florida had 25 electoral votes, Gore would have received 12 of them, Bush would have received 12 of them, and the remaining 1 electoral vote would have remained in dispute until the recounts were settled. In such a close race, neither one of them would have received ALL of Florida's 25 electoral votes.

Here in Wisconsin, Gore won the state by a narrow margin of 5,000-6,000 votes. Since our state had 11 electoral votes, Gore would have gotten 6 of them, and Bush would have gotten the other 5.

This would also allow third-party candidates to receive representation in the Electoral College. For example, if the Green candidate wins 10% of the popular vote in a state with 20 electoral votes, then he/she would receive 2 of that state's 20 electoral votes.

[VoteClark]

38. Kinda

Washington DC, Maine, and Oklahoma already do that to a degree. You would have to do that state by state. The problem is nobody wants to do that because the party in power gets to use it to their advantage. It would also be bad for large states like New York and California. It would be a serious disadvantage to the Democrats to do it that way. Most of the small states vote a super majority for Republicans, so they would get them all, then states that make up for that like California would be sliced up. We would lose big time even though we got the majority of the vote almost everytime.

:kick:
J4Clark

[election_2004]

46. still...

How does the "winner-take-all" system benefit the country as a whole?

[deutsey]

41. The small "d" democrat in me impulsively says "Yes!"

Although I would want to hear sensible arguments against it (if there are any) before I made a final decision.

[phillybri]

42. YES...."One man, one vote."

Doesn't matter what state you're in...

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Even after what happened in 2000

Not one member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has introduced a bill to eliminate the Electoral College.

[dsc]

45. That is good since it would take an amendment

I am glad no one in Congress didn't know that.

[VoteClark]

48. Of course not

They want the power to decide, not the people

[valphoosier]

44. No!

The Electoral College is unique in that it forces presidential candidates to focus on specific interests and specific minorities. We don't need more national campaigns, we need more local campaigns! The electoral college, while it ignores some states including mine, makes candidates more accountable to voters.
Furthermore, just imagine the logistics of a nationwide recount...

[VoteClark]

49. You are more likely to have a tie in the electoral college then in a

popular vote.

Think about that. What are the odds of an election being with in 1%? Or how about 1/10 of one percent? It has never happened. If it came to 1/10 of a percent the winner would still have more than a 100,000 vote lead. Or about 1/5 the state of Wyoming.

If it became less then 1/10 of a percent than why not throw the election to the House and Senate like we would if neither candidate won more than 1/2 the electoral votes, which more likely to occur?

:kick:
J4Clark

[The Sushi Bandit]

47. I graduated from Electoral College!

Class of 74 - from the Bill Gates school of management