Should The Electoral College Be Abolished?

I think the reason the EC has survived as long as it has, despite numerous attempts to amend it, is because it could reduce the GOPs ability to elect a Republican President. And since Republicans control a large number of small population states, it would be difficult to get it passed by the senate and then ratified by the requisite number of states.

Lets be honest, if Califormia, New York, Florida and Illinois were "red" states, would your opinion change?

Lets be honest, if Califormia, New York, Florida and Illinois were "red" states, would your opinion change?

No.

I believe that the main problem isn't at all the fact that the EC exists, nor the small state compensation in the number of electors. The real problem seems to be that in some states a candidate who got 51 % of the vote gets 100% of the electors. If in every state all candidates got electors in proportion to received votes, the outcome would very closely mirror the voters' desires.

The real problem seems to be that in some states a candidate who got 51 % of the vote gets 100% of the electors. If in every state all candidates got electors in proportion to received votes, the outcome would very closely mirror the voters' desires.

You're right. But that would create problems for an entity I'm not going to mention by name. That entity would find it difficult to win general elections if the electoral vote were split equitably.

I'm soon going to ban every mention of any 'entity' in this thread...:p

Let's keep it on a theoretical level. The pros and cons of the current way to elect Presidents of the US.

Can we revisit a previous election and apply the proportional theory to see what would have happened?

I believe that the main problem isn't at all the fact that the EC exists, nor the small state compensation in the number of electors. The real problem seems to be that in some states a candidate who got 51 % of the vote gets 100% of the electors. If in every state all candidates got electors in proportion to received votes, the outcome would very closely mirror the voters' desires.

I am a big proponent of this idea. It would be a better representation of the popular vote and would increase interest from minority party membership in "dyed in the wool" red and blue states. There is a general apathy among many voters in Maryland and Delaware because those states will go Democrat in every election, no matter how much get out the vote the Republicans attempt. If the division were based on popular vote % then there would be a lot less apathy. I am sure the same would be true in some red states as well.

Can we revisit a previous election and apply the proportional theory to see what would have happened?

I reserve the right to be overruled but I think this should be OK. Assuming, of course, that the analysis fits within our pre-existing rules :) (which I shouldn't have to outline :lol:) So, using the proportional theory, would Dewey have defeated Truman?

So, using the proportional theory, would Dewey have defeated Truman?

That wasn't the election I had in mind. :lol:

I'll have a look at it, though.

The GOP is proposing a proportional split in California (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/10/26/genarlow_1026.html). California is, of course, a solidly blue state and proportioning its electoral votes would benefit the GOP hugely. Trouble is, they aren't much interested in pursuing proportional votes in any red states. California, with a Republican governor in office, is seen as more likely than, say, New York.

What is your opinion? Do you believe the United States should abolish the Electoral College and go to a direct popular vote when choosing our President?

I really despise the electoral college. It seems to me that if by popular vote someone wins an election, they are the deserving candidate. When someone wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote it only causes people to resent that person. It seems silly to have it any more.

By only counting an electoral vote as opposed to popular, it makes it seem as though your vote doesn't make a difference. It is pretty silly. I think it would be much easier and more encouraging to get rid of the electoral college.

I really despise the electoral college. It seems to me that if by popular vote someone wins an election, they are the deserving candidate. When someone wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote it only causes people to resent that person. It seems silly to have it any more.

By only counting an electoral vote as opposed to popular, it makes it seem as though your vote doesn't make a difference. It is pretty silly. I think it would be much easier and more encouraging to get rid of the electoral college.

I understand your thoughts on this, but I think the abolition of the Electoral College would serve to disenfranchise the vote of way too many citizens. If campaigns were left to a strict popular vote, then candidates would focus all of their resources and time on securing the votes of the populated urban centers. Elections would be about the more densely populated states that line the coastal regions while shutting out the voice of states that are in the middle of the country, the so-called fly-over regions.

Also, the disparity would take a big state/small state dynamic where states like California, New York, Florida and Texas would dominate regional policy based on the number of votes they bring to the table. The founders were pretty canny in setting up the Electoral College and we spend election nights focusing on races on a state by state basis. It's a good system within our status as a constitutional republic.

I understand your thoughts on this, but I think the abolition of the Electoral College would serve to disenfranchise the vote of way too many citizens. If campaigns were left to a strict popular vote, then candidates would focus all of their resources and time on securing the votes of the populated urban centers. Elections would be about the more densely populated states that line the coastal regions while shutting out the voice of states that are in the middle of the country, the so-called fly-over regions.

I definitely get what you are saying, but I feel like when there is a difference between popular vote and electoral vote that it is wrong. It bugs me for some strange reason. I guess I just feel like its not fair to the candidates if one wins popular vote and the oher wins electoral, you know?

No doubt that it's not a perfect system, but it works for what we have. It has already been tweaked where most states have their electors vote the way the popular vote went, or segregates their electoral votes by the ratio defined by the popular vote.

For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes, and the election in that state went 60% to 40% for candidate X, then candidate X would get 6 of the state's ten electors. This still leaves the possiblity for what you mentioned to occur, but it lessens the probability.

The real problem is that the constitution specifically states that the electoral process within a state is an issue reserved specifically for the state's legislature. How electoral votes are divided up remains the purview of each state house individually and a huge constitutional challenge would ensue if the federal government tried to change it without a constitutional amendment, and that is a very hard hurdle to cross.

I was under the impression that only Nebraska and Maine were proportional voting states for the general election? However, for primaries, I think that most states have some form of proportional voting in terms of how they get delegates to the national convention; and there is also the "superdelegates" or whatever they're called that can pick whomever they choose.

Edit: I think i misread your post slightly Gator. You never said all of the states are proportional vote, if I'm rereading it correctly now :). I think only the two are, with the rest being "winner take all" in the general election.

I was under the impression that only Nebraska and Maine were proportional voting states for the general election? However, for primaries, I think that most states have some form of proportional voting in terms of how they get delegates to the national convention; and there is also the "superdelegates" or whatever they're called that can pick whomever they choose.

Edit: I think i misread your post slightly Gator. You never said all of the states are proportional vote, if I'm rereading it correctly now :). I think only the two are, with the rest being "winner take all" in the general election.

You're right, Chris. Republicans are trying to impose a proportional split in California only. Getting a proportional split of California's electoral votes would benefit them immensely. They are not, however, interested in splitting the electoral votes in any red states.

Should The Electoral College Be Abolished?

NO.

In the past election they talked about red states, blue states and purple states. For the non-purple states the presidential election wasn't close - in those cases it wouldn't matter if people stuffed the ballot box for Bush. In the last election it may have come down to one state where there was hanky-panky (Ohio). I understand that in some red rural districts there, 95%+ people supposedly voted. Now if it was some weirdo town where there's only 50 people, then maybe that was true. But I think they filled out ballots ahead of time, and submitted those for people who didn't show up.

If we went to an all-popular vote, then EVERY polling place would have to be monitored. Currently just the "battleground" states need to be under the spotlight. Otherwise states like Montana or Idaho might pretend 90% voted while elsewhere it's 45-55%.

I have another reason:
Suppose some scandal comes out between election day and the day the electors vote. Theoretically they might decide not to vote for the crook (not likely though, since they're partisan fanatics).

Should The Electoral College Be Abolished?

NO.

In the past election they talked about red states, blue states and purple states. For the non-purple states the presidential election wasn't close - in those cases it wouldn't matter if people stuffed the ballot box for Bush. In the last election it may have come down to one state where there was hanky-panky (Ohio). I understand that in some red rural districts there, 95%+ people supposedly voted. Now if it was some weirdo town where there's only 50 people, then maybe that was true. But I think they filled out ballots ahead of time, and submitted those for people who didn't show up.

If we went to an all-popular vote, then EVERY polling place would have to be monitored. Currently just the "battleground" states need to be under the spotlight. Otherwise states like Montana or Idaho might pretend 90% voted while elsewhere it's 45-55%.

I have another reason:
Suppose some scandal comes out between election day and the day the electors vote. Theoretically they might decide not to vote for the crook (not likely though, since they're partisan fanatics).

So instead of putting in the extra effort to make sure these things are being conducted correctly, we should stick with not using the popular vote because it is more efficient? If we live in a Democracy every vote should count.

[B]In the last election it may have come down to one state where there was hanky-panky (Ohio). I understand that in some red rural districts there, 95%+ people supposedly voted. Now if it was some weirdo town where there's only 50 people, then maybe that was true. But I think they filled out ballots ahead of time, and submitted those for people who didn't show up.

As an Ohioan myself, I would have loved to see that election taken out of the hands of the state government and moved to a neutral federal elections agency. I would suggest that a lot of Floridians felt the same way in '00.

If we went to an all-popular vote, then EVERY polling place would have to be monitored. Currently just the "battleground" states need to be under the spotlight. Otherwise states like Montana or Idaho might pretend 90% voted while elsewhere it's 45-55%.

As they should be now. Ohio and Florida should never have been allowed to happen given the technology available to us.

I have another reason:
Suppose some scandal comes out between election day and the day the electors vote. Theoretically they might decide not to vote for the crook (not likely though, since they're partisan fanatics).

Partisanship might prevail. There were a lot of signals four years ago that all was not as it seemed. People tried to point them out but not enough people listened.

....Do you believe the United States should abolish the Electoral College and go to a direct popular vote when choosing our President?


Yes.

Nope, not at all. It's a good system that works where in over 220 years of Presidential elections, there's only been two cases where the popular vote winner did not become President (Grover Cleveland and George W. Bush). We like to fixate on the outcomes that we don't like, but the real reason for the Electoral College is to introduce participatory government to all areas and not make becoming President a function of whether the nominee was only good with 20% of the total electorate living in the coastal cities.

Nope, not at all. It's a good system that works where in over 220 years of Presidential elections, there's only been two cases where the popular vote winner did not become President (Grover Cleveland and George W. Bush). We like to fixate on the outcomes that we don't like, but the real reason for the Electoral College is to introduce participatory government to all areas and not make becoming President a function of whether the nominee was only good with 20% of the total electorate living in the coastal cities.

The real thrust behind the EC was to give the agricultural south a leg up on the industrial north... a part of a bag of tricks that included the three-fifths compromise.

Where did you get that 20% figure? Gore and Kerry carried the coastal cities in 2000 and 2004 and the number of votes they got far exceeded 20% of the electorate.

I honestly believe the EC is discriminatory and should be put out to pasture.

Yes. Every person is equal, and every vote should count for the same, IMO. At the very least, they should institute a system of proportional delegates, so that the views of the people are proportionally represented in the Electoral Count.

Ideally, I would like to see the President elected purely on the popular vote, and therefore chosen by the people-- I still can't reconcile with the fact that the people chose Gore, and yet Bush became President, and I was only nine when that happened!

I definitely feel the Electorate should be abolished. It should have been done years ago. The Govt. was supposedly established "Of....For....and By The People" If a hand full of people can simply override the majority because they feel like it - then whats the point?

Nope, not at all. It's a good system that works where in over 220 years of Presidential elections, there's only been two cases where the popular vote winner did not become President (Grover Cleveland and George W. Bush).Should the fact that there were two cases, actually if there was only one case, where the candidate who most people voted for did not get the position not show that it is not a good system? If people's votes don't count they might as well be disenfranchised and a state where people are disenfranchised based on geography is sliding away from democracy. We like to fixate on the outcomes that we don't like, but the real reason for the Electoral College is to introduce participatory government to all areas and not make becoming President a function of whether the nominee was only good with 20% of the total electorate living in the coastal cities.

People participate in government because when they feel they are making a difference. So if the Electoral College is making people apathetic and disinterested then it is failing at bringing participatory democracy to all areas.

People participate in government because when they feel they are making a difference. So if the Electoral College is making people apathetic and disinterested then it is failing at bringing participatory democracy to all areas.

Precisely. It might have had some value in the horse-and-buggy days, but it has long since outlived its usefulness in the modern world.

I'd say good riddance.

I don't believe in getting rid of the EC but I do believe it needs to be changed.

This might have been mentioned in this thread (I've only read to page 5). I think that it should be changed so the EC votes as a representation of the state. I'll use an example to describe what I mean. Let's say the state has 4 EC votes. Candidate A gets 75% of the popular vote and Candidate B gets 25%. 3 EC voters vote A, 1 votes B. For states that have only 2 EC votes it wouldn't change anything, but for others it would. Your vote would matter much more this way.

Leah, I like the idea of that kind of system as well-- at least the votes would be represented proportionally. I simply cannot reconcile with a candidate getting (for example) all 20 of a state's electoral votes when he/she only won by 51%...that simply isn't democratic, IMO. Constitutional, but not democratic.

Although, for that type of system to work, I think they would need to transfer to a delegate system like the primary system the Democrats use, with many more delegates, or "votes" required to win. There is no fair way to spilt 3 electoral votes 52/48, after all. ;)

Let the people say "Amen!"

It's time for the Electoral College to be put out to pasture.

Let the people say "Amen!"

It's time for the Electoral College to be put out to pasture.

Hey, I do believe we just found some common ground! Now the question is why do we still have it?

Hey, I do believe we just found some common ground! Now the question is why do we still have it?

:lol: I dunno, Grams!

Could it be because people generally don't find it important to change what brought themselves to power?

That's a lot of it, Alastor. There have been numerous attempts to get rid of the darned thing. The last one occurred during Richard Nixon's presidency. It had broad support - except in the South. Predictably, southerners in the U.S. Senate killed it.

It seems a bit anachronistic given modern vote collection possibilities, but isn't delegate allocation supposed to give rural areas or underpopulated areas perhaps a bit more weight than urbanized / populous states?

I assume NY & California would dominate if the Electoral College was eliminated.

Not in a one person-one vote approach. In the end, the same number of votes would be cast and counted. Think a minute: in 2004 Bush would still have won based on the popular vote. He had a broad swath the the midwest and the south and those votes were enough to carry him over the top. So the smaller, less populous states lost nothing. Individually, they can't make an election. Together they can - and did, with a bit of help from some sleazy types in Cleveland (http://rangevoting.org/OhioConvictns.html).

To get rid of the Electoral Colege would require altering the Constitution. Which requires a supermajority. Not likely to happen.

I'm thinking if we went to the popular vote it might discourage people from voting because they'll see their vote as not making a difference. I know right now people think their vote doesn't count because their state is always one color, but if that's true then the same party would win the election every four years.

A straight popular vote could never work in a place as large and diverse as the US as tthe most densely populated areas would unfairly dominate.

Something like the EC is needed but something fairer such as an EC where the votes for each states were proportionately distributed (eg in a state with 10 EC votes a candidate with 60% gets six votes and the other 4).

A straight popular vote could never work in a place as large and diverse as the US as tthe most densely populated areas would unfairly dominate.

Something like the EC is needed but something fairer such as an EC where the votes for each states were proportionately distributed (eg in a state with 10 EC votes a candidate with 60% gets six votes and the other 4).

Well whether the influence of the denser population areas is 'unfair' or not usually is a matter of judgment. There is something to be said for an equal weight for each vote, which of course would mean more attention being paid by candidates to the population centers. On the other hand, many large societies over the millenia have fallen apart by doting exclusively on the whims of their large cities, especially the capital cities, without allowing sufficient voice to their 'flyover country' to keep loyalty and a sense of common purpose.

You are absolutely right though about the need to have state-by-state process. Without that, there would be a need to actually count every single vote. That is not to say that the votes should not be counted when they could make a difference - of course they should (although that should be according to standards and without altering the ballots, both of which were reported to be rampant by the Democrat recount officials in the 2000 Florida recounts). But in most jurisdictions, the counting is stopped once a winner is unavoidable, for instance, Georgia has not been even close in the past several elections. With electronic balloting/recordation, all the votes cast in that manner are generally counted, but if the number of absentee or other ballots is not sufficient to change the results, they are not even opened, or they are only counted in the races for which they might make a difference. I have been trying to get the figures for a long time on how many ballots went uncounted in the 2000 election to see if there were enough to have given Bush the popular vote as well as having won in the electoral college. Often paper and absentee ballots are subject to challenges for all manner of reasons - the Democrats have formed legal teams each election for several cycles to challenge absentee ballots cast by limitary personnel on every technicality they can find (this too was widely reported even before the past two presidential elections). If we did a straight national popular vote count, then every vote really would have to be opened and there would be thousands or millions of vote challenges, with teams scrutinizing every imperfection in the ballot or process. This would be an enormous mess. Going state-by-state eliminates most of this.

Going state-by-state also leaves the door open to vote tampering such as we saw in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. The role of the states in presidential elections has a sorry, sorry history.

I used to think it should be abolished, but now I'm not so sure. Going to a straight popular vote is no longer a logistical problem. We've got the technology to get a quick, semi-accurate result. The problem for me is that America's population isn't spread evenly across the United States. For example 12,831,970 people live in Illinois. 2,869,121 people live in Chicago and that doesn't include its suburbs. On the opposite side of the state Alexander county boarders Missouri and Ketucky, and has a population of 8,635. That is .3% of Chicago's population. In a popular vote, the voice of Chicago booms over and can drown out the voice of Alexander County. And let's face it, our geography is part of our culture and diversity. While they are all going to have the same basic desires such as a stable economy, the people of Alexander County may have a different game plan than the people of Chicago.
On a larger scale California is home to 36,457,549 people. Rhode Island has 1,067,610 people. About 12% of Americans live in California, and about .3% live in Rhode Island. I don't think I need to explain to anyone the ways in which the two states are different. Yes they're Americans first, but I believe where you're from is who you are. I think until someone has a better idea, we keep the electoral college to insure that each state has the same voice.

Numbers from US Census. (http://http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html)
The math I did myself.

Chicago also outweighs Alexander County under the Electoral College's winner take all operation. I don't anything about Alexander, but if the county is conservative in nature, it will find loads of support in a national-style election from conservative voters in other states. In fact, Alexander would have more of a say than it does under the current system where Chicago will carry the entire state.

The electoral college does make it a state-by-state contest, which permits some re-weighting to rural areas.

I live in California. I assume we would benefit based on popular vote only.

I used to think it should be abolished, but now I'm not so sure. Going to a straight popular vote is no longer a logistical problem. We've got the technology to get a quick, semi-accurate result. The problem for me is that America's population isn't spread evenly across the United States. For example 12,831,970 people live in Illinois. 2,869,121 people live in Chicago and that doesn't include its suburbs. On the opposite side of the state Alexander county boarders Missouri and Ketucky, and has a population of 8,635. That is .3% of Chicago's population. In a popular vote, the voice of Chicago booms over and can drown out the voice of Alexander County. And let's face it, our geography is part of our culture and diversity. While they are all going to have the same basic desires such as a stable economy, the people of Alexander County may have a different game plan than the people of Chicago.
On a larger scale California is home to 36,457,549 people. Rhode Island has 1,067,610 people. About 12% of Americans live in California, and about .3% live in Rhode Island. I don't think I need to explain to anyone the ways in which the two states are different. Yes they're Americans first, but I believe where you're from is who you are. I think until someone has a better idea, we keep the electoral college to insure that each state has the same voice.

Numbers from US Census. (http://http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html)
The math I did myself.
You need to brush up on your knowledge of the electoral college. Electors are apportioned by state with there being one for every U.S. Rep and U.S. Senator (and D.C. gets the same as the lowest state number: 3). Because the Representatives are apportioned by population, the electors are mostly proportional to population, but because every state has 2 Senators and at least one Rep, there is a weighting in favor of the small-population states. So California's voice in the selection is much greater than RI's, but each individual's vote in RI carries a greater impact than an individual's vote in California does.

Bah! It needs to go... 2000 proved that 4,000 lives ago.

... and (can it be possible?) maybe it will go!

Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. The second part of Nelson's initiative would establish rotating, interregional primaries between March and June during a presidential election year as an alternative to the current primary and caucus system. The third portion would permit early presidential voting nationwide, require voting machines to produce a verifiable paper record, and encourage voting by mail, among other things.

"It’s time for Congress to really give Americans the power of one-person, one-vote, instead of the political machinery selecting candidates and electing our president."

Needless to say, I'm all for this one.

Nelson bill would abolish Electoral College (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nelson-bill-would-abolish-electoral-college-2008-06-06.html)

... and (can it be possible?) maybe it will go!

Good goddess no...

The system needs to switch over to a proportional system.

Change a bunch of state laws to allow a Maine/Nebraska type system. (i.e proportional system) or get a Constitutional Amendment passed.

Neither of which is likely.

I'll never understand how would switching to a pure popular vote make it any better. Instead of your vote being 1/10 million, your vote would be 1/150 million, and the end result would be pure tyranny of the majority. At least now, the "majorities" are divided by state, giving you SOME voice. in pure popular vote, you'd have LESS voice than you do now.

If you live anywhere that's not LA, NY or perhaps Dallas/Fort Worth and maybe a couple of other select regional areas, your vote will essentially be meaningless. So not only would you be outvoted by those areas but candidates would be able to pander specifically to the needs of those few locations and completely ignore the concerns of every other region of the country.
:relax:

I just don't see that, Midnight.

Take a state like New York, which always goes blue. There are millions of conservative votes that essentially don't matter. In a national election, on the other hand, those New York conservatives would add to conservative votes in states like Utah, Idaho, Kansas, and Alabama. In the end a national vote helps both groups - conservatives and liberals.

Proportional representation in the college would better serve the voters' interest.

To use your example not all conservatives are cut from the same cloth. A Wall St master of the world with his interests in small government and free trade has little in common with an Kansas wheat farmer who wants protection and subsidy.

Just as a polished internationalist sociology professor and a unionised PA steelworker worrying about his job being shipped offshore have nothing in common but a tendency to vote Dem.

Proportional representation in the college would better serve the voters' interest.

This is certainly my Plan B, and it would be much better than what we have now.

To use your example not all conservatives are cut from the same cloth. A Wall St master of the world with his interests in small government and free trade has little in common with an Kansas wheat farmer who wants protection and subsidy.

Why should that matter, though? The Kansas wheat farmer is going to vote with the Wall Street guy regardless of the fact that doing so will hurt him. We've seen that in election after election. The wheat farmers of America do not vote their own economic interests.

Let's stop thinking states never change colors. Have we only had presidents from one political party? Clinton and Bush are not of the same party.

In the forty years since 1968, we have had just twelve years of Democratic presidents. One party has indeed long ruled since that momentous year.

Let's stop thinking states never change colors. Have we only had presidents from one political party? Clinton and Bush are not of the same party.
Perhaps to expand what you said, we should stop thinking that states have colors.

Perhaps to expand what you said, we should stop thinking that states have colors.

That goes well with skin color, creed, religion and so many other things that divide us in America. I like the Democratic vision of an inclusive America so much better than the Republican version.

I think the Electoral College is ridiculous. America has the ideal system of government for election of the head of state by popular vote - it would take very little rearrangement of how elections are managed. And it would encourage politicians from both parties to pay attention to all of the states during the campaigns, not just the 'swing states'. Furthermore, it's just more fair to the voters: as things stand, if you are a Republican on the west coast, or a Democrat in Texas or in the South, you are effectively disenfranchised. The 30-40% of the population who vote for the minority party in states that are through to be "solidly" one colour don't have the chance to know their vote makes a difference.

I'd love to have elections by popular vote in Canada, but it just doesn't work with a Parliamentary system. Deliberately rejecting the option somewhere where it's not difficult to implement bewilders me.

I think the Electoral College is ridiculous. America has the ideal system of government for election of the head of state by popular vote - it would take very little rearrangement of how elections are managed. And it would encourage politicians from both parties to pay attention to all of the states during the campaigns, not just the 'swing states'. Furthermore, it's just more fair to the voters: as things stand, if you are a Republican on the west coast, or a Democrat in Texas or in the South, you are effectively disenfranchised. The 30-40% of the population who vote for the minority party in states that are through to be "solidly" one colour don't have the chance to know their vote makes a difference.I agree. Larger states get more say than the smaller ones? I don't agree. :no: The fact that a candidate can receive the popular vote yet not win the election is remarkable, and reflects on how bad the electoral college is. I really think it should be abolished to avoid another disaster like in 2000.