Can someone explain to me how the electoral college is a good idea?

johncmcleod · November 16, 2003, 03:24

Many Americans are for the electoral college, and I have no idea why. Everytime I ask people, they give me a the same vague answer: "It protects us smaller states and rural folk." This is completely false. The electoral college doesn't protect these states any more than the actual democratic system. Let's compare Iowa to California. Say most of Iowa wants one candidate, most of California wants another president. With the electoral college, Iowa gets its few votes and California gets its many. The majority still dominates. The city people get more votes than the rural people. In fact, rural people get even more screwed under the electoral college. Ideally, the elector college is supposed to give the rural people a bigger voice, and it is supposed to prevent presidents that help the city people and hurt the rural people get voted into office, just because there are more city people. This is its only argument. Say there is a situation like this, where a candidate is good for the city people and bad for the rural people. Under the electoral college system, if there are more city people in a state then they win and the rural people lose. Take California for example. The city people outnumber the rural people. They vote for the ruler good for the cities, and California is won. The rural peoples' votes don't even count! How does this help rural people?

Besides the only argument for the electoral college being faulty, there are plenty of reasons the whole concept is just plain stupid. The whole thing is completely undemocratic. A president that wasn't wanted by the majority of the population got voted in! This completely contradicts the principles of democracy.

The worst part of the electoral college is that it makes people's votes not count. In a real democratic system, the people's votes count. Not in the electoral college. When I am old enough to vote, I will not vote for a conservative leader. However, whoever I vote for does not matter. Idaho is a conservative state, if I vote for someone like Howard Dean it won't matter, all of Idaho's votes are going to go to the conservative candidate. This is the very reason voter turnout is so low. If you are the minority, your votes don't even count. If I voted for Dean next election and there was no electoral college, my vote could count and have an effect on who will become president. But because of the electoral college, my vote is worthless. It means nothing. My voice is not heard.

This whole system creates a situation that is the same as someone's vote counting as more than one vote. Pretend 51% of the population of a state votes for one president. This is the equivalent of if in the real democratic system every person voting for that president having their vote count as 1.9 votes, and everyone voting against him having their vote count as 0 votes. According to the constitution, "All men are created equal." How does this policy reflect that to the least bit?

Dis · November 16, 2003, 03:42

It's only good for republicans.

The intended purpose is to even things out between farmers and folks in the big cities.

Because without it, farmers and people in rural areas votes would be completely useless.

So I'm told.

but after this Bush disaster. I would be happy if we never got another republican president again.

The electoral college is the only way repulicans can win.

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 04:09

Quote:

rural people get even more screwed under the electoral college.

That's not really true. The rural people (or states rather) are more important under the EC. There is a set number of points and those rural states can deliever the win.

Sure, the rural people in the big states get screwed, but the people in rural states have a greater voice than they normally would.

Quote:

The whole thing is completely undemocratic.

You do realize that the country was founded NOT to be a democracy, don't you? The whole idea of representatives is not really democratic, especially since they can vote for things their voters do not want.

Quote:

The worst part of the electoral college is that it makes people's votes not count. In a real democratic system, the people's votes count. Not in the electoral college. When I am old enough to vote, I will not vote for a conservative leader. However, whoever I vote for does not matter. Idaho is a conservative state, if I vote for someone like Howard Dean it won't matter, all of Idaho's votes are going to go to the conservative candidate. This is the very reason voter turnout is so low. If you are the minority, your votes don't even count.

This is an utterly silly argument. Are you saying that if there was a popular vote that voting for a Libertarian candidate would suddenly now 'count'?

All the EC does is add up smaller popular votes. There is still a popular vote, just in every state. Your vote counts as much in an EC system as it does in a popular vote system.

Quote:

Pretend 51% of the population of a state votes for one president. This is the equivalent of if in the real democratic system every person voting for that president having their vote count as 1.9 votes, and everyone voting against him having their vote count as 0 votes.

Pretend in a popular vote (for say, a Senator) 51% votes for some guy. That guy becomes Senator. That means every person who voted for that Senator has their vote county as 1.9 votes and everyone voting against him has their vote count as 0.

Quote:

According to the constitution, "All men are created equal."

Where?

All of your arguments can apply just as well against the popular vote system. New arguments are needed.

Rufus T. Firefly · November 16, 2003, 04:10

The whole point of the electoral college was to give smaller states more leverage in presidential elections; it was one of the endless compromises between the big and small states that allowed the Constitution to get ratified at all. Even at the beginning, it didn't work; the big state everyone was trying to rein in was Virginia, and Virginia still produced 6 of our first 10 presidents.

Now, it's just a horrid, horrid anachronism, with the additional disadvantage that it finally does what it's supposed to do: give excess power to the underpopulated states (now in the West rather than New England). And why should they have it? Does anyone actually still think that the US is likely to be torn apart by big-vs.-small-state conflict?

Even if you wanted to keep the college in some form, it could easily be reformed to be more democratic: simply make the number of electors equal to the number of Representatives a state has in the House, rather than the current Respresentatives + Senators. Alternatively, you could dump the winner-take-all strategy of electors voting with their states, and instead oblige electors to represent specific congressional districts and vote the way the district did; you could then have two at-large representatives who vote the way the state did.

Either of those set-ups would be significantly more democratic than what we have now (and, not surprisingly, either of them would have given us Gore instead of Bush as a president, even after Bush's theft of Florida).

Ming · November 16, 2003, 04:12

The system made sense back then and was a good comprimise to keep everybody happy and signed up.

It's the system... that's what candidates have to deal with. So they should deal with it and eveybody should stop their whining about it.

Rufus T. Firefly · November 16, 2003, 04:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
The system made sense back then and was a good comprimise to keep everybody happy and signed up.

The same thing could be said for keeping slavery, and then counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.

Quote:

It's the system... that's what candidates have to deal with. So they should deal with it and eveybody should stop their whining about it.

Gee, Ming, it's a shame you weren't there 200 years ago to give that speech to the folks who wanted the President and Vice President to come from the same party, instead of being the candidates who came in first and second in the election; what a stupid idea those whiners had, huh?

The whole point is that we can change the system when it seems to have stopped serving our purposes. You may recall, in your distant youth, being taught about these things called "Amendments." Ring any bells?

Nubclear · November 16, 2003, 04:46

"Well, this system is in place, so....might as well never change it."

That is soooo American

Mr. Harley · November 16, 2003, 04:47

Simple comment - legacy applications

. Always causing problems, but you can't get enough people to agree to get rid of them.

Ming · November 16, 2003, 04:48

Then change the system and stop whining about it.

Great logic... bring up slavery... what's next, are you going to start calling people Nazi's

The facts are simple.... It's the law... if you don't like it... change it or stop whining about it

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 05:00

The electoral system is a crock of ****. If you vote for the losing candidate for president in your state, your vote does not get counted. wtf is that all about. As a minority, you are disenfranchised. I say repeal the whole thing. Get rid of districts for the US house of reps and have nation wide proportional representation. Keep US senate as it is.

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 05:03

Quote:

As a minority, you are disenfranchised.

How is that different than say if you were in a minority in a popular election for President?

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 05:05

Because if you as a minority in one state get your vote counted together with the majority in another state, the two together can be larger than the other majority and minority (if that makes any sense haha)

Nubclear · November 16, 2003, 05:06

Because your vote is counted then

With the electoral system....You don't have to have the majority of America behind you to win.
That's a bit...well, twisted

A comment: I'm sure this discussion would be in reverse had Gore won this way.

"Imran: This system sucks.
John: Oh well, deal with it

Lawrence: Yep.
Imran: This system doesn't even count minority votes!
Ming: I agree

:spam"

Dis · November 16, 2003, 05:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The whole point of the electoral college was to give smaller states more leverage in presidential elections; it was one of the endless compromises between the big and small states that allowed the Constitution to get ratified at all. Even at the beginning, it didn't work; the big state everyone was trying to rein in was Virginia, and Virginia still produced 6 of our first 10 presidents.

Now, it's just a horrid, horrid anachronism, with the additional disadvantage that it finally does what it's supposed to do: give excess power to the underpopulated states (now in the West rather than New England). And why should they have it? Does anyone actually still think that the US is likely to be torn apart by big-vs.-small-state conflict?

Even if you wanted to keep the college in some form, it could easily be reformed to be more democratic: simply make the number of electors equal to the number of Representatives a state has in the House, rather than the current Respresentatives + Senators. Alternatively, you could dump the winner-take-all strategy of electors voting with their states, and instead oblige electors to represent specific congressional districts and vote the way the district did; you could then have two at-large representatives who vote the way the state did.

Either of those set-ups would be significantly more democratic than what we have now (and, not surprisingly, either of them would have given us Gore instead of Bush as a president, even after Bush's theft of Florida).

you are correct. The EC works very well now.

Without Bush winning my state (Nevada) he would not have won the election. And we were one of the final 4 states to finish counting. We only have 4 electoral votes (at least back then). Most presidents would just ignore my state if there were no electoral college.

But should my state be ignored? We are people too. Just because we don't have big cities such as New York, Chicago, LA, Houston, or Dallas doesn't mean we should be treated less than people in those cities.

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 05:11

Quote:

Because if you as a minority in one state get your vote counted together with the majority in another state, the two together can be larger than the other majority and minority (if that makes any sense haha)

In a popular vote for President, state voting doesn't matter. Being a 'minority' in one state is irrelavent. There is a much great minority all over the US. The EC is basically a state by state election.

Quote:

I'm sure this discussion would be in reverse had Gore won this way.

Why should it? People pro popular vote would have gone for it anyway and those, like me, who'd like to see a more compelling reason to go for it (the once a century EC-doesn't-agree-with-popular-vote doesn't wash) will still search for that reason.

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 05:14

OK heres an example to help clarify

Candidate X wins 5 votes in California
Candidate Y wins 3 votes in California

Candidate X gets 8 electoral votes

Candidate X wins 1 vote in Alabama
Candidate Y wins 3 votes in Alabama

Candidate Y gets 4 electoral votes

Total electoral votes: Y:4; X: 8
Total population votes: Y: 6; X: 5

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 05:16

Quote:

But should my state be ignored? We are people too. Just because we don't have big cities such as New York, Chicago, LA, Houston, or Dallas doesn't mean we should be treated less than people in those cities.

why should it be treated any differently? What makes people who live in low population states more special then those who dont? A non electoral system would make every person equal no matter where they live.

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 05:19

I understand your point, I just don't see 'the point'

.

Only twice has the candidate with fewer popular vote ever won the electoral vote. It is possibly, but very rare. And in cases where it does happen, you never know how much of the popular vote was due to fraud and fake ballots, etc. It's basically a statistical tie.

The fact is almost always the electoral votes match the popular vote.

And you example is flawed.. X gets 6 popular votes as well (5+1)

.

Dis · November 16, 2003, 05:21

no, because people in big cities would still be better than my state.

And I live in a very conservative state. We don't need all those big liberal cities telling us how to live.

Ming · November 16, 2003, 05:27

And the people in Chicago get an unfair advantage when the Dems rack up close to a million extra votes.

Vote early and often

The system may not be ideal or perfect, but none is.
It's the rules, so deal with it.

Rufus T. Firefly · November 16, 2003, 05:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only twice has the candidate with fewer popular vote ever won the electoral vote. It is possibly, but very rare. And in cases where it does happen, you never know how much of the popular vote was due to fraud and fake ballots, etc. It's basically a statistical tie.

Just to be pedantic: It's actually happened 4 times -- Shrub, B. Harrison, Hays, and JQ Adams. You can't technically count Kennedy here, but you probably should; he almost certainly won Illinois with stolen votes, and if he'd lost it he would have lost the popular vote and still won in the electoral college.

And surely you'd agree, then, that since the electoral college does generally match the popular vote, there should be no objection to making the College truly probortional, by eliminating the two "extra" electors each state gets.

Imran Siddiqui · November 16, 2003, 05:43

Quote:

And surely you'd agree, then, that since the electoral college does generally match the popular vote, there should be no objection to making the College truly probortional, by eliminating the two "extra" electors each state gets.

I don't care either way. You just have to sell it.

The only problem I see with changing the system too dramatically are the costs involved with switching for minimal gain (ie, to go to a popular vote for President the feds may have to get involved setting up elections, which traditionally has just been done by states). Not to mention the costs of having Congress debate this thing ad nauseum, passing a bill, and then having 3/4 of the states pass it.

Nubclear · November 16, 2003, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why should it?

Because Gore would have won, but not with the popular vote

DanielXY · November 16, 2003, 06:04

Why would anyone want the rural folks to get more impact on anything?

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 06:07

daaaamnnn jina, im so fukcing hammered.

Space05us · November 16, 2003, 06:14

The electoral college exists so the state of Alaska, with a population smaller than most cities, can have a say in things.

so STFU and learn to deal!

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 06:16

And why should a state with a population smaller than most cities have a say greater that its proportion?

Space05us · November 16, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

And why should a state with a population smaller than most cities have a say greater that its proportion?

we have oil

Dis · November 16, 2003, 06:28

yes. states such as Nevada and Alaska demand repesentation.

We can't help it if we're small and can't compete with large states.

Lawrence of Arabia · November 16, 2003, 06:29

hloy dshit. i eanna continue but ui dobnt think i vcns. ill cyas asll in thr flip side.