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

[Bosh]

I can't believe that nobody has brought up the ONLY good reason to keep the EC, the prospect of a national recount. Just imagine how hellacious it would be is there had to be a recount in every single state if there was a close election? For all its many many faults the EC could very well be worth keeping around for that reason alone.

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;

Maine already has a system like that, because us Mainers are smarter

Originally posted by Dissident

Most presidents would just ignore my state if there were no electoral college.

But should my state be ignored?

Why should your state receive any more attention then an equally-sized chunk of population that doesn't happen to be a state? Like I don't know, far-north California or upstate New York. The whole "nobody would pay attentin to us if it wasn't for the EC" is really silly. If there's not many of you why should you warrant a disproportionate amount of attention from political candidates? Nobody ever bothers to do much campaigning in Maine, but that's all as it should be since we're under 1% of the Nation's population and there's no good reason why we should recieve any more attention than that. Even worse is the fact that the EC creates a small number of "battle ground" states and ALL states besides those handful get largely ignored.

[Space05us]

the electoral college debate was setteled a long long time ago, its now part of the system. why cant people just learn to play the system instead of *****ing about it? If we were to do away with the electoral college no one would be any happier, nothing would be any easier, and politics would still be politics, so what is the point of this debate anyway?

[johncmcleod]

the electoral college debate was setteled a long long time ago, its now part of the system. why cant people just learn to play the system instead of *****ing about it? If we were to do away with the electoral college no one would be any happier, nothing would be any easier, and politics would still be politics, so what is the point of this debate anyway?

What do you think the slaves would say to that if you told them they couldn't be freed because 'it's the system'? There is a terrible law that needs to be changed, and we're working for change. You think we're supposed to sit around and let awful laws still be there? What kind of thinking is that! If we all thought like you, the government could take away our freedom of speech and then say: "It's part of the system, stop *****ing about it." You have to always question laws and always strive for perfection in our government. There is no reason to allow bad laws to exist just because we're too lazy to change them.

As for you small states: With the real system your votes count. You get no more say with the EC! In the EC, if you are a minority your votes don't even count! You are not getting anymore say. Because of the EC, my vote will not count. It will count toward the popular vote, but the popular vote does not control who becomes president.

That's not really true. The rural people (or states rather) are more important under the EC.

Say that super-rich white people are the minority and they don't get enough say. Does that mean we should give them more power and take away power from the common people, the majority?

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.

Yes it is. It is indirect democracy. We control who leads the country. And so you would rather have it so we don't have a democracy? We you rather have is be a fascist state under W. Bush?

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'?

Yes. Do you think that there is something wrong with people actually having a say in who they vote elected?

Your vote counts as much in an EC system as it does in a popular vote system.

No, it doesn't! When I vote for Dean, it won't count! Bush will win the state. Under the actual democratic system, my vote would be the minority in my state but it would count towards Howard Dean and would have an effect over whether or not he'd become president. Because of the EC, my vote will be the minority and won't count at all towards whether or not Dean will win.

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.

You are misunderstanding. That state is the only state that decides whether or not that guy will run for senator. Those people in the majority there vote didn't count any extra. Whether they were in the EC or the popular, they still won, that guy will be senator.

However, say someone's running for president. Under a real democratic system, whoever I vote for my vote counts as one. But it's different under the EC. Say 51% of the population of California votes for one president. All the EC votes go towards that president. This is the same as in the popular system having Californians wanting that president having their vote count as 1.9 votes, and the people who want the other president having their votes not count at all.

Take another state. A rural one. Iowa for example. Pretend 80% of the population votes for the other president. This is the same as under the popular vote system having all the people who voted for that president count as 1.25 votes, all the people voting against that president having their votes count as 0.

Now under the real democratic system, the president that Iowa wanted would have been voted in, because that is what the people wanted. However, because of the EC, the other president wins. Why? Because the Californians (the city dwellers, I may add) had their votes count as 1.9 votes, and the people from Iowa (who are rural) had their votes count as 1.25. And all the people that voted for a president that wasn't wanted in their state had their votes count as zero. Why should Californians have their vote count more? Are they better people? Why are they more important than people from Iowa? What if we made it so that rich white people had their votes count as 100 votes and minorities having their votes count as .01 votes. Would that be fair?

Quote:

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

Where?

I believe in the preamble, but whether it is written down or not, it is still considered to be true in this country. Almost everyone agrees with that statement, and it is considered one that should be valued. Abe Lincoln would not have said: "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, a new continent, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." In such an important address he would not include that statement if he didn't believe it was a principle that the country should be founded upon.

And do you NOT believe all men are created equal? How can you argue with that statement? WTF are you, some kind of white-trash racist?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you think the slaves would say to that if you told them they couldn't be freed because 'it's the system'? There is a terrible law that needs to be changed, and we're working for change.

The main difference is that there is very little difference between having an EC and popular vote for President. To even compare it to slavery is utterly foolish. It shows a lack of a sense of proportion.

IMO, it isn't worth the time and effort to change something so trivial.

And so you would rather have it so we don't have a democracy?

I'd rather have a Republic .

Yes.

You are bonkers. Right now if a person votes for the Libertarian candidate in a Senate election their vote DOESN'T COUNT. Why? Because the Libertarian candidate will be a small minority of the votes.

When I vote for Dean, it won't count! Bush will win the state. Under the actual democratic system, my vote would be the minority in my state but it would count towards Howard Dean and would have an effect over whether or not he'd become president. Because of the EC, my vote will be the minority and won't count at all towards whether or not Dean will win.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

If you say that voting for Dean in the EC doesn't count because Bush will win the state, then you MUST agree that voting for Dean in a popular vote where Bush wins the country (by say 52%) doesn't count.

If you are the minority in the state or in the country your vote simply will not 'count'.

Why should Californians have their vote count more? Are they better people? Why are they more important than people from Iowa?

Because their state has more people. The EC is simply state-by-state elections for the President and then a proportional weighing of each state's election. So the Iowans have their vote count less, they are participating in an election internal to Iowa, whos results will help decide the President of the US.

I believe in the preamble, but whether it is written down or not, it is still considered to be true in this country.

It is a principle to be followed, not a Constitutional mandate. This does not means that everyone in every state gets the exact same rights (some state may have additional rights).


For all the protestations the US is still made up of these powerful governmental entities known as the States. They like the system. It'll stay that way. Everyone is looking at Ming's statement like it is so bad. No one is looking further into it and seeing it WON'T CHANGE! The States will not vote for it (and btw, 3/4 of states approving an amendment IS in the Constitution).

[johncmcleod]

IMO, it isn't worth the time and effort to change something so trivial.

To you it's trivial. But because of the EC, we got W. Bush instead of Gore and now are country is going to hell.


And, it is for the future. There might be a time in the future where a terrible president who gets like 35% of the popular vote gets voted in and the country goes to pot. If we abolish the law we'll prevent it from happening. Why should we wait for another terrible outcome from the EC to change it? We should fix problems BEFORE they start, not after.

If you say that voting for Dean in the EC doesn't count because Bush will win the state, then you MUST agree that voting for Dean in a popular vote where Bush wins the country (by say 52%) doesn't count.

No, because my vote would count towards Dean's 48%. If Bush and Dean were tied, my vote would make Dean the president. It would have an effect on who would be president. With the EC, my vote counts as nothing. It means nothing. It has no effect.

Because their state has more people. The EC is simply state-by-state elections for the President and then a proportional weighing of each state's election. So the Iowans have their vote count less, they are participating in an election internal to Iowa, whos results will help decide the President of the US.

Wait...you were previously arguing that the EC should be kept to help the people in rural states. I brought up an example of how it doesn't do that, and now you are saying that is the way it should be? The only argument for the EC is it protects smaller states. That argument doesn't hold. Because of the EC, the system is undemocratic and the people can get a president they didn't want to get in power. Is there any reason the popular vote is bad?

[Imran Siddiqui]

To you it's trivial. But because of the EC, we got W. Bush instead of Gore and now are country is going to hell.

Yes, one election will doom the republic .

There might be a time in the future where a terrible president who gets like 35% of the popular vote gets voted in

Yes, and space aliens from Alpha Centauri may destroy Earth in the year 2534. What in US history suggests that anyone with 35% of the popular vote will win the electoral vote. If ANYTHING the EC denies fringe candidates from getting close to victory.

because my vote would count towards Dean's 48%. If Bush and Dean were tied, my vote would make Dean the president. It would have an effect on who would be president. With the EC, my vote counts as nothing. It means nothing. It has no effect.

Once again, being purposely obtuse.

Your vote would count towards Dean 48% under popular vote? So why doesn't your vote court towards the % Dean gets in your state? You are contradicting yourself, saying your vote counts in area but doesn't count at all in another.

If Bush and Dean were tied in your state, then your vote would tip the state to Dean and maybe make him President. How does that make your vote count as 'nothing'? To say so is just silly.

you were previously arguing that the EC should be kept to help the people in rural states.

Where? First you put words in the Constitution, then in my mouth .

The only argument for the EC is it protects smaller states.

Yes, it gives them more power than a strict popular vote would. That means that Presidential candidates have to visit those states. The small states STILL have less of voice, however. The EC doesn't change that. It just makes them have a greater say than they normally would have in a Presidential election.

Is there any reason the popular vote is bad?

No. But you still have to convince me why we should use the time and effort to get an Amendment to the Constitution passed for little gain.

[Ned]

JohnC, The decision how to apportion the electoral votes is up to the state legislature. They do not even have to have a vote, they can do it themselves without a vote. Did you know that? No citizen of the United States has a right to vote for president.

But for the last 150 years or so, state legislatures have apportioned electoral votes according to the popular vote. Most today give all the electoral votes to the winning presidential candidate. But there is nothing sacred about this. If you really think there should be a change in your state, lobby your state legislature.

From a casual view of the map of the last election, nearly all of the Southern and Western States went Bush. Bush won, IIRC, 30 states to Gore's 20. Because of the two extra votes each state gets for its senators, Bush got 20 extra electoral votes and is the reason he won the election.

Now it appears from a further inspection of the electoral map that the South and the West are more conservative than the two coasts and the North. I think much of the reason for this is the makeup of the population of the large coastal and Nothern cities as compared to makeup of the population of the South and the West. I also do not believe that this is a strictly modern phenomena. The framers were quite aware of the differences at the time they drafted the constitution. And to avoid dominance by the big-city states, the framers gave each state those two extra votes.

Now, if you were to propose a constitutional amendment to change to a one-man-one-vote system, I sincerely doubt that you would even get such an amendment out the Senate let alone have it ratified by 3/4 of the states. The smaller states predominate in the Senate and in the country, and they probably will never willingly give away their power.

[Odin]

The EC needs to be scrapped, but it will be tough because most of the state legislatures will say "screw you" because it takes away from thier power. I hate Federalism, and states' rights is a bunch of BS used to maintain the status quo. Another example of how federalism f*cks things up is gerrymandering, we could never get an anti-gerymandering amendment passed because the states will just go for thier own interests.

Down with Federalism!
Down with the Senate!
Down with the Electoral College!

America wants REAL democracy, the state legislatures can kiss my ass.

[Kuciwalker]

America wants REAL democracy

No, Americans want something that closely approximates democracy but is more convenient. You have yet to demostrate that it would be worth the effort to completely scrap the system.

[mrmitchell]

Arnelos gave a very good explanation over at MZO. I'm sure he won't mind me reposting it here :

You have to remember that the United States Constitution was written by the representatives of 13 sovereign nations, some of which had far more population than others. For the smaller states to give up control of their own destiny to the larger populations of the larger states was unconscionable to them while the larger states would have nothing to do with giving up power to a decision-making body which gave each state an equal vote without reference to population.

The result was a compromise where we have two legislative bodies, one based upon population in each of the previously sovereign states and one based upon equal representation for each of the previously sovereign states. This distinction of a bicameral legislature in which this particularly distinction is made is taken for granted today in much of the world, but let it not be forgotten than when the United States innovated, the idea was quite new.

To ensure some level of parity between smaller states and larger states in the selection of the President, the compromise was that each state would receive a number of ballots in the Presidential race equal to the sum of its representatives in each legislative body. This means that while larger states certainly have more representation than smaller states, things are unnaturally weighted toward states with smaller populations. Also, while the states are free to distribute their electoral votes either by winner takes all or by proportion, all but Maine (to my belief) proportion them with a "winner takes all" system. So if you win 50% of the vote in California, you get all 50-some electoral votes!

Now, the critical part why this didn't change after 2000 is that because the negotiating parties were sovereign states agreeing to give up their sovereignty to a common union and that compromise was so hard to work out in the first place (nevermind a number of other compromises), they wanted to guarantee that the rules could not be easily changed and later screw them over. The bar for ammendment was set QUITE high, requiring the ratification of a full 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Now, think about it... 3/4 of STATES, not state populations. There are a lot of states with small populations, enough that more than 1/4 of the states have a vested interest in preventing any change to the Constitution that would take away some measure of their clout in a Presidential race and hand it to a direct referendum that would end up giving more power to the larger states.

So unless someone finds a way to overcome the objections of states like Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota with miniscule populations and a share of the presidential electoral vote many times larger than their share of the population, any amendment to make the presidential election a direct referendum are going to go nowhere

A more moderate change might be to at least call for keeping the current proportions of influence by each state, but to divide a state's vote proportionally by how much of the state's vote a candidate gained (rather than the winning candidate in a state getting its ENTIRE vote). The problem with THAT is that the larger states know that the reason most Presidential election campaigns obsess about campaigning in those states is because winning or losing a huge share of the electorate matters a lot more to them than gaining or losing smaller pieces of it. So the larger states feel they have a vested interest in keeping a "winner takes all" system because it attracts candidates to visit their states and make campaign promises to them.

It's a federal system, so yeah, it's messed up

Just imagine what the European Union's presidential elections will look like if they take a similar route

[Mr. Harley]

Ned, I hate having to agree with you, but you post is by far the most accurate here (I am still working on the Truman research . I am posting due to the previous post. The statement that the US was founded by 13 sovereign nations is a piece of propoganda that has been repeated on and off for over two centuries, often to push the doctrine of states rights. Some excellent scholarly work shows that isn't so. Many of the states had no working government at the time of the revolution, and the Continental Congress actually had to encourage them to organize.

That was one of the reasons for the Revolution, that the British government was ignoring, at times dissolving, local self-rule and appointing self-aggrandizing governors in their place, while also ignoring and/or dissolving the colonial charters. When the constitution was written that was sort of true (13 individual nations), as you had 13 individual states in a confederation, but if you look at the line of authority, many of them had governments due to the actions of the Continental Congress. I cannot remember the book, I'll post it if anybody wants it, I have it at home, but the author does an excellent job of setting all this out, better than I can do in a short post.

However, Ned and the remainder of Arnelos posts are quite germane. It cannot happen, as in doing away with the electoral college. It's moot. Since by definition half the states will lose power and influence, you will never get the 2/3rd necessary for a constitutional amendment. Never happen. Unless we called a constitional convention, which almost happened several years back, but both politcal parties got scared. Anything could come out of that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The statement that the US was founded by 13 sovereign nations is a piece of propoganda that has been repeated on and off for over two centuries, often to push the doctrine of states rights. Some excellent scholarly work shows that isn't so. Many of the states had no working government at the time of the revolution, and the Continental Congress actually had to encourage them to organize.

Even if the Continental Congress had to encourage them to organize, you cannot really say that a majority of the 13 colonies were not independant state-like bodies. Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland, off the top of my head, I know had governments in place. They were ruled by colonial overlordship and a governor was put in place in each colony, thus giving a state-like government.

One cannot come close to deny that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution that you basically had 13 different countries under, basically, a free-trade zone (the Articles). By the time of the Constitution in 1789, every one of the 13 colonies had in place robust governments. And that is the only time that matters because that is when the EC was put in place.

[Mr. Harley]

I didn't say most, I stated many - for exactly that reason . However, claiming that the British governships combined to give them a state-like government is wrong. Many of the governships (I'm not at home, so I don't have the exact states) actually were dictatroships, including essentially dissolving local courts for rule by fiat, prohibiting assemblies of citizens, etc. If anything, they made the governed area more like Irag is right now, than a semi-independent functioning entitiy with at least the machinery for statehood in place. The governships in some cases were hell bent on disassembling that machinery.

I stated that

When the constitution was written that was sort of true (13 individual nations), as you had 13 individual states in a confederation,

is not so far from

drafting of the Constitution that you basically had 13 different countries under, basically, a free-trade zone (the Articles).

The difficulty was they were neither individual nations, nor states, and that was causing all kinds of problems. So many, in fact, the European powers thought that the fledgling US didn't have a chance, and these "13 different countries" gave up part of the soveignty they were exercising to forge a genuine nation-state versus a confederation (which is why I carefully used that term, as did the founders, they did call the original agreement the "Articles of Confederation" for good cause).

The States Rights arugment that I mentioned often traces it's justification to the time of the Revolution, i.e. 13 different countries. The problem with Soverignty arguments is "Whose power was it first?" If the state government existed from prior to the Declaration of Independence through the ratification of the Constitution, then the argument for States Rights become much stronger. However, since that did not occur in each case, the States Rights (and then the right to leave the union) do not necessarily trump the federal union. Plus, no state individually won it's freedom from England, that was done as a group, if you wish confederation activity. Of course on the succession issue I'm shooting myself in the foot. That one is really moot .

[korn469]

I think that the EC came from a period when democracy was still an experiment, and many of the founders thought it could fail. I truly think that in addition to being a compromise, that the EC was a hedge against the general public. The United States is a completely different nation today than it was in the late 1700's, and while many of the principles (namely individual freedom in all of its various forms) are still as valid as ever, some things aren't (mostly the proceedural aspects). The EC is one of those things.

In 1790, the US had 3.9 million people
In 2000 it had 281 million

In 1790 there were 13 states
In 2000 there were 50

In 1790 the fastest way to travel was on either horseback or by sailing ship
In 2000 jets were the way to go

In the US in 1790 the fastest way to send a message was by a messenger, or possibly by a trained pigeon
In 2000 cell phones and email were both really fast

In 1790 print was the only mass media
In 2000 there was print, radio, television, and the internet

Basically I doubt anyone truly has anything to gain by changing the EC, but I think it is a worse system than a popular election. I think it can give bad results (the system elects a president that didn't have a majority of the votes), that it has a negative influence on campaigns (focus campaigns on battleground states and downplays the rest), and that it makes some votes count more than others (which is the root cause of all of the other problems). Those things alone should be enough to change the system. One person one vote should be all of the needed motivation, but it isn't.

However, the EC is just one problem facing the United States when it comes to voting. Too few people vote, too many people can't vote, and special interest groups have too much control over the entire election process. We need to change all of those things, but I doubt we will.

[Drake Tungsten]

daaaamnnn jina, im so fukcing hammered.

Oh my god. Is that a Martin reference? You must've been ****ing hammered...

[korn469]

shawnmmcc

You spoke of where soverignty came from first, and implied it came from state or federal government; it's my opinion that soverignty has always came from the people, and in a proper (ideal) society government should just be a tool to serve people, instead of vice versa. Not that I'm saying you think people are tools of the government, but I just wanted to make that point.

[Mr. Harley]

kron469, I agree that's how it should be. Unfortunately, when you look at most arguments concerning sovereignty, including the ones prevailing in relationships between countries, that is hardly the case. I am making the sovereignty argument based on the national soveignty concept, even though I agree with you.

If you look at the founding of the US, it follows a similar tendency. They gave lip service to sovergnty of the people, and then set in place many mechanisms to ensure oligarchial guidance, if not control (look at how both Senators and the President were elected).

I am one of those odd people (for the United States) who vote in part on Supreme Court nominees. When George Bush said the Scalia and Thomas were his kind of justices, I held my nose and pulled the lever for Gore. In the conservative arguments/confusers over states rights, they never seem to get around to mentioning the people:

Amendment IX. (Article IX))
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X. (Article X)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Where does the right to privacy come from? Read the amendments (not aimed at you kron469) sometime. Modern neoconservatives larglely look at "...are reserved to the States respectively..." while libetarians focus on "...or to the people." That's why Supreme Court justices are a big thing to me. I personally believe "the people" should come before "the State".