U.S. Electoral College?

Question

As evidenced by the 2000 Presidential elections, the electoral college, not the voters decided who became the President of the U.S.

Do you think the electoral college should be replaced. If so, how would you reform it to ensure no one particular group controlled the election results?

Answer 1

It can be amended at the state level without being replaced entirely.

The Constitution only requires that "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" (Article II).

Almost all states choose to appoint electors all-or-nothing for a single candidate, based on how who has the largest percentage vote within that state. But the system would work completely differently if the electoral votes were allocated pro-rata, based on percentage of votes.

For example, if a state had 20 electoral votes, and the popular vote was split 35% / 40% / 15% / 5 % / 5%, then the electoral ballots would be allocated 7 / 8 / 3 / 1 / 1, rather than 0 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 0.

That's something that can be done now, without going through the process of a federal Constitutional amendment. And while I agree that the electoral college as a whole is long obsolete and should be eliminated, we can get partway there state by state.

Answer 2

Whether you believe in it or not is irrelavent. There are enough small states who are guaranteed 3 electoral votes to defeat the possible amendment. I believe the change should be that if you win a congressional district then you get that vote, if you win the state you get the two senate as a bonus. The electoral college was designed to keep the more populous states from having an unfair say in the process. Oh yeah and we have too nice of a view of our founding fathers. Read the federalist papers and other writings from the time. The founders wanted the electoral college also as a way to have a final say....aka they didn't trust the population, hence why for a long time the senators were not voted into office, they were picked entirely by state legislators, no voter had any say on US senators until the consitution was amended.

Answer 3

No, I wouldn't replace it. The Electoral College is the best mechanism developed for ensuring that a new President has the widest possible support, not just deep support from a few states.

Answer 4

Obviously the 2000 election failed the citizens who voted in that even if you forget all the abnormalities (Florida) the person with a minority of the votes became the prez. We're still suffering from this trauma.

Let's do away with the electoral college and let the popular vote choose our president.

Answer 5

The Electoral College should be eliminated, no replaced. The winner of any election should be the popular vote, period. Our election process is out of date. Changes are needed to keep the U.S.A. the forerunner of the world. We are the greatest country in the world.

Answer 6

Do away with it, make it so that we have a one person one vote.

It was created in a time when getting the results of elections from distant states would've taken many months. Today it is a useless to the democratic system as snake oil to the health industry.

Answer 7

I agree with the first answer. Popular vote should be the way it is done. As for keeping it fair, there needs to be some form of checks and balances similar to the three main powers of the government. Not the same, but hopefully you get the idea.

Answer 8

The Electoral College should be deleted. The people will then truly be able to speak.

Answer 9

A candidate must get a majority of states and votes. If not, it goes to a run-off, and if that doesn't work, it goes to the House.

Answer 10

Do you understand how it works? In theory it is a sound system of elections. However, when a candidate gets a majority vote, they should win. I'd like to see it go.