Why don't we remove the Electoral College forever?

Answer 1

The electoral college is a way to distribute the power in this country across all the states. If it were removed, power would be concentrated in the most populous states and render sparsely populated states virtually powerless. We are the United STATES after all, the states still have power (albeit far too little in my view).

In any case, eliminating the electoral college will require a constitutional amendment, which has to be passed by 3/4 of the states. There's no way that's going to happen.

Answer 2

As people have said, abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment - which is not going to happen any time soon.

A proportional College would be excellent, but I don't see it happening soon either. It can occur only if somehow all states change the way they pick their electors simultaneously. No state will volunteer to be the first to transfer to the new method - since it would become a lot less important to candidates. Let's say there's a state with 10 electors. If it is a pretty close election it will be worth less electors, in terms of advantage (for example a 7-3 split, and then a state that was once was worth a 10 elector advantage would become worth just 4).

Answer 3

I think it's a good idea, but it has some potential problems because the population in the US is not evenly distributed.

And a simpler solution (thanks ChrisS) is available that doesn't require a constitutional amendment. Under the Constitution, each state determines how electors are appointed, which in effect means, how the popular vote is converted to an electoral vote.

Article II Section 1: "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"

So, rather than using the all-or-nothing system that most states do, use a pro-rata (percentage based) system that one or two states currently use.

For example: say a state gets 20 electoral college votes, and in the state popular election, the vote is split 40%-35%-20%-5% among four candidates. Under the current all-or-nothing model, that means 20 / 0 / 0 / 0 split. Under a pro-rata model, that's a 8 / 7 / 4 / 1 split. Which gives a much stronger chance of breaking the two-party deadlock.

It preserves the granularity to protect the smaller population centers and smaller states. And it can be done state-by-state, without amending the constitution.

Answer 4

The number of electors is based on congressmen, therefore population...

The Senate is what protects the interest of the smaller states versus the larger ones. However there IS a point about if 51% of my state votes for X and the rest go to Y, then the adding of all those 'leftover's could bend to the favor of the large states, since their 'leftover' votes would outweigh...but for the most part, electoral votes follow the trend of popular votes.

I'm torn on this issue myself. Electors are professional types, well informed, and usually with the backing of political parties that tell them things the average person doesn't know.

Electors usually vote for the winner of the popular vote in their states, but not always. This allows for either corruption, or the Voice of Reason, depending on how it goes.

But I'd rather have informed, politically active and motivated people there to protect me from the latest batch of Who Wants to Be a Voter types that know more about who got kicked off the Island last week than any of their candidates.

Popular vote = president SEEMS like it would be fair, but I don't know if it would be GOOD

Answer 5

Because if we did, the smaller states would have little if any voice in who our President is. The Electoral College was set up to give all states a say in the Presidential election, not just the most populous ones. Having said that, changing the way it works might not be a bad idea.

Edit: Coragryph came up with a good idea for changing the EC, but I couldn't find it among his answers. Maybe he'll repost it if you ask him - it had to do with each state awarding its electoral votes in proportion to its popular vote.

I have a similar idea along those lines: Since each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to its total Congressional representation (Reps + Senators), award one electoral vote for each Congressional district in the state, with the two extras going to the overall winner of the state. In other words, let's say that in '08, the Democratic candidate wins the popular votes in ten of my state's (PA) 19 districts, and the Republican wins nine, with the Democrat winning the statewide vote. PA's electoral vote would then be 12 Democrat, 9 Republican.

Answer 6

Good question! Supposedly it balances out and equalizes the vote between, say Montana and New York. But what it does is it gives more weight to the vote in Montana than the vote in New York. The USA economy, for example, is primarily dependent on California, by itself, the 6th largest economy in the world. By trying to equalize, through the electoral college, votes cast in California and Montana, you really discount the economy and population of California. That is one reason Californians don't vote in the same percentage that other states do. It decreases t the power one large state may have on the result of an election and increases the power of a small state.

Answer 7

Electorial College is in place to assist the election process, not hamper it.

There has to a clear - uncontested elected president or our country will slip further in to anarchy. The current division in our country stems from the contested Bush/Gore election. Half the country took one side...and feel spite towards Bush for being elected.

Image how bad things would be if there was no electoral college and every last vote in the country was recounted over and over.

Answer 8

The electoral college was instituted so that highly poplulated areas of the country could not control the rural areas just because they had more votes.

Answer 9

I don't think it a good idea to let the city of New York or L.A. determine what's best for the US farmers. The colleges give the little guy (and the smaller community) a voice against the areas of highest population.

Answer 10

Because the smallest states would never approve. You need 38 states to approve a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think you could get more than 20.

But you could start a movement to do it. Maybe get backing from George Soros.