Should we scrap the electoral college, and elect the President by popular vote?

Question

I think the idea has merit.

I'm an independent voter, so don't bash me

Answer 1

The electoral college has some flaws.

It is wrong for a president to get more votes....and lose the election!

This has happened twice in our history. It is wrong.

Voter rights are more important than states rights. One person..one vote!

Answer 2

The Electoral College is an archaic anachronism that deserves to be put to rest. Not only does the current system essentially disenfranchise fully 1/2 of the population on its surface, but also 1/2 of the geographical map of the USA -- specifically the Western states. With the current state of electronic development, there is no technical reason to deny the popular vote; indeed, it seems the only reason to keep the EC is to counter the wishes of the people. While we are at it, we should have the vote results sealed until ALL votes are in. With the current practice of reporting on results state by state, the more Western states are usually underrepresented because of the perception of inevitability. Hawaiians are particularly affected by our current practices and feel always that their votes are meaningless, as indeed they tend to be.
In several "blue" states with Republican legislatures, there have been moves to parse electoral votes to include runners-up in the mix. If such proposals had been accepted in the last presidential election, Barack Obama would not be our president now!
So in short, scrap the Electoral College and keep vote results secret until the end of the day. These measures are the only things that can make the presidential election fair and democratic.

Answer 3

I think the Electoral College system is still the best. It puts in the checks, balances, and procedures necessary to take care of most election concerns.

I think most people who disagree with the Electoral College system have not thoroughly researched it's role. Take a look at:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

It's a very good course on the evolution of the Electoral College, the reasons behind it, and the controls and safeguards it represents.

Just changing the system to popular vote is not that easy. Would you require the winner to have over 50% of the popular vote? If he did not, what woud be your procedures to take care of it?

I think giving a more balanced power across all 50 states is a good idea. The needs of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Iowa, and other less densely populated states are much different than the needs of heavily populated cities like New York City, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles, and so forth.. So in a total popular vote only the people of the metropolitan areas would actually have any power.

Until someone comes up with a very detailed procedure of checks, balances, and rules, it's impossible to weigh the merits of "Popular Vote".

The real issue that needs debate is term limits on Senators and Representatives, and the line item Veto. Those are items that would return power to the people, remove the incentive to OVER SPEND to buy votes, etc.

Great question!

Answer 4

No. The first answer you got is correct. I used to think the same way you do but after doing some research I found that it wouldn't work. The idea of the electoral college does seem unfair but I don't want the state of New York voting in an eastern liberal.......like Hillary! Most Western states have small populations and seem to have different view points and values than the populous East.

I do wish the Independent candidate and voter received more respect.....

Answer 5

The states elect the President, not the people. The electoral college was set up to give all states a voice in the choice of President.

jl_jack09: It's clear that you never actually read the decision. I strongly recommend doing some research instead of parroting what the left-wing blogs tell you. You won't sound so much like an ignorant shill that way.

Answer 6

In my opinion you are right. There is a theoretical (sometimes practical as happened in 2000 elections between Bush and Gore, Gore won the popular vote and Bush the election) anomaly involved in US electoral system.

About the state rights, in all other countries there are two houses of the congress (just like US) so when all states are represented equally in the senate then why not elect the president popularly.

I think that only real argument about such voting system is Ultra-Constitutionalism, that is, Americans hold their constitution sacred, like bible, but it is actually a man-made document which can be amended with the changing needs of time.

P.S. Two party system works best in all political systems. If there are more than two parties, formation of government becomes a difficult task, coalition government is very fragile. US already has a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature (which is a wrong concept). It will lead to too much friction and dead-locks.

Answer 7

The electoral college doesn't represent the voice of the people during an election. The whole point of elections are to allow people to vote unchallenged for the best man to hold office. Since the electoral college is still being used, it's not surprising to me that many choose not to exercise there constitutional right to vote during elections. The electoral college was a use full tool when voting tabulations took time to calculate. Now with the current technology available, tabulations are more immediate. I say down with EC and up with the popular vote.

Answer 8

No, the electoral college insures that the vote in the less populous states doesn't become irrelevant. Without it, the more populous states Like California, New York and Texas could elect a President time after time. The candidates would not have to pay attention to voters in the less populated states.

Answer 9

Actually I am for the electoral college. Lets say for example that your state all voted Independent. With the electoral college your votes would count. The electoral college ensures that every states votes count. This way we don't just have New York and California deciding all our elections.

Answer 10

I think we should scrap it. I understand the arguments about the most populous states choosing the winner, but states aren't really all "red" or "blue". They get color coded that way by the majority of votes in that particular state. I'm a democrat in Texas, so my vote never really counts for anything with the electoral college.