Should the Electoral College, in your opinion, be abolished?

Question

There are many people today who believe that the Electoral College should be abolished. I am one of them. Are you? Why or why not?

Answer 1

How it is that people here think that the Electoral College gives smaller states the same influence as larger states? The more population a state has, the more electoral votes it receives. So California has many more electoral votes than a small state. The electoral college in no way gives small states equal power. I agree that if it is to remain it should be made to truly reflect the will of people, with electors divided within the state to match the popular vote. Then, when you have an almost 49/51 popular vote the 51 does not get all the votes when that is not how half the populace felt.

FYI - The purpose of the electoral college was because Congress wanted to elect the president without any input from the people. This was a compromise that ensured they could overrule the people if so desired, since the electors in the electoral college do NOT have to go along with the popular vote. It is just one step removed from a dictatorship.

Answer 2

NO!!

Why Was the Electoral College Created?



by Marc Schulman

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

(See All of the Federalist 68)

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.

Answer 3

I think it should be abolished, but I understand and agree with some of the arguments about keeping it. One good compromise before we can come up with a better system would be to require states to split their electoral votes along the lines of the popular votes. Nevada has 5 electoral votes, and if the dominant candidate won 51% percent of the popular vote, that candidate should be awarded 3 electoral votes, and no more.

Answer 4

I think our founding fathers were way ahead of their time, maybe even genius in the area of government by the people or maybe divinely influenced.

Whatever the case, I am really thankful that we have the Electoral College in place. If it were not for it, the President of the United States would be elected by just a few of the largest cities in the country (NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, ...). It really wouldn't matter what people outside of those cities thought because, those cities because of their populations would always be in the majority. However, with the Electoral College in place, my vote in middle-America means something -- peoples' votes in smaller or less populated states mean something. So we can all be thankful (except the ignorant and the majority vote in the biggest cities) that our forefathers made such wise decisions as the Electoral College.

Answer 5

I think in these days of high tech counting so we can be sure that we are accurate there is no reason to have the electoral college. Of course the vast majority of the time the electoral college is in synch with the popular vote but there have been a few times (we all remember one) where they made the other candidate win.

It was a good idea in theory. But like so many other things it usefulness has come to an end.

Answer 6

I believe that the Electorial College should be abosished and the President of the United States of America should be elected by a simple majority vote. I have always found the Electoral College too complicated to understand I believe that if the Electorial College did not exist, you would you right away who becomes the President after the polls close down and all the ballots are counted.

Answer 7

No, reason? the subsequent candidate, might want to assert "i'm purely going to tax the rural parts of the rustic. they have too many guns besides. in the journey that they could't pay my taxes to pay for the courses you city people favor then they could purely promote a number of their guns or horses." and he might want to win the presidency. The electoral college tries to ensure all voters get represented.

Answer 8

There was an upper class citizenry which started this country in its first administration and one still exist today. To say the least they did not believe that those beneath them could actually know what was good for them, so the electoral college was created. Things never changed if thats what you were wondering about. We still continue to be explioted, middle class or not.

Answer 9

Many people today have no understanding of what our founding fathers had in mind for the great experiment. Mob rule is no way to run a great country. A little education would fix that.

Answer 10

Yes. Its an antiquated system from a time when the population was sacttered around the country and most people didnt vote. It was based on land size ,not population