Electoral College?

Question

Do you think we should stick with it, or use a new system?

I guess I should throw in my two cents. I find the electoral college extremely outdated. Time for a change.

Answer 1

A new system, and while we're at it, do away with the other outdated ideas our founding fathers had like the CONSTITUTION.

Answer 2

Interesting, that the point of view is based on an assessment of the Electoral College being "outdated", without any discussion of why being outdated necessitates rejection.

The Founders had particular balances of power in mind when they established our government. One of those balances is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority." As such, the popular will of the people is reflected in the House of Representatives. The desires of each state is reflected in the Senate. This seems proper, as the more populous North (in 1787) would have dominated the South if the legislative body were only based upon population. Also, the House ensures that the small states cannot excessively hold back the majority, when a majority is truly in the right.

Choosing a president, as constructed by the Founders, was also a balance among these two competing methods of government. The President is the Chief Executive...not the Chief activist, legislator, populist. The Electoral College, as originally constructed, did not even guarantee that every individual in the country would have any right at all to vote for a President. The Constitution says that the Electoral College is made up of Electors selected as state legislatures may direct.

So, would you have a President elected strictly by popular vote, making the tyranny of the majority present in both the House and the Presidency?

Frankly, I would rather not have a President chosen mostly by the dominant views of people in New York City, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles.

Answer 3

The one thing the founders of this nation feared as much as the establishment of a monarchy was the institution of complete democracy. That is why the Constitution set up a representative republic.

Knowing that people are easily led by propaganda, fashion, or personalities, they set up the Electoral College as a means to insulate the presidency at least one layer away from the changable whims of the people. As intended originaly, members of the Electoral College were chosen by the states to meet and elect a President. They were supposed to be independent and able to chose wisely.

Although most Electors are nowdays bound by state law to vote for the candidate to whom they are pleged, they can take the risk (prison in some states) and cast their votes in a manner they feel is in the best interest of the nation. There may come a day when men and women of courage realize how gullible the voters have been and refuse to elect the winner of the popular vote.

This is still a good system. Those who are unable to understand this are those who have not studied history.

Answer 4

The Electoral College was designed to give small states a bigger voice in the election, as well as give a clear cut winner.

Since the only way to change the system is by Constitutional amendment, which requires 3/4 of the states to pass it, it will never change, as there are at least 13 small states that aren't dumb enough to give up more power to California. It works and it should stay in place, for unlike other countries, we have always had peaceful transitions between administrations, which most other countries can't say.

Answer 5

First of all, the only people in favor of abolishing the electoral college are the Democrats, which should raise a red flag to all of us immediately.

Why would they wish to change to a "popular vote" ? Some of the previous answers touched upon it, but basically the cities infested with minorities, illegal aliens, and homeless people would drive the results of the election.

This means that San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, and probably New Orleans alone would decide an election.

Democrats are all about rewriting the laws - whether it is gay marriage, sodomy, or the rules for Presidential elections - surprise none of us this should.

Answer 6

I think we should reform the Electoral College by introducing any of these options:

- Maine/ Nebraska method: 1 Electoral Vote for the winner in each of a state's Congressional district and 2 Electoral Votes for the statewide winner.
- Proportional allocation: Electoral votes are allocated proportionally to each candidate's votes in the state.

If you ask me, I'd prefer this: 2 electoral votes are given to the candidate that gets 50% +1 of the votes in a state (using Instant Runoff Voting) and the remaining electoral votes are allocated proportionally. I'd use the 1st round results to allocate these electoral votes. Who knows, it might be a good compromise plan? And if a no candidate doesn't get an absolute majority of both electoral votes and popular votes, then the least ranked candidates are eliminated and their votes and electoral votes (if any) will be allocated according to each voter's 2nd choice and so on until we have a winner. So, this plan would have 2 stages: first stage, state by state election and second stage, national election (if nobody has an absolute majority of both electoral votes and popular votes). Any comments? I know it might be a crazy idea but I think it makes sense. LOL

Answer 7

Absolutely not, the electoral college was set up as a way to give each state a voice. Please remember that we are the United States, which means we are individual states that make up a whole. It would be wholly unfair for states like Wyoming not to be adequately represented.

So, basically the states elect the president & vice president based on the popular votes in the state.

The founding fathers set this up as part of their plan to share power between the States & the national government.

Answer 8

The Electoral College prevents states that have high populations from dominating the presidential election.

Stick with it. It is still fully functional!

Answer 9

I believe we should modify the electoral system enough to at least make it more realisticthat we are voting for president. Each congressional district would be considered 1 electoral vote. I would not consider a pure popular vote right away.

Answer 10

I agree the electoral votes suck.. It should be popular votes/actual count. That is why I seldom vote..In my state we get 6 electoral votes..that's it..one of the lowest anywhere. So, my philosophy is "why go out and vote..if my individual vote doesn't count"..why shoudl my vote not count just because I don't live in a state like CA or TX..I think maybe more people would be apt to vote if it were changed..