Do we need an electoral college anymore or just the popular vote?

Question

What's the purpose of an electoral college anyway in modern times?

Answer 1

Good question.

I think the popular vote is more desirable. The electrol college was made at a time when mass democracy was untested. That time is over.

Answer 2

No, and I'll tell you why.

The electoral college wasn't initiated to give a measure of equality to smaller states. The electoral college was never meant to be "fair".

It was instituted because the power players at the time believed that American men who were eligible to vote (remember, at this time, only white men over the age of 21 were eligible to vote) were a) mostly illiterate b) politically unsophisticated c) would always vote for local candidates; therefore, there would be too many in the field, political parties did not exist but even when they did (Democrats and Whigs being the major parties) the field was already too crowded with a number of other parties/candidates; relying on the popular vote would have meant hundreds or even thousands of candidates campaigning on local issues which had little or nothing to do with the lives of people outside of their immediate communities. Also, there was no mass media at the time, so even if most men could read, they wouldn't have access to the Boston or Philadelphia, etc., papers if they had access to any newspapers at all. There was no telegraph, so it was difficult to even get an opinion from a stranger as to who fared better in debate, etc. Candidates did not have any way of disseminating their policies to the mass electorate.

Perhaps the Electoral College was the right thing before the age of mass media, before most of the populace was literate and before political parties had a truly national reach, but not today. Indeed, the only reason it exists today is to keep the two major parties in power. That's why in over 200 years, a preliminary motion to do away with the Electoral College has only been put forward 72 times and each time it has been crushed by the Republican and Democrat parties in concert before it could even get to the House floor. One example of the inadequacies of the Electoral College system is in 1992, when a third party candidate (Ross Perot) got 18% of the popular vote and not a single Electoral College vote. And to think that one person's vote in Wyoming is worth 20 people's votes in California is a complete nonsense.

Make no mistake - Electors are all appointed by the two major political parties and they effectively vote ("pledge") along party lines before the American people have even voted.

Answer 3

The purpose of the electoral college is so that the entire election is not determined by Illinois, California, Florida, Georgia, New York and New England.

The idea originally was that states with high population density would be too influential relative to low-population states. That's why in addition to the electoral votes based on population, there are also two electoral votes allocated to each state regardless of their population.

The problem is not with the electoral college itself. The problem is with the way it's implemented by most states. Most states allocate their all or nothing based on the popular vote within the state. A much more fair system would be to allocate votes proportionately based on the percentage per candidate within each state.

So, for example, let's say the vote is split between three candidates, 50% for X, 40% for Y, and 10% for Z. In a state with 10 electoral votes (8 representatives plus 2 senators), an all-or-nothing system would allocate all 10 for X, while a proportional system would allocate 5, 4, and 1 respectively.

To win under the all-or-nothing system, the candidate only need to get a majority of the votes in enough states to earn all their electoral votes. Which is why third-party candidates never win. But in a proportional system, the winning candidate actually needs to earn a majority of the total votes from all states, regardless of their wins in individual states. Suddenly, the outcome is very different.

So, throwing out the electoral college entirely (aside from requiring a constitutional amendment) would mean that the lower-population states have much less say in the outcome. But changing it to a proportional system can be done without amending the Constitution, and solves most of the problem.

Answer 4

The popular vote doesn't vote for the president ... those votes are counted to see which candidate the reps in the electoral college will vote for from that particular state... so yes we need the electoral college

Answer 5

The electoral college gives people like myself in fly-over country an equal say in the process. We are a Republic, not a democracy. I think the electoral college is the best way to go, otherwise, states like Idaho, wyoming, the Dakota's will have no voice.

All you libs in the big cities will get to decide who is President. Besides, why mess with perfection?

Answer 6

We need it now just as much as ever. Otherwise the large population centers will determine all elections and the lower population areas will have no voice in elections. The electoral college speads the vote to all areas somewhat.

Answer 7

When we have as many people in Wyoming and Montana as we do in California and NY, I may reconsider the Electoral college. Until then, it assures each states votes count.

Answer 8

one person one vote.

it is not needed anymore