Why do we tolerate the existence of the electoral college?

Question

And do you believe the popular vote will elect the president?

Answer 1

Would it makes sense to have the whole country ran by the popular beliefs in just a few densely populated cities rather than the whole geographic country?

Answer 2

Straight answer: There are far too many stupid people who have no idea what they are voting for when they cast their ballot. The idea I imagine once was that the electoral college represented the views of the people in their respective locales. If the area being represented was farmland the electoral vote would be given to the candidate that the "elector" decided would be best for them.

It now is a system that largely functions as a way of evening the power of regional candidates across the country. Coastal candidates don't overpower the Great Plains simply as a functions of sheer population. This is why the popular vote is not a good method of electing the President. I agree, however, that the electoral college (while not intolerable and completely useless) is also not a good method.

This raises the question: If not a popular vote, how do we scale the vote? I don't know the answer to this nor will I pretend to come up with a fair way of scaling one person's vote as more important than another. Instead I will offer a completely different alternative. Voting for major policies and having the electoral college vote for a candidate that way. This eliminates the "I vote for the Republican/Democrat simply because I have decided to label myself as one" mentality. I think the vote will be more accurate as well as representative of the country's feelings. The incoming President could even use the results to help guide his policy making decisions. It's a win win situation.


side note: electronic voting machine companies need to be held accountable by 3rd parties and not just conduct internal audits. These is next to zero accountability when it comes to the last 2 elections and I find it atrocious that no one in Congress has seriously confronted this issue with an iron fist. It is not a question of can you please be audited from a 3rd party. It is a demand, plain and simple.

Answer 3

The reason we tolerate the electoral college is because the popular vote could very easily be won by simply playing to the 5 largest cities in the United States and getting a huge voting effort in those cities! Imagine if all a candidate had to do was show up in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit and Dallas and get a large portion of those cities to vote. What about the people in Jerome Idaho or Mustang Oklahoma who would like to meet the candidates, hear them speak and find out how they intend to address local issues?
If Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton have to have Oklahoma and Rhode Island, and Idaho to win the electoral college (which is based on the majority of the popular vote in each state-- if 85% of the people vote for a candidate in a state with 10 electoral votes, usually the 10 electoral votes from that state go to that candidate), then they will come to the cities in these states so they have to see what conditions the people live in, to speak to those people, to hear what those people have to say. It insures that the voices of people in small towns get heard, and that the candidates have to face them. The electoral college is part of our Constitution for a reason... it guarantees that large cities or larger terroritories or states do not dominate the Presidential races.
The problem isn't so much the electoral college in my opinion.
At one time in this country, the winner of the electoral college votes became President, the second place winner became vice-President (President of the Senate). If you want bi-partisan ship, go back to that system instead of letting the president chose a vice-president at the party convention in the election year-- that started with Ulysses S. Grant. I will guarantee you that George W Bush and John Kerry would've had to sit down and seriously consider the country's best interests if the elections were done the old fashioned way!!!
You would also find that there would be less civil discontent and more civilized debate-- all sides (liberal, middle of the road and conservative) feel like they have a dog in the fight and it is one reason that you found in the past that candidates had to put forward more relevant and thoughtful ideas than the sound bytes they do now.
I find it interesting how many people feel that Bush stole one in 2000. This has happened before, and it will probably happen again-- but it has not destroyed our country yet. There could very easily be a lot of us screaming Al Gore stole it had circumstances been a little different... in many ways, because of the electoral college, both democrats and republicans and undecided swing voters have begun to take an interest in politics again... I for one think it is a brilliant solution to a whole host of problems, and the founding fathers are to be commended.

Answer 4

(Copies, Pastes old answer. Since we get one of these questions every day)

Pro: The Founders of this nation had a justified fear of complete democracy. They set up a system where supposedly wise men, elected by the people, and holding no other office at the time, would chose a President. They knew "There's a sucker born every minute". They made sure that there was an insulating layer of responsible people between the voter and the presidency. Thus there is some protection from the lies and deceit that went on during election season, then just as it does now.

Con:
1. Those who failed their civics classes, or who have never received any instruction in our system of government, continue to complain and question the Electoral College. This makes the sheep easily identified and led by the barking dogs.

2. Those who wish to take advantage of the gullibility of the average voter would like to do away with the Electoral College, in order to make their nonsense campaigns more effective.

Although the Electors of most states are "pledged" to vote for the winner in that state, and most face criminal penalties for breaking that pledge, there may come a time when the Electoral College is forced to muster its courage and go against the vote. This could happen in a scenario where massive fraud or corruption is found between the national election day and the balloting of the Electoral College. This could happen and is what was intended by the founders of this nation.

http://www.hendrixcampaign.com

Answer 5

The electoral college exists because politicians want the public to believe the president is not elected in smoke filled rooms by a bunch of political hacks, when thats exactly what happens. Politicians NEED the general election so they can get MONEY. Its just a big political fund raiser that has no bearing on the election. Al Gore in 2000 showed the popular vote doesn't mean anything. The "Your vote counts" line is a PR message only. It should say "Your money is all we want".

Politicians LIKE the current system as it gives incumbents the best chance to win and limits new ideas from entering the debate. Politicians will never change the rules when the rules continue to benefit them.

The popular vote will never be allowed to elect the President because special interests have a "stranglehold" on our elections and won't give it back to the "unwashed masses."

Besides, George Bush has proved our elections are fixed.
Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 showed that to be true.

Answer 6

Because it is actually more fair than the popular vote as long as the electorates are maintained properly meaning that the we have to make sure that each electoral region is an accurate reflection of the population. Otherwise the elections are going to basically be decided by the most populous states. States with low populations like Rhode Island , Maine, and Hawaii will have less voting power than they have even now and will always have to go along with whatever California, New York, and Texas decide. I think that the popular votes and electoral votes have only been different twice anyway so its hard to make a case that we need to change it.

Answer 7

It was designed as a safety net. If it were simple majority, what would stop a total criminal with a huge chunk of change from buying every vote they needed? The electoral college CAN change their votes if they feel it is in the best interest of the nation, and to stop the "people" from making a terrible mistake. But, before you think that this removes all control from the voter, please realize that MANY electors would have to change their minds, with strong reason, to overthrow it. And, this was not the case in the couple of elections where the popular vote & electoral votes didn't jive. Remember, at the time that the Constitution was written, the colonists were very sensitive about making sure that no one ever got absolute rule. They even considered other structures that would be multiple people holding the top chair, and it is why we have 3 branches of gov't. Its all part of the checks and balances. I think it needs to stay.

Answer 8

I have ask that question before. I was told that without the electoral college, no candidate would visit the "interior states" and would only campaign in the high population areas. (75% of the US's population lives within 100 miles of a coast) However, that really doesn't make any difference to me if they visit the heartland or not.
I believe it was included in the Constitution because at the time, lots of people voted for "their buddy 'ol Jim the farmer" who could not even read. It was a way to maintain a certain level of education at the executive position.
I also believe those days are over. Now it is used to maintain a certain ideology in the executive position.
To answer the question, we should not tolerate it. It is a slap in the face to the electorate.
Of course, the Federal Government has out grown it's intended purpose also. Defense and Currency was it's scope. Now you find it's tentacles everywhere.
Return states rights while we are at it!!!!!!

Answer 9

It is in the Constitution that is why. No serious alternatives? Then tell us what would be a better alternative. You hate our system of government because it was conceived by white, Anglo-Saxon males that owned slaves, therefore it is a bad system. Not so. Slavery was common in the 1700s and the the US was no exception. But that does not necessarily make the country inherently evil nor the FF. The US was not the only country in the world in the late 1700's that permitted slavery. There are still countries in the world today where slavery exists, but you and your leftwing ilk turn a blind eye. This the best political system that has ever been devised and you know it or you are just not intelligent enough to see the beauty of our system. It has never been able to be duplicated.The FF wanted to distribute power as much as possible; that is why we have states and counties. States elect, not the populace.

Answer 10

The electoral college exists in the event that our culture and society gets so far away from the framer's idea of what is constitutional and decides to elect a frog into office. This will happen when our education system continues to decline and the citizens of the next generation become illiterate and the electoral college will know what to do so that that last check will balance the idiocracy of the country's majority vote in that situation.

Answer 11

we don't tolerate it, we purely adhere to the present rules. I argue that the 2000 election did precisely what it grow to be meant to do. The electors voted, based on the standards of the regulation, and chosen the president. the guy that had the main electoral votes won. easily everyone knew that this might take place with our gadget,(in actuality, it has occurred 3 different circumstances) yet very few complained until this time. properly, i'm particular many complained then. yet, of course that did no longer spur sufficient interest to reform the gadget. the guidelines are rules and can't be molded and twisted after the election. If sufficient human beings choose for to alter the guideline, then it is going to likely be finished properly purely before a presidential race, no longer right now after one.