Do you agree with these criticisms of the Electoral college system?

Question

Candidates focus only on a handful of contested states and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other states.

A candidate can lose in 39 states, but still win the Presidency.

A candidate can lose the popular vote by more than 10 million votes, but still win the Presidency.

A candidate can win 20 million votes in the general election, but win zero electoral votes, as happened to Ross Perot in 1992.

In most states, the candidate who wins a state’s election, wins all of that state’s electoral votes, no matter the winning margin, which can disenfranchise those who supported the losing candidate.

A candidate can win a state’s vote, but an elector can refuse to represent the will of a majority of the voters in that state by voting arbitrarily for the losing candidate (this has reportedly happened 9 times since 1820).

Smaller states have a disproportionate advantage over larger states because of the two “constant” or “senatorial” electors assigned to each state.

A tie in the Electoral College is decided by a single vote from each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives, which would unfairly grant California’s 36 million residents equal status with Wyoming’s 500,000 residents.

In case of such a tie, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won their state’s election, which has the potential to further distort the will of the majority.

You shouldn't be suprised I'm a liberal Texan, so my vote never counts...but I try anyways. lol

Answer 1

An interesting idea that I heard is to apportion a state's electors based on the percentage of the vote won by candidates. If Candidate A beat Candidate B 60% to 40%, then 60% of that state's electors would be from A's camp and 40% from B's. I don't know how well it would work. Furthermore, it would be up to the individual states to adopt this plan. But it's better, I think, to try to fix problems in the electoral college than to scrap it in favor of bigger problems with the popular vote.

Answer 2

I think that the Electoral College could be reformed, not abolished. I'd favor the electoral votes being allocated proportionally by popular vote in a state. I came up with a plan that would consist of the following: use Instant Runoff Voting for Presidential elections but giving the 2 at-large electoral votes to the candidate that wins an absolute majority in each state and the rest of the electoral votes are allocated proportionally according to each candidate's 1st choice votes. In case a state has only 3 electoral votes, give the 2 to the candidate that wins an absolute majority and 1 to the candidate that wins the most 1st choice votes. A candidate would have to get both a popular vote majority and also an electoral vote majority. If no candidate gets the double majority, the least ranked candidate is eliminated and its votes are transferred to each voter's 2nd choice, as well as any electoral votes. Problem: a candidate wins a couple of states. If this seems mixed up, I'd propose that only states that didn't have a candidate win an absolute majority of the 1st choices transfer votes and electoral votes. I'd have to look into this later but it could work out. Anyway, excellent question and I think a national popular vote system will encourage the ones who have an edge now to isolate even more states than now. Thanks!

Answer 3

You must realize that this country is a Union of 50 autonomous States. The President is, in reality being elected by the States not the general population.

Looking at it that way helps you to realize that the President is like the Governors' Governor. The Electoral College is the best way to insure all fifty states are properly represented. Their population size has a lot of weight but it is not the only weight.

The Electoral College is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority that our forefathers feared most. Nothing would cause the break-up of the union faster than the less populated states getting pushed around by the more heavily populated states. In fact a good argument could be made to only give each state one electoral vote after all a state is a state regardless of size or population but that would completely thwart the will of the larger number of voters. So, the Electoral College as it is, provides the best balance and is the fairest all facts considered.


When people complain that the democratic candidate in an election had more popular votes and think that is somehow unfair, I like to direct them to the red state / blue state map and ask how their candidate would have done if every state had the same amount of Electoral Votes. Those are the two extremes.

All candidates know they are running for Electoral Votes not popular votes. A popular vote is like a hit an Electoral Vote is like a run. Baseball teams are playing to score the most runs not the most hits.


You do not vote to elect the president. Your state votes to elect the president.


.

Answer 4

Yeah, but we have an even more serious problem with less than 50% of eligible voters even bothering to go to the polls. And then thousands to do want to vote who get turned away for false reasons or are intimidated.

I would like to see a serious analysis of how things would change if the EC were eliminated. Would even MORE money have to be spent by candidates because there wouldn't be any states they could just leave alone? It's an interesting question and should be reopened. There might be reasons for keeping the EC but they probably aren't the same reasons that applied 220 years ago.

Answer 5

Yes, but if we went to deciding elections with a popular vote it would be 100 times worse.

All a candidate would have to worry about is getting votes in New York, Boston, D.C., Miami, L.A. Chicago, Dallas, etc. More sparsely populated areas of the country would be completely ignored.

The electoral college system isn't perfect, but so far it's the best we can do.

Answer 6

Suprising to hear this from a Texan. I am against changing the Electoral process. It actually give more power to smaller states. Thats because the half a million of Wyoming gets one vote for its population and two more vote for no reason but being a state. I support it because its a safeguard system. It suppose to protect minority rights. (Not Racial minority)

Answer 7

Well, the problem is that under a popular vote system, all of these problems would be magnified. You'd see candidates focusing their campaigns on New York and LA only. If you think we Texans are overlooked now, it would be much worse without the Electoral College.

Answer 8

I think we are ready to Elect the President by a Majority of the Popular Vote. Instant runoff systems are available.

Answer 9

Jacob and Tom Jr. provide some interesting ideas.

Answer 10

You make a good case to dispose of an out dated practice.