What good is the electoral college?

Question

Please note that the candidates involved have nothing to do with my opinion on the subject, I just don't agree with the electoral college.

Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 as a result of the Florida outcome. However, he lost the nationwide popular vote by more than half a million votes, making him the first President elected without a plurality of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison was elected in 1888.

I am not a Bush-Basher, but if more people voted for someone else.....Why didn't that person win?

Makes perfect sense super682... When the States couldn't communicate as easily, they could just tally up the electoral votes very quickly rather then spend days organizing and counting the popular vote ballots.

Answer 1

The electoral college was good in the days when there were no telephones and other instant forms of communication, which is why the electoral college was established in the first place. Now that we can communicate in real time, there is no need for the electoral college, and I agree with you, we should elect the president and vice president with the popular vote.

Answer 2

The electoral college insures each state a say in who is elected.

If the election was decided on a simple majority vote of the US, the top 5 most populated states (California, New York, Florida, Illinois and Texas) would decide the outcome of all federal elections.

The votes of the population in the remaining 45 states would not have any effect on the election, thus denying them representation in deciding who the president will be.

Administrations would only have to provide for the infrastructure, welfare and economies of the 5 states to get elected or stay in office. The other 45 states wouldn't have schools, health care, jobs, etc.

The electoral voters must vote in accordance with the popular majority vote of the state they represent. Unfortunately, sometimes the majority of states votes for one candidate while the people in the 5 most populous states vote for the other candidate.

It isn't the best system, but it is better than denying the majority of the country representation in the government.

Answer 3

Swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have no incentive to get rid of the Electoral College because they don't want to give up their power.

Small states like Nevada also have no incentive to get rid of the electoral college because it gives each voter in such states more influence in the presidential election than would be warranted by their population. (Every state gets at least 3 electoral votes).

But there is a way the system could change without a constitutional amendment. A state could pass could a law requiring all of its electoral votes to go to the winner of the national popular vote, provided that states with a majority of the electoral votes have enacted the same kind of law. The California Legislature passed such a bill last year, but it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. A system like this would benefit large strongly blue states like California and it would benefit large strongly red states like Texas, but it would reduce the power of swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Currently, a candidate who can win those three states is virtually certain to become president.

Answer 4

This country is a Republic of fifty states. Each state therefore should have some say in determining the President, the chief executive. The electoral college was set up to prevent popular vote from electing the President, as this would give more populated states a much greater advantage than less populated states. I will give you an example.

Lets say our nation has exactly four states California, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming and has a federal government set up under similar principles as the US Government. The 2000 Census data has the population of those states at:

California = 33,871,648 (94.3% of total)
Montana = 902,195 (2.5 % of total)
North Dakota = 642,200 (1.8% of total)
Wyoming = 493,782 (1.4% of total)
Total = 35,909,825

If a popular election for the President of this country, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota would all be virtually ignored as they don't even represent 6 % of the total electorate. These states would be effectively removed from the electoral process.

Now we will try an electoral college to give these smaller states a voice in electing the leader of the nation:

California- 9 (50% of electoral votes)
Montana - 3 (16% of electoral votes)
North Dakota -3 (16% of electoral votes)
Wyoming- 3 (16% of electoral votes)

While this system still gives the much more populated California an edge, it allows less populated states to at least have a chance at effecting the outcome of the race and participate in the election of the President of their union.

Note: The number of votes California has in the electoral college is much greater than 9, but I will use 9 for this example.

Answer 5

The electoral college was & is used to stop the large populous states from electing our president. California & NY have more citizens that most of the eastern states. They however do not represent most states opinions. They tend to be liberal states while the rest of the country goes from liberal to conservative. New Hampshire's or Georgia's opinion would never count without the electoral college. That is why is was started & that is why it is still used. I would hate to think Hollywood would pick our president.

It is totally by popular vote in each state that decides who gets the electoral votes. The number of votes of each state is decided by the population of the state.

Answer 6

It is of no value.

It gives small states like Wyoming too much power.

If it weren't for the electoral college Gore would probably be President and 9/11 might not have occurred.

The electoral college gives too much power to the more primitive states.

Answer 7

Your very right, the system is outdated, when many people could vote on their computers, it may save time and money in the long run. and I wouldn't mind waiting a few day or weeks to find out who won.

By the way, Bush wanted to count the military absentee ballots, Gore went to court and blocked it. He took away their right to vote. That's why I will NEVER vote for any liberal.

Answer 8

The electoral college is one of the most prescient checks on big-city power. And a great test of a candidate's Constitutional knowledge is whether he or she supports the EC.

Without it, New York City would render Iowa completely unrepresented.

Answer 9

Sorry, but it's not changing any time soon. It would require a Constitutional amendment to do so, and there are at least 13 small states which are not stupid enough to cede more power to California.

Answer 10

electors from each state are pledged in advance to vote for their party,, it's largely a formality