why was the electoral college created? what are some flaws and why should we maintain it?

Answer 1

Despite what most Americans seem to think about the creation of the electoral college, it was *not* set up to ensure states had equal representation. That's a side argument. It was set up for the simple reason that it was easier to get a college together (of "suitable, sensible, sober and intelligent men") and take a vote rather than trying to coordinate voting across the entire country. Rememeber, many times during the 19th century, the distortions the college creates meant that the college met and voted on the president anywhere up to three weeks ahead of the actual voting date of some low population states! The college seemed like a good idea at the time in a large country where information spread slowly, and people moved even more slowly. Time, however, has moved on.

Flaws? Dozens. There's a reason the system isn't used in many countries these days. It's because it is, in the modern age, anti-democratic. Anyone that thinks it "evens" the power of states or voters is seriously misinformed and hasn't wrapped their head around the idea of a national election correctly: why should *states* matter one iota in a *national* election for a *single* position.

The only *fair* system in that instance is a direct vote, whether you want to argue for a FPP system or some form of preferential system like STV (which I personally favour). *That* means that one vote is worth exactly that: one vote and the true will of the people would be expressed. No longer would the large population states dominate in the way they currently do, and if you honestly think the system is fair now then try considering how much time presidentiual candidates devote to such "equal" states as Wyoming or North Dakota...

As for why the US should maintain it, it shouldn't. It is a holdover that serves no purpose other than to distort the already hugely distorted US electoral system. In much the same way as reporting exit polls and results before voting has finished in all states (& thereby influencing voters in those states (both how to vote and whether to vote at all)), the electoral college has served its time and should be eliminated.

But, the current system of monied interests won't allow that to happen. After all, if *people* actually had a say in how things worked and who got elected, then politicians and the corporations funding them might actually have to be answerable to them. The other factor that would suddenly come in to it is that with the elimination of the electoral college, third parties suddenly have a viable chance. There is no way the current 1.5 party system is going to let that happen.

Right now, you have a prime example of how and why the system doesn't work, and what can happen as a result.

Answer 2

How about this for a flaw. The electoral college says that if only one single person in California votes for a candidate, that candidate deserves all 55 of the state's electoral votes (most states use winner takes all). If there was 100% voting turnout in Montana, and they all voted for the same candidate, that candidate deserves only 3 votes. The electoral college rewards big states for being big. The electoral college was set up by the framers who were doing something new, transitioning from a monarchy to a democracy. I don't think they entirely trusted the common man yet and thought they needed a buffer.

Answer 3

The electoral college is an antiquated system put in place by the Constitution to supposedly give every state an equal voice in who to elect as president. What worked back then is not near as effective today with a growing population. It either needs to be abolished or revised.

No I don't like the electoral college because it is not representative of the popular vote always. The election of 2000 is a perfect example, i.e. Gore won the popular vote by lost the electoral college vote.

The best way to ensure that the electoral college is representative of the popular vote is to award the candidates electoral votes the percentage of the popular vote they won, i.e. if a candidate received 46 percent of the popular vote in a state, they should receive 46 percent of that state's electoral college votes. This could really make a difference in states that have the largest number of electoral votes with California, Texas, and New York having the most.

I seriously doubt this will ever happen unfortunately but I can always dream anyway! :-)

Answer 4

The electoral college prevents over-populated states from getting higher priorities when selecting presidents. Without it, candidates would cater towards New York and California, and could launch successful campaigns while ignoring the rest of the country.

Flaws:

Winner-takes-all system is not fair. If a state vote comes in at 49%-51%, the candidate with 51% of the votes gets ALL of the state's votes.

Electorates are not required to vote for the candidate that won the state popular vote, although it is a felony to deviate from the popular vote and has been done a few times.

Answer 5

The electoral college was created to ensure that every state competed on an equal basis in a national election. So the winners of the electoral vote in Wyoming count just as much as they do in California. Smart plan if you ask me. We are country made up of states united under one flag, we should all have an equal vote as to the leadership.

Answer 6

It's what keeps our republic a republic and not a mob-ruled democracy.

Any election system will have flaws. Ours are pretty minor. The only major one I can think of is that an elector in most states is not required to cast his vote as decided by the voters he represents. That should be changed, but that is a state by state issue, not a federal one.

Answer 7

it was basically established because the founding fathers did not trust the voters to uphold freedom...it was put in as a buffer in case the voters elected a nutcase for president, the college could vote differently because the electors are not bound by law to follow their state's popular vote.

some problems are that winner takes all, aka it's possible to get more popular votes than the other guy but still lose the election...

second, third party candidates can take away votes from the other two making it impossible to get the necessary 270..

third, it favors small (population wise) states...

Answer 8

While you are at it, look up the creation of the Federal Reserve...there's an eye-opener.