why do we still use the electoral college in this age of technology?

Question

I heard that it was originally used because of the size of the country and the difficulty of getting info around quickly. We don't have that problem today, so why do we still use it? And why is it all or nothing? A state could be 51/49 and the 51 gets all the votes?? That just doesn't sound right at all. There have been elections where the popular winner loses the electoral vote. I think that is just plain wrong! Why is this system still in place?

Answer 1

When the original independent states were organizing themselves into a nation they had a problem. That problem was that a straight democracy would have allowed the largest states to effectively control the whole nation and freeze the small states out of decision making.

But, the small states were free and thus had the power to decide for themselves. Lest you thing this silly or unrealistic, Vermont did exactly that and refused to join the United States when the other 13 original states did.

The compromise they struck was a legislature composed of two houses; one [the House] divided among the states based on population and a second [the Senate] in which all states had equal voice.

The compromise carried over to electing the President ... and thus was born both the winner take all in each individual state rule and that every state receives one electoral college vote for each Representative in Congress, plus two [one for each Senator].

Thus, our Presidents are not elected as the most popular individual but as the one who can appeal to the broadest portion of the country, including the small states.

***
Btw, the scheme to have the largest states direct their electors to vote according to national popular vote will not fly. The Constitution and Federal law prohibit all agreements in advance to allocate or determine electoral college votes, including agreements among the states.

***
The earlier responder is correct -- this method is embedded in our country to such an extent that it will not be changed.

Trying to amend the Constitution to change it would fail since such an amendment requires the positive vote of 3/4ths the states, which would necessitate getting the small states to agree to limit their own power. It isn't happening. Ever.

***
It follows that Al Gore was not elected President of the United States. That he won more votes is immaterial. The President of the United States is the individual who wins the electoral college vote based on the rules in the Constitution.

What Al Gore won was a 'beauty contest' more properly titled "most popular Presidential candidate" -- not the office of President.

I'm aware that there is a significant group of people who wish the rules were different. Al Gore knew the rules when he ran for the office. Afaic, that means he agreed to them before the voting and thus should be held to them after the voting.

QED

Answer 2

You are a bit misinformed. The electoral college has noting to do with the size of the country. It has to do with a very important concept the founders worried about known as the "tyranny of the majority". That is why they selected a representative republic rather than a straight democracy.

The country actually consists of fifty individual governments or states each with it's own governor. All of the states are equal but they have different size populations. If the popular vote were all that was considered the states with the largest populations (maybe five or six) would be able to impose their will on all the others. If each state were given one vote the states with tiny populations would be over represented.

The solution was the electoral college. Each state is given electoral votes based on the size of the population. The larger population states get more than the smaller population states. Most states still follow the original intent and award all of their electoral votes to the highest vote getter in that state. So if a candidate gets the majority of the popular votes in that state, say 51% he gets 100% of the electoral votes.

It is designed to balance out the rights of individual voters with the rights of the states.
Originally, we did not vote for the president at all. The Senate elected the president and the second highest vote getter became vice-president. But this made the Chief Executive of the nation too weak.

The electoral college protects us from the tyranny of the majority. For instance, lets say that three women and four men are in a waiting room. The four men call for a vote to decide if the women should take their clothes off. Four against three the women loose. That is the tyranny of the majority. The woman's rights could be taken away by a simple majority. In our system, the men would have one electoral vote the women would have one electoral vote. This protects the women from the tyranny of the majority.

.

Answer 3

As fast said, if it was not that way, No President would care about the Dakotas, Wyoming, or any of the small states. It hold them in check a bit.

On the other hand there are some states looking to reform it by giving out the electoral votes in proportion to how the popular vote was. So if someone wins New Mexico with 5 electoral votes they would likely be given only three of the votes and the other candidate gets 2.

Answer 4

Wyoming's nevertheless screwed, as is North Dakota. helpful, they get greater electoral votes than they could in any different case, even though it... nevertheless isn't everywhere close to as many as California. The Electoral college grow to be wonderful-ish while it grow to be designed, however the guidelines of each and all of the states with sufficient votes to matter (all yet 2 or so, entire) require the electors to vote with maximum individuals in the state. So the electoral college is subsequently made pointless. for sure, seeing because of the fact the assumption of the electoral college grow to be based upon elitism, this is no longer an rather stable spectre of our previous. There *isn't* a want for an electoral college anymore, and actual, there in no way grow to be, in case you like the thought that the finest balloting guy nevertheless has sufficient of a techniques to %. the properly suited guy for a activity.

Answer 5

Getting rid of the electoral college would mean amending the Constitution, something that is not taken lightly nor easily done. It is rare that the popular winner loses the electoral vote, and I honestly believe there are more important issues at hand.

You do make a good point, basing elections on popular vote would make our government more democratic. The biggest problem with the electoral college is that, in the end, the value of a vote is not equal. The Bush/Gore election is a perfect example. Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes, but lost the national popular vote by over 500,000, which means those 500 voters in Florida carried more political weight than 500,000 voters nationwide. Not very democratic, eh?

Answer 6

The electoral college has nothing to do with the age of technology. The electoral college is used so large states like CA - NY etc. don't control all of the votes. Our founding fathers had a great vision. The electoral college works just like it is supposed to.

Answer 7

Well...imagine this scenario...
What if there was an election which included all the people in California and all the people in Nevada.

The vote is to see if California should be able to have all of the water rights in Nevada.
If Ca. voters wanted to take NV. water they could do it by having a majority of the vote...

the rights of the minorities being protected is what the electoral college is for.

Answer 8

I guess the main reason, at least for me, is that not everyone votes. And the electoral college at least limits the amount of votes each state can have. But I agree, I think it is a little frustrating, because the way I voted for the past three elections, did not reflect with the majority of the state voted, so in turn, my vote did not count.

Answer 9

The first link is to Federalist Paper #68, in which Alexander Hamilton explains the rationale for the electoral college. In short, it served to allow a smaller group of men - selected by the population at large - to vote for President, as they "will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." There was also some talk of preventing foreign powers from foisting their own candidate on the populace, as this smaller group of men would be able to ferret out such a candidate.

A quick addendum - Maine and Nebraska award two electoral votes to their state's winner, with the rest of their votes going to the candidate who wins in each Congressional district. So it's possible for these states to split their votes, though it's not happened yet in a general election.

In 2004, Colorado had a measure on its ballot to award electoral votes in proportion to the votes each candidate received in the general election. It failed, as the article I've linked to discusses.

Answer 10

It had nothing to do with the difficulty of getting around, it had to do with being ignored. If we didn't have the electoral college the smaller states would be ignored. This is why it has not changed nor will it.