Has the electoral college outlived it's usefullness?

Question

With our ability to collect and tally votes (well, ecept for Florida), wouldn't a straight popular vote reflect the will of the people better?

The points about being a Republic are well taken. The points about enhancing the strength of small states ... well, doesn't that mean that the opinion of a person in Vermont is worth more than a person in New York? If we went with straight popular vote the big states wouldn't own the election because there would be no electoral college. It would be the people who would own the election. Admittedly there are more in big states. However, they will not all be voting the same. Won't the election be more issue based and not a strategy to capture the electoral college?

Yes the Constitution is a wonderful document. However the founding fathers knew that the need for change had to be incorporated. That's why there is the provision for amendments. Throw it out!? No, change it to enhance our nation - as we have so many times before.

People keep refering to states. The election of a President is not a States issue - it's a National issue. I strongly believe in States Rights. I just want my vote to be equal to every other American. I don't want my state to split 60-40 and all the electors go to the winner (I know that's not always the case). That dis-enfranchises the people who voted for the candidate who lost that state.

And I don't want a peron in a smaller state having a vote that counts more than one in a larger state. I've typically lived in small population states. The ballence between large states and small state is carried by the Senate.

Answer 1

Lets see... First of all, the Electoral College is based on population and that should mean that the relative representation is fairly equal. That said, one of the original reasons for it was the lack of efficient communications methods at the time. Secondly, part of its reason for being was to placate the southern states. Since the representation in the EC was based on population, and since only white males could vote, the south would have been in a vast minority. Thus came into being the counting of blacks as 2/3 of a person.

We've evolved much beyond the need for the EC. In fact, the EC could cause the election of a president who does not have the backing of the majority of the populace. (What do I mean could, it has.) Consider for a moment that the EC does not reflect the strength with which a candidate is elected in a state. If candidate A wins his states by the thinnest of margins and candidate B wins his by landslides, but candidate A wins just enough EC votes to be elected, the EC could elect a president who actually lost the popular vote.

It is time for the people to directly elect their president. Let's get rid of this antiquated system and take our proper place in modern politics.

Answer 2

The electoral college is useful because it allows an individual to have a more direct influence on an election.

Lets say your state has 2 million voters in it and the country has 100 million voters. If you keep the electoral college in place, then your vote is 1 of 2 million when it comes to changing the outcome of your state's electoral college votes. But if we switched to the popular vote, your vote would only be 1 of 100 million. So in the electoral college your vote is more likely to sway the outcome of an election than in the popular vote.

There is also the minor part in the Constitution about us being a Republic. Since we are a republic and not a democracy, we should act as such. No single issue should ever be decided by the majority of the electorate.

Answer 3

Not at all...

The primary purpose of the electoral college was two-fold. Putting an intermediary in place because of limitations on communication was just one part.

The other part is skewing the balance so that the most heavily populated 10 states don't absolutely determine every election. With the added votes (+2 per state) balancing against the population-based votes, smaller and less populated states have a little bit more say -- which helps achieve a national consensus.

Answer 4

I believe that we need the electoral college even more now than we did when it was established.

The idea behind it was that the people elected the most qualified electors, who would listen dispassionately to the candidates without external pressure or propaganda, and as a body choose the best person for the job.

In this day of purchased image, slick advertisement and manufactured speeches, I think that the electoral system would be the ideal one for choosing a well-qualified president, especially, unfortunately, because of the gullibility of the average American today.

Incidentally, I think most people (gullible Americans) have forgotten that the recount in Florida yielded Bush MORE votes, not his opponent.

Answer 5

No, the electoral votes ensures that people living in rural states get a vote on the Presidency. Would you rather give New York City and Los Angeles the right to pick the President. Lose electoral college and that's what would happen. A candidate would never ever stop by Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, etc.

Answer 6

The Founding Fathers NEVER believed in "the will of the people" as something to be taken seriously.

That's why the direct election of Senators is a 20th century invention rather than an 18th century idea.

But the electoral college outlived its usefullness in the 1820s when the electors were no longer citizen representatives, but instead were political hacks who went to the college with their minds already made up.

Answer 7

No, then big state would have more power then the small states.

This is why the electoral college was started and it is why it is needed today.

What has outlived its' usefulness is the two party system. We need a solid third party.

Answer 8

It was designed to keep the urban states from ignoring the rest of the country. When you think about it, it's the same in the Senate... California has two senators, Wyoming has two senators. It's a republic we live in.

Answer 9

Not really, this kind of evens the playing field for smaller states.

Answer 10

The Constitution was very carefully crafted, to give up part of it you might as well give it all up.