Why do we still have the electoral college?

Question

Now that we have world wide instantaneous media and an informed and educated electorate, why do we still have the electoral college?

It just seems unfair to me that in 26 states there are no laws to punish faithless electors, they get to vote for whoever they want regardless of how the popular vote in the state turns out. There have already been 85 cases of people voting against the popular vote based on their own personal beliefs instead of upholding the decision on the voters.

Answer 1

There's a political reason why we still have it. It isn't just due to tradition or inertia.

Each state's votes in the Electoral College are equal to the total number of its senators and representatives. Each state gets two senators no matter how small it is, so this gives small states a disproportionately large share of the electoral votes. (For example, California has 71 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times as many electoral votes.) Small states have therefore always resisted abolishing the Electoral College, since it gives them more power compared to the big states.

Abolishing the Electoral College would take a constitutional amendment, which requires the approval of 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. Small states are over-represented in the Senate, so they have the power to block the amendment there. And even if it got through both houses of Congress somehow, it wouldn't get the approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures.

So we'll probably still have it for a long, long time.

Answer 2

1. It has not been amended in the Constitution, nor do the majority of states want it amended.

2. There are large states, such as California (a prime example of such) that have massive voter fraud problems. States regulate their own voting law. California, as in our example, encourage voting fraud with its voting laws and policies. Without the Electoral College there is no protection for other states with legitimate state law in their voting processes. Texas votes would be commingled with fraudulent California votes. Such would lead to a even further increase in fraud, and corruption (likely on a massive scale).

3. It give voice to all of the states, not just the most populated or just city centers.

Answer 3

We have the electoral college so that one state with a bigger population can't out-vote a smaller state with lower population, such as Wyoming. It works as kind of an equalizer otherwise it would be New York electing the President instead of the United States.

Answer 4

I don't like it because in a highly populated state like Florida, when Bush won in 2000 by maybe 500 votes (?), the winner take all electoral votes meant that over 2 million people's votes were thrown out.
In a place with less population, maybe winner takes all means about 50,000 people's votes are voided (in a sense).
It ultimately serves to keep more populated areas from deciding all the elections,but I don't think that was its original intent, was it? Wasn't it just to keep people back before cars, trains and buses from having to travel so far to vote?

Answer 5

But the we still do not have equality of population in each state. We are a union of States. In order to have equality in the Union we will always have the electoral college to ensure equal voters rights. The media or medium has not a damn thing to do with the electoral college.

Answer 6

Highly populated areas would govern the whole country, not having concerns with what farmers, ranchers and others in low population areas need to survive. It was created to keep a balance in our country giving all of our land an equal opportunity for equal representation.

Maybe the electoral college needs to be adjusted due to population growth in some areas that didn't exist originally.

Answer 7

because without it...all the presidents would be elected on the two coasts...LA, NY, the major centers of population in the US...

why would wyoming even bother voting? or montana? or for that matter any of the other lesser populated areas?

Answer 8

Because institutional lethargy outweighs the benefits of advancing boldly into the 18th century benefits of improved communication and getting rid of it.

Answer 9

To give the sons of former presidents an advantage.

Answer 10

Because it's part of the constitution, and it's very hard to change it.