Why do people think that if the Electoral College were?

Question

done away with, that people's votes would not count?

If the presidential election were based on popular vote, doesn't one vote in state a hold the same weight as in state b?

Answer 1

Everytime someone says this it sounds like a good idea. Only one problem. Small states would be left out.

Example:

Texas has a population of 23 million. Rhode Island has a population of 1 million. The Electoral College ensures Rhode Island has some importance. However, if results were only based on population votes, no candidate would waste his/her time on Rhode Island. or other small states. They'd all be in Texas, or the other big states, all the time.

Theoretically, this would lead to people, specifically governors, from large states having an overwhelming large advantage over other potential candidates.

Answer 2

Democracies have never been stable because a plain majority of 51% can deny the rest their culture, means of making a living, etc. The 13 colonies each signed a peace treaty with Great Britain and were theoretically equal (the laws to amend the Constitution require a certain % of states to approve it, not % of voters). The Electoral College was one of the ways the small state/large state issue was addressed. There already is a huge rift between coastal urban areas and the rest of the country. Even though the rural economy is every bit as important as the urban economy, by definition, rural areas have smaller populations. These people already feel that their votes just don't count as more and more laws are being passed that are detrimental to their livelihood, culture, and beliefs and, because of this land use difference, they are almost helpless to stop it. Take away the Electoral College and what little clout the people have in small states on the most important office, that of the President, is lost.

IMO, what is really needed is to strengthen the Electoral College or perhaps have each county and small city count as one vote, med cities as two votes, and large cities as three votes to even the playing field. The last time the country was so divided between rural economies and urban economies, half the country broke a way and fought a war for independence with disastrous consequences for both halves.

Answer 3

Please, there's not going to be any war. The point of the electoral college is to force candidates to campaign in moderate states, with moderate messages. If you allow the system to be broken down any further, then you just encourage candidates to only campaign in big cities.


The few states that have broken down their electoral votes along congressional lines are incredibly stupid. All they have done is resigned themselves from having any impact on the election whatsoever. Why should any candidate change their message to appeal to a state where they can only gain maybe one extra electoral vote?



Edit: In response to the post after mine... I think people need a little bit of perspective here. Do you have any idea how corrupt the US was in, say, 1960? Or 1920? Or the 19th century? Or at its beginnings? Do you have any idea what goes on in a REAL banana republic? Read about Tammany Hall, for God's sake. Or the 1876 US presidential election. Or the 1824 election. Or the 1800 election.

Sure there's corruption. In both parties. But there is so much oversight that it's just simply that a much higher percentage of corrupt officials are getting CAUGHT. And a lot more people are aware of it through mediums like the internet. The western world has never been LESS corrupt than it is now. With the modern blogs, lawyers, reporters and technology... it's simply impossible to get away with too much anymore.

I know that conspiracy theorists want to believe that there are evil cabals (people sure do love the word "cabal" when they're talking about conspiracies, don't they?) that rule this country or the world. But it's just ridiculous. The Da Vinci code is fiction, guys...

Answer 4

The electoral college was formed because in the 1700's it was a simpler and fair way to preserve the integrity of the election process.
This nonsense about smaller states having the same influence as larger states is absurd. I don't see anybody campaigning in Alaska. We have the technology to elected the President by popular vote. There's no reason not to.

Answer 5

Yeah it's pretty much bullshit. The electoral college was established back before there was the technology for people all across the country to hear about different candidates. They didnt believe that people had enough knowledge on certain candidates because news was not as wide spread. Now however there are newspapers, tv shows, everything for people to find out about presidential candidates. It's time to get rid of the electoral college. I dont want some fat old white guy deciding who an entire state of people is voting for.

Answer 6

People just can't seem to see past their states.

In a national election with no electoral college, candidates would still look for votes everywhere they can get them. It wouldn't matter what state you're in - that's the point. Why would it matter if small states got "left out?" Your vote as part of a state wouldn't matter any more. Why does it matter if a candidate visits your state? The candidates will seek your vote one way or the other because it actually matters.

With the electoral college, ALL the voters in many states, even big ones, get zero attention because they aren't swing states. No candidates waste their time there because they are assured of winning or losing it.

Answer 7

One way of looking at is that your vote has a much greater chance of meaning something with an electoral college.

Look a the last election. 120 million votes cast. Your single vote represents only 0.0000008% of the total. Out of the margin of victory (3 million votes) your single vote represents 0.00003%.

With the electoral college, the election came down to Ohio with a margin of victory of 115,000. A single vote in Ohio represented 0.0009% of the margin of victory for determining the president. That is much larger a percentage than has ever been obtained in the popular vote.

So, sure, the percentage of the margin of victory is still pretty small. But it much larger than when looking at the total popular vote. And yes. it is just that significant for the state of Ohio, but ANY state could be the turning point for the electoral collage.

And in 2000, a single vote in Florida represented 0.5% of the margin of victory. You will never have a more significant vote than that if you have direct election. And if you did, it would be chaos, with recounts and challenges happening in every single precinct in the entire country. It would take years to resolve!

Answer 8

No. The Electoral college makes sure the less populated states have the same voting rights as the next states. We are a union of States. We are not just one big country, we are made up of 50 individual states that have states rights. You may remember a little war we fought over that this was the major point of contention.

Answer 9

Yeah, but you've always got to remember that they all cheat, my pretty! The electoral college was designed to minimize that political defect. And let's face it, there haven't been may times in our 200 year history where the vote has been close enough for the electoral college to matter. Yes, 2000 was a squeaker, and the Democrats think they got screwed, but if Al Gore had carried his own damned state (Tennessee) he'd have had the 10 votes needed for victory, and he wouldn't have had to worry about Florida. I have a hard time sympathizing with a guy who couldn't carry his own damned state! Something tells me that they know him far better than we do!