Why do we have electoral votes in Presidential Elections?

Question

Shouldn't majority rule. so if you live in a less populated state your vote doesn't count as much with the electoral system.

And to add to the question what keeps the electoral's from voting against the peoples wishes ? I personally think they can be swayed.

Answer 1

Actually, your vote in a less populated state counts more since every state starts with two votes. (E.g. Delaware gets one electoral vote for each approximately 200,000 people while California gets one electoral vote for each approximately 600,000 people.

There are several reasons why we originally had an electoral college. First, the Framers were not overly enthusiastic about direct rule by the people with only the House of Representatives being chosen by popular vote. Second, the Framers saw the electoral college as more of a nominating system where the elite in each state would each pick two candidates (one of whom had to live outside the state). The Framers expected one of the two votes to go to someone from inside the State but that the true top caliber people would pick up the second vote in other states. The House would then choose between these top candidates. Third, the system by giving each state two extra votes would prevent the large states from overwhelming the small states.

Why do we still have it? First, it is hard to change a system that is not truly broken. In fifty-six elections, the candidate with the most popular votes has failed to win only three times -- all involving disputed results. Second, changing the system requires a constitutional amendment. Not only is a constitutional amendment difficult, but it requires three-quarters of the states to agree. Since most states are relatively small (the majority of the Representatives come from 13-14 states), it is against their interest to change the system.

Finally, you asked why don't electors change their minds. Electors are nominated by the political parties that they represent. They tend to be committed activists who work hard to support the entire ticket. They are not the type of person who is likely to change sides. As the winning presidential ticket in the state gets their electors elected, it is next to impossible to get them to change sides.

Answer 2

Because the Founding Fathers didn't trust majority rule, where a candidate could focus on California, Texas, Florida and New York but would forget about states like Vermont, Wyoming, Delaware and Montana. The Founding Fathers were smart and way ahead of their time. The electoral college could stay but I think we need to change the allocation method (maybe like the system used in Maine or the failed proposal in Colorado). The winner-take-all system for allocating electoral votes doesn't reflect what voters want and can exagerate or under-estimate a candidate's victory margin in a state. A candidate could lose by 5% or 10%, it doesn't matter with a winner-take-all system. But with the Maine method or the proportional method, electoral votes would be split. Thanks!

Answer 3

The electoral college is more important today than it's ever been. Our Founding Fathers had a lot of foresight.

The fact is that there are pockets of this country dominated by extremists of one party or the other. The Republicans have the deep south. The Democrats have most of the large coastal cities.

If you let majority rule then each party would cater towards these extremes, trying to get as many of these voters out to the polls. Whichever candidate did a better job of impressing their base would win the election. Inevitably, the two candidates would be far apart on every major issue, and whichever party lost would feel really out of the governmental process.

When you have the electoral college it forces candidates to abandon their bases. They know that they can move towards the center and still easily win their base states. Instead, they have to cater towards the center. States like Iowa, Ohio, etc. States with mixes of social conservatism and economic progressivism, or maybe a mix of economic liberalism and social liberalism. It forces candidates to moderate their messages, and ensure that the moderate American view comes through in both major candidates.


As much as Republicans love to demonize the Democratic candidates for President and vice versa, they really inevitably agree on almost every major issue. If Al Gore were elected in 2000, we still would be in Iraq, we still would have had the tax cuts, and we still wouldn't have been in Kyoto. Gore has changed a lot since 2000, since he no longer has to appeal to moderates (his political career is over).

Similarly, if John Kerry were elected President we'd still be in Iraq. And we'd still have FISA. And we'd still have the Patriot Act. Just look at how the Democratic majorities in congress have actually strengthened rather than weakened the President's spying powers since they entered Congress. Not saying I support that, but it's clearly a position that the Democratic Party knows that they need to take if they're going to win the 2008 election. It might piss off dailykos, but dailykos readers aren't the ones who are going to decide who gets elected President. They're voting Democratic no matter what, so why do you need to please them with extremist policies?


The party out of the white house always feels like the president is far out of whack with the majority of America. But that's just sour grapes. The electoral system assures that whoever gets elected President always represents moderate America.

Answer 4

I personally see the electoral college as the biggest problem with America today.

Anyway it was set up for 2 reasons:
1. To keep the small states in America, and make them stop bitching about their vote not counting as much. (Earth to the smaller states, U R free to move to California anytime you wish)

2. Many voters back then, as now, are and were very poorly informed. So the electorates were supposed to be wise men who would vote for the president. That worked for 8 years of Washington, but the rubber stamp format of electorates evolved after Washington's second term when there was a competitive election (Between Jefferson and Adams).

Answer 5

The majority does rule when the majority is the government. It does'nt count cause they consider us casualities of war like the soliders in Iraq forget talking all political that just the way of the world today. Then they try to put it in our minds that every vote counts but no one likes to tell us the truth like about stuff that goes on in the wars besides killing and kidnapping. There could even be more, but what do we know huh! Maybe you could be one of the ones to make strong views on the matter and fight for the rights of the citizens. We need more activist.

Answer 6

First of all, we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic (for which it stands, one Nation, under God...)

Ask your Social Studies teacher. If you are already out of school then shame on your school for not teaching the basic principles and reasons of our electoral system.

To do away with the electoral college would strip away much of the legislative power of small states and give them very little if any say in national elections.

When asked by a woman if we were now a Democracy, Ben Franklin replied something to the extent of "Good lord no. Madam, we are a Republic."

Answer 7

The constitution is set up as a compromise between the big states and the small states. It is intended to grant a lot of freedom to individuals and states without trampling on the minority. It is intended to prevent what is referred to as the "tyranny of the majority". Occasionally the majority behaves like an irrational mob.

Without the electoral college the smaller states and their interests woud simply be ignored or trampled. With the electoral college they can't be so readily treated this way. And that is the point.

Answer 8

Actually I thought it was the less populated states do get a say because of the electoral college. I thought it was designed to curb the power of the heavily populated states. That was my understanding. Is this wrong?

Answer 9

Because the government thinks the American people are stupid and can't decide on a good leader.
Oh wait, in 2000 didn't we actually choose Gore and we ended up with Bush? So instead we ended up with one of the worst presidents in history.

I am totaly against this electoral college bull, let the people decide who they want.
Oh, and stop the pres from vetoing stem stell research money when clearly the majority of people wants it.

Answer 10

Going to a favored vote could positioned much extra stress on presidential applicants to strengthen much extra money, ultimate to an excellent extra "offered and paid for" president. maximum states are already desperate earlier an election starts off. merely a relative few are toss-united statesthat require applicants to spend important money attempting to swing the vote count extensive form their way. Make it a favored vote and the applicants will could desire to spend money everywhere, extensively increasing their want for marketing campaign contributions, increasing the political costs they could owe those individuals. i could help going to a favored vote if the money could desire to be pulled out of the equation, yet it fairly isn't likely for countless motives, a number of that are constitutional.