What would happen if we got rid of the Electoral College?

Question

Are you for or against this idea? Explain your position.

Answer 1

The Electoral College is an idea who's time has past. It was designed to speed up elections at a time when it would take weeks to hand-count ballots. Now, most states have a decent tally within hours of the polls closing.

Getting rid of the EC would give everyone an equally weighted vote, regardless of what state they live in. Currently, a vote cast in Vermont, for example, carries more weight than a vote cast in California.

Several times in US history (1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000), the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the White House. It also weakens the impact of 3rd parties.

edit;
Some didn't understand my Vermont/California comparison. One vote out of the 314,000 cast in Vermont has a greater chance of tipping the Electoral College votes than one out of about 12.6 million in California. Simple math.

Answer 2

I think it's a poor idea.

The Electoral College ensures that a candidate shows strength in many different areas of the country. Without it, someone could rack up very high vote percentages in relatively few areas of the country and win, even though he or she was not the popular choice of many Americans.

Also, a nationwide "winner take all" vote would present logistical problems as well. Right now, and dispute is "compartmentalized" in that particular state, or district. (For better or worse, if one candidate is far, far ahead in a state and the absentee ballots have no chance of changing the outcome in that state - think Bush in Utah or Kerry in Massachusetts in 2004 - then there's no need to even count the few absentee votes.) If there were a nationwide popular vote, EVERY precinct in the country would be a potential battleground and the search for more votes - real or manufactured - would be endless.

Finally, America is a union of states as well as a nation of people. Several provisions, such as the Electoral College and the Senate (which gives every state, large and small, the same number of senators) were designed to give the small states a voice and an incentive to join the Union, without fear of being entirely shut out by the more populous states. I doubt that many small states would want either to abolish the Electoral College or to "reapportion" the Senate, each of which would require a constitutional amendment. (Senators used to be elected by each state's legislature also, but that's another story.)

I think the Electoral College has merit. I don't think any of the other plans I have heard of recently - including the one to award California's electoral votes by district rather than winner-take-all (which change would probably help Republicans, of which I am one) - improve on the situation.

I think that no system is perfect but that the present one is the best.

Good question!

PS Believe it or not, the Constitution does NOT require that citizens get to vote for president! All it says is that presidents (and vice-presidents) are selected by the Electoral College, and that electors from each state are selected by whatever manner the respective state legislatures decide. So as a legal matter, a legislature could decide that electors would be chosen by them, and not the people at all (unless their state constitution says otherwise). As a legal matter, it would pass consitutional muster (as long as it did not discriminate based on race, gender, etc.), although as a practical matter I doubt any representatives would be re-elected if they did that.

As for the "preventing regional candidates" argument, picture a very conservative southerner who got 75% of the vote in the Deep South, but relatively few votes elsewhere. Or a northern liberal who won New York, California and a few other states by wide margins, but who was rejected by much of the rest of the country. The Electoral College works to make this less likely.

Answer 3

The "electoral college" may be the problem but you need a real choice..the present system allows the two same-old-same-old party's to exchange turns running the country...big business owns both of them...look at them, no matter who is in, the system remains the same..Bush, the Republican, gets the blame for Iraq, but LBJ ,a Democrat, and Nixon, the Republican, were the same with Vietnam...what America needs more than anything is a viable third choice and a free ballot system where all can run who want to and not the discretion of the states. Pennsylvania would not put Nader on the abllot I believe...it really give the people choice and it works because it forces the old crap to evole into something more appealing.

Answer 4

More people would vote. No longer would we only see 55 and 60% participation. People would begin to feel that their vote actually holds significance. The electoral college has more power than the House of Lords does on election day. Remember Duey and Truman? Other nations can handle a popular vote election. Why not the U.S.? Why continue to let a handful of electoral delegates speak for a whole state?
Small states would not lose influence. Population is what counts. Not actual land mass.

Answer 5

I believe abolition of the electoral college is essential to improve democracy in America.The whole idea is outdated and anti democracy.
During the founding years of the Republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.
If your state is locked for one or the other candidate candidates will not pay attention to your position and won't do any effort to convince you.If you live in a state that is locked you are simply irrelevant to them
One person,one vote and all votes counted is the best way to guarantee that all people are being heard and represented.
America deserves truly representative presidential elections, in which all votes have equivalent values

Answer 6

Until the term "fly-over states" is dropped from public discourse, HELL NO.

If it did happen, I think the states would revolt. Speaking for myself, I would support a move for Alaska to secede in that case - no way could a state where subsistence hunting and fishing ever make it under San Francisco ideology. We'd all end up on welfare.

Answer 7

Small states and rural areas would become not important in the presidential election.

Answer 8

All of the known Universe would collapse..... .... .... just kidding ;)


In all honesty both sides have their ups.. both have their downs and I can't say that one is ANY better than the other... so I just don't see a reason to change it.

Answer 9

We would then have Democratic elections, like the ones we are fighting for in Iraq.

Answer 10

Politicians would only campaign in very large cities. They would never visit 'fly over' america.