Is the electoral college a flawed system?

Question

I know that people say that the more populated areas of the US would have the say on who's President. But can't we just look at the country as a whole. I mean if you take away all the borders and just had a popular vote. Wouldn't that clearly state who more people in the US want as the President?

Answer 1

First, the electorial college allows more populated areas more wieght. It works more or less like this. (numbers are likely off)

A state with 7 congressmen gets 7 electorial votes. A state with 15 congressmen gets 15 electorial votes.

The electorial college is a winner by popular vote within each state and then that state is winner take all.

The theory is that even states with smaller populations then have more net political power than they would in a strictly national populist election. the reasoning is that if you had a stricly popular vote election then the larger states would get all the attention.

Why would a politician go to a given state with 6 million net voters when an appearance would only sway 1 - 3 % of the voters. Said politician would help their casue MUCH more if they spent time in a state with 30 million or more to swong the 1-3% of voters there. (5x as many people woud change thier vote due to an appearance. This would be the only logical responce given limited time and budgets offered to candidates in an election year)

Now you add in the in order for a politician to sway voters they offer promises of action. If said politicians does not visit smaller =states then the issues effected smaller states are MUCH more likely to be ignored.

Is the electorial college system flawed? Yes

Is there a method that would serve the interests of the nation better than the electorial college? I am not so sure.

Answer 2

The electoral college attempts to mimic the makeup of the US congress, but fails to do so. In the congress, we have two houses, the house and the senate. Senators are elected for six year terms, and there are only two Senators per state. Therefore, all states are equal in the senate and the longer terms make the senate intended to be less susceptible to fads and trends, with ideally a makeup of wise men and women. The other house in congress is the House of Representatives. They are only elected for two terms and are elected by their district. They are more susceptible to fads and are considered to be the less wise, representitives that are not necessarily lawyers, but from many walks of life.

Now to the point, the electoral college simply merges the two houses into one, giving a state with 15 districs 17 electoral votes. This substantially further waters down the smaller states' pull in the federal election. If the electoral votes were split into house electoral votes and senate electoral votes, it could then be required to elect a president that they win the majority of the house and senate electoral votes. If there was no clear winner, then we would have to have a way of breaking the tie, such as a revote using only popular house electoral votes with only the top two candidates the second time around. Currently, ties are resolved in the Senate, with the President of the Senate casting the deciding tie breaking vote. The President of the Senate is also the current Vice President of the United States, which ironically back in the 2000 election was Al Gore.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you vote for a candidate in a presidential election, you are actually selecting an elector that was preselected by the candidate and/or party in the event that they won. That elector goes to Washington in December to actually cast a vote for the president. Each state has one elector for every electoral vote they have. So, the system has people go physically vote in washington d.c. instead of an email, fax, telegraph, etc. of the results being sent.

Answer 3

I'm for reforming the electoral college using a proportional allocation method or the Maine-Nebraska method but I'm going to say the following. Thank God that we still have the electoral college because the class of most of our politicians is very dark and if we didn't have it, they'd be benefitting themselves by going to the big states only. Maybe if our polticians would be what they're suppose to be (represent their constituents), I'd support using a national popular vote but because of the shape our politicians are in and the fact that we also have factors like voting fraud, I think the electoral college is the last resource to, in some degree, hold our candidates accountable. Maybe if we can have our political system ignore special interests and go back to the grassroots, we just might be able to have a national election. Unitl then, unless the proportional method or Maine-Nebraska method are used in all states, I wouldn't support abolishing the electoral college but maybe the electoral votes going to a candidate should be automatic and avoid "faithless electors". Thanks!

Answer 4

The electoral system forces a presidential candidate to be approved by more than half of the population blocks, known as states. This way approval is widespread. What it prevents is having the possibility that one candidate wins 51 % of the vote in 49 states and then losing California by an 80%-20% vote. The desires of one state would override the desires of the other 49. I admit that the explanation is simplistic but it is presented as such to make the point. California was chosen because of its high illegal population and its lax law enforcement to keep the illegals off the voting lists. (Not all states require that you prove that you are a citizen when you go to register)

Answer 5

The people who wrote the constitution were _against_ the idea of unrestrained democracy. The electoral college was a way to reduce the chance that people in high-population states could impose their wills on those in low-population states. In a presidential election, the vote of a person in Alaska or Minesota counts more than the vote of a person from California or New York.

Answer 6

That and make voting more accessible to the general people on the street. Like let them vote in line in the grocery store or something. There is a serious problem with no voting in this country. More people vote in American Idol.

Yeah the electorial college is definately a shady process. I think twice in our history presidents were elected that were not favored by the majority. If that should happen again, I'm sure they'd do away with the electorial college. Regardless, Bush is a jerk. Can't wait till November 08 when his *** is gone.

Answer 7

I do not understand the electoral college in a democracy. Democracy - A form of government in which political power resides in all the people and is exercised by them directly. When the electron college over turn the popular vote we no longer live in a democracy but in a socialize government. Socialize - To place under group or government control.

Answer 8

The electoral college is a flawed system but one that represents the federal nature of this country.

Going to popular election would be equally as flawed. Its hard enough to do a state-wide recount in the larger states such as Florida and Ohio. It would be almost impossible to do a nation-wide recount after a close election.

Answer 9

No, it would not be good to just look at the country as a whole in the presidential election. The electoral college was devised to give balance to the selection of a president. Rural interests were seen to be ignored from the beginning, with the majority of people living in Pennsylvania in the late 1700's. They were in danger of being completely cut off, and possibly even removed from the list of states in those days.

Answer 10

You bet it would.
I'd also like to see all of the political party primaries held on one single day. Enough of the nonsense of which states should go first. Why should a small state like Iowa or New Hampshire have such a disproportionate influence into deciding who we get to vote for? Hold all of the primaries on the same day.