Is It Time To Get Rid Of The Electoral College In Presidential Elections In The US?

Question

Let me be clear. I know what the Electoral College is, and I know what it does. I understand its purpose. I am just wondering if we haven't gotten to the point where it's time to put it on the shelf and allow voters to vote directly for the Presidential candidate of their choice. We have the technology to handle direct voting at that level.

I live in a red state, and I am a Dem. I don't like the fact that my vote doesn't count. I know plenty of Reps who live in blue states, like California, and I don't like the fact that their voice is not heard, either. We've already had the experience of having a sitting president who was not elected by the popular vote, and I don't know about anyone else, but I find that amazingly frustrating. And it's not because I am a Dem, either. I just think the present system is outmoded, and that a lot more people would actually care if they thought their vote actually counted for something.

Your thoughts??

Thank you.

**dgroundhog--It's always been an issue in my mind, at least since the first time I voted in a presidential election. And your logic is flawed--Clinton was a Dem, and he did not win the popular vote. Read your history.

**JU--Do you think it's possible we'd get more voter turnout on presidential elections if so many people didn't feel their vote was "wasted" because they live in a state where the electoral votes do not go to their candidate of choice? I live in a Red state, and I always vote, but I know many Dems who don't, just as I know many Reps who don't vote because they live in California.

**Chad--the Electoral College only affects the vote for the President and his running mate. Some of the issues you are discussing are handled by Congress, which is not affected by the Electoral College.

Answer 1

Yes, we need to get rid of it entirely. At this point it is an empediment to free and fair elections.

Answer 2

Hmmm....I am somewhat on the fence for this issue. Alot of very good points have already been addressed and discussed.

Although any given system of voting, whether electoral or direct, can have it's flaws, pros and cons.

What I am more concerned about, is that our two party system is beginning to lose grasp of what Americans really want. Both parties (and I find myself jumping the isles depending on the issue at hand, not because I am a traitor to one or the other party, but because I consider myself progressive and side with the idea or solution that is the best or at least makes most sense, not because a particular idea aligns with the Dems or GOP's) have gone the way of pandering to whoever can provide the most contributions, perks, or kickbacks.

Moreso than changing the electoral college, I think we need a third party that truly represents the course America should take in an ever-changing global economy and shifting climates (not in the physical sense like global warming).

Unfortunately, the electoral college is traditionally set up to support a Demo or GOP nominee and I fear that an Indie party would not make it far even if it were riding the popular wave.

Therefore, at the very least, the electoral should be modified to at least support one or two more parties interested in vying to represent the American public who is interested in making the US a leader in all aspects of the World economy again, not just the country that flexes it's military muscles in bullying fashion. That mentality should have gone by the wayside a LONG time ago...

Answer 3

I know that I am taking the unpopular view.

Majority fraud: running up the vote
The direct election system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for Nebraska to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.

The Electoral College system concedes some states to the party in power, but it eliminates any reason to run up the vote. Any fraud in the present system must be in swing states,where the parties can keep each other in check.

Very few democracies in the industrial world have a presidential system with direct election.

Tedious tallies
The Electoral College vote tends to be less in doubt than the popular electoral vote, for two reasons:
Only a few states will have close races, even if the national vote is close, and
The electoral vote tends to magnify the margin of the victor.
Under a direct election system, a close election nationwide could realistically depend upon absentee ballots, or upon recounts anywhere. In a direct election, any of the 160,000 polling places in the U.S. could affect the outcome.

Citizens left out
Under the Electoral College system, only U.S. citizens who are residents of a state may vote for presidential electors, because it is the states, not the citizens, who elect the president.

Under a direct election system, how could the U.S. legitimately deny the vote to citizens who are residents of U.S. Territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?

The number of people affected is significant. Puerto Rico alone has over 3 million people.

Under a direct election system, is it defensible to deny citizens the right to vote for the president based on where they live? How could the U.S., who has been promoting democracy throughtout the world, even propose such an idea?

Answer 4

the congress can no longer do away with the electoral college. that could take an ammendment to the form, and in basic terms the human beings can try this. each and each state has to vote on it, and prefer the electoral college, each and each state might get an equivalent vote. the smaller, much less populated states are no longer likely to vote it out, because of the fact it grow to be placed there to make helpful that they had an equivalent voice in the 1st place, each and every person is going to vote against their pastimes. The electoral college grow to be put in place because of the fact some states are extra densly populated than others. that is designed as a fashion to furnish the smaller states a voice to be heard.

Answer 5

The electoral college was initiated exactly so the popular vote would NOT determine the Presidency. But I think people conveniently forget that Bill Clinton didn't win the popular vote TWICE and he was President TWICE.
I have as many problems with King George as I ever had with Bill Clinton.

Answer 6

I've always thought the popular vote should determine who is elected President of the United States of America. Now, how do we get rid of the Electoral College?

Answer 7

Yes. Regardless of your political affiliation, the president represents everybody, whether you live in Seattle or Dover. If more Americans vote for candidate X, then X should be president and the Electoral College ought not to be able to override that national decision, whether its a liberal or a conservative that gets elected.

If there is any political insitution that places little or no faith in the American voter, its the Electoral College.

It's time to abolish it forever.

Answer 8

I had thought that for years, but it really is the best way to keep the vote balanced.
The system may be outmoded, but neither do we have sufficient participation in elections to properly reflect the "will of the people".
The electoral college does this in a limited fashion so the method is still necessary, at least until we can get 90% or more participation at the polls.

Answer 9

The emperor is in the process of disbanding the electoral college and the senate.

The last of the old republic is being swept away.

The sith shall rule for a thousand years.


Seriously, I like the idea of the electoral college, as this gives the states voting rights in addition to the people. There is no perfect system, but I can live with it. A straight vote of only individuals, would mean that everything would go for the most populous states, and the other state's individual votes would have less meaning. Alaska, the largest state, with few people, would have less of a say, on issues that affected Alaska.

Do you think that the majority of people in the USA, should be able to vote to say, anyone can drill for oil in Alaska, if the majority of people in Alaska, say no to such a measure?

Answer 10

Pure democracy does not work. It never has. That is why we have representative government as opposed to leaving everything to a popular vote. The general public cannot be trusted to make most political decisions.

If the general public decided things:

* Presidents would be elected based on who was better looking and who was the best-dressed.
* We'd be broke as everyone would selfishly vote money for themselves out of the Treasury. "Here's a government program that includes me, I'll vote for it!"
* 50.1% of the population would be tyrants over the other 49.9%.
* The average IQ is 100. Which means 50% of all people have an IQ below that. I don't want those people making political decisions.

Answer 11

No it should not be.

Its not about being able to handle direct votes. Its about not letting heavily populated areas controlling the outcome of the vote by themselves.