What are the perceived or factual advantages of the electoral college over a vote by popular vote?

Question

Am I wrong to see it as a way to keep power in the hands of the elite?

Answer 1

perceived values=the little guy gets heard
actual DISADVANTAGES is that we are not ONE MAN ONE VOTE. The little guy gets more for his vote, and the people whol live in populated areas, and paying the majority of the taxes, get less for their vote.

Answer 2

Times were very different in America when the government was first formed. The electoral college is a system whose time may or should pass. The electoral college served one purpose. It gave the larger original states, like Virginia, more power in deciding who would be president of the new republic. This was the only way larger, more powerful states would come into the union.
The country is now well unified. There is no need to give such an advantage to larger, more populated states. The states have in effect lost or ceded all their original rights to the federal government.
Unlike two hundred years ago, U.S. citizens view themselves as Americans first and citizens of their state second. Two hundred years ago that perception was reversed. The situation then was about the same as in Europe today. People in France see themselves as Frenchman first and members of the EU second.

Answer 3

Originally the country was very regionalized, so it was logical to assume people would vote the same as their neighbors, leaving entire states to vote similiarly.

Regionalization and denser populations in certain areas would have meant that one group got to decide everything. We arent nearly as regionalized today. Think the Lincoln election, no Southern states gave Lincoln a single electoral vote--that could not happen today. The people now are too split to agree to that extent. The EC has outlived its usefullness. Now it does the opposite of what it was supposed to do. It weights the votes of some people over others. Especially when you consider the number of ways its handled. Around here my vote counts for nothing at all. I tend to vote against what my electors vote, and we work on the sytsem of all votes to one candidate. Other areas split their votes, but may or may not require that the electors vote the same way as the people.

Today, its main intent is to allow the major two parties to keep control. They make sure that votes to Third Parties dont count. In only casting votes for the major parties the electors send a message that no other vote matters. They undermine the democractic system and take the power out of the hands of the people. So yes, your observation is true.

High costs of campaigning does the same thing because it forces candidates to turn to Big Business for money making them indebted to businesses before they even get to the point of making promises to the people.

Answer 4

The Idea was to give more clout to small states. How could a state with a population like Alaska compete with New York or California? While there should be some correlation between the popular vote and the electoral vote we know that there may not necessarily be so. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but it was the electoral vote that gave the election to George W. Bush. There are, for example, counties in California with a greater population than Alaska or Rhode Island. Is that fair to Alaska whose interests are different than California to be swallowed up by the California interests or for little Rhode Island to go against the likes of New York or Texas? Perhaps with mass communications the electoral college system is no longer necessary. Perhaps one can argue that with rapid transportation such as air travel states are not isolated from each other as they once were and that we are actually seeing more in common with one another than difference. Notice regional accents. Young people from the city rarely pahk the cah in the yahd in Boston any more. While occasionally you might here a person from Wisconsin say "doncha know" it is not like it was. TV and jet travel have mixed us all up for better or worse. Anyway we can think about it but it will take a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen. Do small states want to chance that? We will be discussing this issue long after those new born today are grandparents.

Answer 5

The advantage is that you maintain STATE power. The anti-federalists would have never gone along with the Constitution had it mandated a federal election. The electoral college may seem like a weird idea now, but they have also not kept up with the times. There need to be more electoral votes to spread around instead of just being shifted. Personally, I think the nation should shift to the Congressional district approach. But you can't tell the state's how to run their elections either...

Answer 6

Absolutely. The Electoral College was intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system is designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to incorporate the Connecticut Compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.

However, I am increasingly concerned about Republican sponsored ballot initiative being proposed to change the way California distributes its electoral votes. It would allow Republicans to pick up electoral votes in CA.

Answer 7

The benefit is that the electoral college is interior the constitiution. The poplular vote isn't. The Electoral college is a nevertheless an outstanding gadget and we would desire to continuously shop it. The Electoral college grew to become into partly designed to tension the applicants to attraction to a variety of folk in many states super and small. If we did away with this methodology, the applicants could be waiting to concentration on getting votes in numerous super cities. they'd forget approximately approximately much less populated parts of the country. remember that america is a union of fifty separate and self sufficient states. we at the instant are not in basic terms one vast u . s . a .. On Election Day we've not got one vast national election, yet rather we carry 50 separate elections, one for each state. in this way each and every state determines who they prefer to be President. each and every state has different policies that be certain how their electors interior the faculty would desire to vote. distinctly much all states require all of their electors to vote for the winner of the favored vote for that state. Your vote does count type! each and every state has electors equivalent to their total form of congressional seats interior the abode and Senate. this provides small states like Wyoming and Rhode Island potential interior the Electoral college this is fairly disproportionate to their inhabitants. this is very equivalent to the way those small states have fairly disproportionately extra potential in Congress. This grew to become right into a compromise that the founding fathers got here up with to dodge the states with super populations dominating the national authorities and work out administration over smaller states. the reality that on uncommon events the winner of the Electoral college vote would be different from the winner of the national customary vote isn't an twist of destiny or flaw interior the gadget. The national customary vote isn't even pronounced interior the form. that's in basic terms a type that the information media reviews. The founding fathers in no way had any aim that our President would desire to be elected via way of national customary vote. A constitutional modification could be required to alter the gadget. Small states could in no way conform to ratify such an modification. that's quite now not likely that it may ever bypass.

Answer 8

Yes you are wrong. The major purpose for it is so that less populous states have a slightly greater say in the Presidential elections. If there was no electoral college people would only worry about the few large states and ignore small ones like Wyoming. I'm not sure how people think it keeps power in the hands of the elite. each state's electoral votes are determined by the popular vote in that state so the people of each state still decide, by majority, where their state's electoral votes go,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer 9

It is but it isn't ...hows that for an answer. If there was no electoral college system , all the major cities in the US would always decide every election because they are the most populous. But at the same time it does hinder any third party candidates. For the most part it works out the same anyway, only twice in 200 years has it not worked the same.

Answer 10

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. Our founding fathers saw real danger in democracy since it is essentially "mob rule". The whims of the masses fluctuates all the time, yet the fountain , the constitution stays the same. This structure of government makes sure that the ignorant don't screw it up for the rest of us, so yes you are wrong, but you are right that we are run by the political elite who sell us on programs and ideas that are counterproductive and are clear violations of our rights.