Should the U.S. abolish the electoral college?

Question

Check out this editorial.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/12/electoral_college/

For those against, did you read the article? I used to feel the way you do that it would spread out the power but this editorial makes me want to dig deeper. I also used to think that politicians would no longer visit the less populated states. I don't think that's true because it seems without the electoral college then individual votes would matter even more than they do now and maybe we could get more people to exercise their duty.

There is a great discussion going on here. I think the American public is already being duped because it's money that wins the elections. It has nothing to do with brains, degrees, networks of smart people, or experience. If money wasn't the biggest factor then I don't think GWB would have had a chance. He has made and continues to make so many errors. His latest remarks about the economy show how out of touch he and his people are from regular people. This editorial is skewed to the left but if each person's vote mattered then it would be fair to both parties. No one could really protest like they do now. I think more people would take the time to vote so we might have increased participation. I think that scares the Republicans to no end because they have much more to lose. There is more risk in that kind of system. There are more regular people than filthy rich.

I think the media should be demanded to do a better job at showing all of the candidates for president and not just the richest. That must change. We must hear more about all of them in order to make a better decision. There is always a risk that the wrong person will be elected. That's one of the risks of living in the U.S. But at least it's better than other forms of government or seems to be. Who really knows? This is what we are used to. We have been conditioned to some degree to be biased. There are more questions than answers.

Answer 1

Yes, we should. They can be bought way too easily, as we have seen in the past.

Answer 2

Well the whole point of the job of a head of state is that the head of state is meant to represent the whole country, not each state but the country (it is the job of the upper house to represent the states in a federation and the US is a federation). A lot of other countries directly elect the president and they don't have the kind of problems that people who support the obsolete electoral college claim would appear were the US constitution fixed.

So yes, the US should get rid of the electoral college and instead have the popular vote elect the president. It's one of the ways in which the people who wrote the US constitution screwed up (they also screwed up by having each state select the senators but that was fixed and by putting in a right to arm bears, or bear arms, I keep forgetting).

The US is overdue for electoral reform so something actually might end up getting done about it (along with a change away from the very bad first past the post system).

Answer 3

I read the article in its entirety and it failed to sway me. The author makes it clear he wants to abolish the system because he thinks it gives Republicans an advantage. That's not a good reason to abolish a system :) "Let's disenfranchise this political party to maintain democracy", that's not a winning argument. He then goes on to criticize the reasons why people defend the EC, and gives no solid arguments to counter the existing ones. He does however, give a nice thorough analysis of the constitution, its shortcoming, and historical insight.

I have the most problem with this:

"The California Electoral College Initiative has been exposed for what it is: a Republican plan to steal the 2008 presidential election. The idea was to divvy up the electoral votes of the nation's biggest state by congressional district rather than give all 55 to the statewide winner -- who would almost certainly be a Democrat. But a mysterious $175,000 contribution heightened suspicions that the Rudy Giuliani campaign was behind the initiative, and prompted two key staffers to leave their posts with the group pushing it."

Divvying up the votes by congressional system is WAY more fair than the current winner-take-all system! If that is done, then the electoral vote will more closely represent the popular vote! California has 55 electorates. If you get 50.1% of the vote in California, you get all 55 electorate votes. In my opinion, it would be more fair if you only got 50.1% of them. In fact, all states should do that. In that case, the electoral college would only be a safety net and a direct representation of the popular vote, channeled through a group of electorates.

Answer 4

My first reaction was...yep...throw it out...then I thought for a while...I know this goes against popular opinion, but no, I believe the USA should not do away with the electoral college.

It pains me to say this, but the electoral college was created to protect us from ourselves. The American public can be duped into voting for a truly damaging person that would lead to severe damage to our country. That's really why it was implemented, and that situation still exists today. The electoral college is the safety valve to legally not elect someone we have all voted for.

I must admit, I have seen many dangerous people run for president over the years. Of course not many made it far...but what if one did? People did vote for these nuts! What happens if the big fix were on and America was fooled? It's the job of our electoral college to step in and vote away the mistake. It's a nice safety net to have that normally does not affect our vote or the outcome of the election.

Second round

Many of the thing you say are true with no doubt. I tend not to trust the articles auther because it seems he has an agenda based on political beliefs. The written word is a powerful thing and some writings tend to pass themselves off as editorials but truly wish to obtain an objective through presentaion of facts that only support their postition.

I'm still open minded about the subject and I applaud this conversation. My position isn't that it wouldn't make the elections more balanced and fair, it may. My position is that the origional reason it was created was to protect our country from an uneducated or apathitic population who could be misled has not gone away. We are at the point in our society that if a candidate stood up and said "if you vote me in to office, I will send $10,000USD to every man women and child in this country." That person would get votes, and lots of them. Most of us know it's BS, but electoral college was not formed to protect our country from the voting habits of informed individuals.

Answer 5

yes the reason why we ever had it in the first place was the powers that be did not think the people were inteligent enough to vote properly and if they messed up the delagtes could always vote the right way. but now a days people are much more informed then back then we can read and write .
we should be allowed to vote and are vote should be real.
This election if we get a 3ed party may have some one win with out the popular vote. thats just wrong.

Answer 6

Yes, the Electoral College should be abolished. It actually makes us less democratic.

However, I do not accept the notion that it exists solely for the benefit of the conservatives. Those who benefit the greatest are the candidates who can win the biggest states: California, New York, Texas, and a couple others.

Answer 7

It should be revised, reviewed, and redone.

The electoral colleges have faults beyond measure.

For starters, it trumps majority vote.

Majority vote in a country should play a bigger role in who gets elected.

True, California and New York would have a bigger hammer to swing in that case, but if most of the population is located there then why not!?

That's like saying if there was only 1 person located in a new state that we called Onepersonslyvania, then that 1 person would actually be playing a big part in this Electoral College system.

Not a major role, but still bigger than that one person SHOULD.

Answer 8

If we did candidates would only be concerned about campaigning in population centers. I dont think the electoral college is the ideal solution but would like to see an alternate proposal that would take into account the areas with low populations

Answer 9

I used to defend the Electoral College system, but I've changed since then. The EC system is antiquated and past its time. The only people who are in favor of keeping it are the ones with disproportionate leverage because of it.

Answer 10

I think so, let the president be elected by popular vote.

Why even have an election if the Electoral College can render it null and void.

Answer 11

Yes. We have the technology to count everyone's vote and presidential candidates will have to go to each state and get their views across to potential voters.

There's a reason why Republican candidates never go to California and why Democratic candidates go to Texas. It's a waste of time because anyone who votes for them won't count.