Electoral College vs. Popular vote?

Question

Why does the electoral college even make sense? Why don't we just use the popular vote? What do you think presidential elections should be based on?

Answer 1

I have to trust that the founding fathers were better judges, smarter, wiser than those in charge today.....

...the system has worked pretty well to date...except that Gore was a sore loser...


So I don't see a real need to change.



.

Answer 2

Popular vote, in a run-off election like France does if no candidate wins a majority of the popular vote after the first election. In a popular vote election, your vote would really matter and be equal in all 51 electoral regions. I'm sure the people of United States are now intelligent enough to directly elect their president after 200 plus years. Territories should be allowed to vote for the President as well, they have that right in France as well, which has a Semi-Presidental system. The idea of a popular vote was seriously entertained after an election Nixon won in 1968. He had .1% more popular vote but had 301 EVs over 191(Humphrey) and 46 (Wallace, a southern protest vote by the electors). Electoral College protects the rights of the small states and this is where the amendment seen its fall. It passed Congress but it died in the smaller states. So either all the States agree to some sort of electoral college reform or go for popular vote or people decide this matter in a Referendum.

Answer 3

I'd like to see the EC abolished and the president elected by a straight popular vote. I think a lot of us would.

The reason the electoral college exists is that smaller states at the Constitutional Convention were afraid the bigger states would have it all their own way. So the electoral college was created to give smaller states proportionately more power than bigger ones, since each state gets one vote for both its senators and all its congressmen,and every state has two senators and at least one congressman.

To do away with the e.c. would take a constitutional amendment, which would be impossible since all the smaller states would vote against it. There have been something like 200 proposals to do away with the electoral college since 1789, and none have been successful for this very reason.

A more likely possibility would be to get every state to apportion its electoral vote proportionate to the popular vote in that state, instead of 'winner take all'. There is a move to do this in California next year, but California is a Democratic state so doing it only in California would only help the Republicans. If -every- state did it, it would be better and fairer.

Answer 4

I have a pretty radical but sorta complicated idea....


New electoral college...

Each state has 2 senators... so lets divide up those votes like this...

Winner of national popular vote gets 50 ballots in the electoral college. (that way everyone's vote across the country counts -even if you are democrat in Texas or Republican in Minnesota)

Next, Each state gets 1 ballot for who ever gets the most votes in that state. (state's rights).

Next each congressional district is like a state - the winner of that district gets the ballot for it.


So here everyone has a say. Essentially your vote gets counted 3 times... first in the national ballot, second in your states ballot third in your district...

This gives an incentive for contenders to visit all across the country. Per se, Hillary my not win the state of Texas, but she could probably pull the districts in and around Dalls, San Antonio and Houston. So Democrats in those districts won't say there is no reason for them to go the polls. Same with, say, Guiliani in CA or San Francisco. Even though he likely would loose LA, an extra 100,000 votes because he gets out the state Republicans could get him a 50 ballot boost in the national election...

Answer 5

Thats the problem with the election process...The Electoral College needs to be eliminated...Uh, people...It would mean a vote in Rhode Island would mean just as much as a vote in California...The problem with the electoral college is what you are describing...It KEEPS people from smaller states from bothering because they feel irrelevant in the election...Electoral votes are determined by population...That should just be eliminated entirely...No states to win...just votes ANYWHERE in the country...The popular vote should be it...ALWAYS...If it was, then we wouldn't have this mess with Bush, because Gore would be president...

Answer 6

Because this is not a democracy. It is a representative republic.
Without the electoral college a candidate can win with the votes from only seven states. I could go to New York and say that I will give everybody in NY a thousand dollars in a refund and I will take it from the people of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. Then I go to California and promise them a thousand dollars that I will take from Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado. And so on and so on. Is that what you want because that is what you will get.

Answer 7

Too much power would go to the larger states and in particular, the large cities. I have read places that of all the things in the Constitution, the electorial college was the most significant, most important, and probably the biggest reason why America is still "United" to this day.

Answer 8

I agree, the electoral college doesn't make any sense to me.It can make the minority rule the majority as in Bush vs Gore.The rationale for it is to give representation to small states as well as big states. They are considered sovereign and the electoral college supposedly would preserve unity and not permot big states do dominate small states, so as to preserve equality. I don't buy this argument and the US got stuck with Bush as a result

Answer 9

'I agree , but we'll have to change the Constitution .
Wouldn't it be nice to have the whole country agreeing on a President for a change and not every state being either Red or Blue . Everyone's vote would count !!!!

Answer 10

If we had a close race without the electoral college we'd have to do a nationwide recount. That would take forever and cost millions and millions.

Answer 11

It allows the people of less populous states have more of a say, proportionately than they otherwise would have in a pure populist vote. In a pure populist vote, the people in the most highly populated areas would have more say in the outcome than Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, etc.