In the US, should the electoral college be eliminated?

[Rubberanvil]

Are you blind? Under direct popular election a canadite does NOT carry the 9 most populous states. He ONLY carries those who vote for him instead of the whole fucking state. This means that the canadite must campaign in as many population centers as possible (even small ones) to get more votes.

Canditates will still only go to the most populous states and the states like Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and etc. with the populations equal to or smaller than a moderate sized city are for all intends and purposes fucking irrelevent.

[HemlockGrey]

I would support reform of the electoral college, mostly because I think such a thing would be doable and it's complete elimination is not.

[Joe]

Are you blind? Under direct popular election a canadite does NOT carry the 9 most populous states. He ONLY carries those who vote for him instead of the whole fucking state. This means that the canadite must campaign in as many population centers as possible (even small ones) to get more votes.

With a direct popular election, campaigns would be conducted entirely in large population centers, because a hefty majority from those areas accompanied by lower tallies in smaller states could STILL win the election. Capture large majorities in California, NE states, and New York, and you win the election, so why concentrate on less-populated states? Their populations are spread out over a much larger area than urban centers, and thus will cost more to cover, with less votes won per square mile campaigned in. The electoral college solves this by giving smaller states slightly more voice in the election of the President.

And the voter fraud issue is a red herring. There is equal chance at it for both types of elections.

Moreso with a direct popular election; in the electoral college system, vote fraud can be confined to the swing states. In states with clear, predicted majorities for one candidate, it would become a non-issue; since that candidate will carry the state regardless of whether the portion of the popular vote he receives is 50.1 percent, or 70 percent, there's no incentive to fraudulently increase the majorities. In a direct popular election, however, it would make quite a difference for a candidate to carry 70 percent of a state's popular vote instead of 50 percent, so there would be more incentive to carry out vote fraud in these states.

[Lord MJ]

With a direct popular election, campaigns would be conducted entirely in large population centers, because a hefty majority from those areas accompanied by lower tallies in smaller states could STILL win the election. Capture large majorities in California, NE states, and New York, and you win the election, so why concentrate on less-populated states? Their populations are spread out over a much larger area than urban centers, and thus will cost more to cover, with less votes won per square mile campaigned in. The electoral college solves this by giving smaller states slightly more voice in the election of the President.

The math here is a little off.

You're assuming that a candidate will suddenly get "a City" as if cities are monolithic blobs. Even if a candidate gets 70% of NYC, that means that that 30% would have voted for the other candidate. If someone gets 50% of New York State, then the other candidate gets the other 50%. Also if 100,000,000 people vote, and there are two candidates, then the candidate would have to win 50,000,001 to win the election.

Sure the candidate can win all of California, to win this, but what are the chances that a candidate will win ALL of California? Not much.

In fact, a candidate will half to get votes for all states, since he won't get an entire state, even if he gets a majority of a state, the other guy my get a significant number of votes of a state, and as a result the sum total of the other guy may be greater.

[Phil Skayhan]

Look at how little of the country Gore needed to win in order to have a virtual tie with Bush. And Gore would have won if not for the Electoral College. Is this the type of system you'd prefer?

I haven't found a breakdown of Congressional Districts but I have to doubt that is would be much different from the above breakdown by counties. Even in Montana.

[Lord MJ]

Look at how little of the country Gore needed to win in order to have a virtual tie with Bush. And Gore would have won if not for the Electoral College. Is this the type of system you'd prefer?

I haven't found a breakdown of Congressional Districts but I have to doubt that is would be much different from the above breakdown by counties. Even in Montana.

You're using geographics as if it has any bearing whatsoever on what the people want in an election.


So say all 270,000,000 people in the US voted. Then 135,000,000 or more people voted for a candidate. So you're saying that since that 135,000,000 happends to be conentrated in a small geographic area., the election is not fair? Where's the logic in this?


What is this obsession people have with geographic area?

[Joe]

What is this obsession people have with geographic area?

The system is designed to where a candidate must appeal to a number of geographic areas to win an election. This is the way the Founders wanted it.

[Lord MJ]

What is this obsession people have with geographic area?

The system is designed to where a candidate must appeal to a number of geographic areas to win an election. This is the way the Founders wanted it.

Now do you think this is the ideal solution for the 21st century? The idea does have some merit if this was the 1700s but this is 2003, the country is a lot smaller now.

[Phil Skayhan]

You're using geographics as if it has any bearing whatsoever on what the people want in an election.


So say all 270,000,000 people in the US voted. Then 135,000,000 or more people voted for a candidate. So you're saying that since that 135,000,000 happends to be conentrated in a small geographic area., the election is not fair? Where's the logic in this?


What is this obsession people have with geographic area?

Because he is the President of the United States and not just the East and West Coasts. The issues that pertain to people in Nebraska should be just as important to him to address as those who live in California. This is not just for the initial election but for re-election. Why would a President who won carriying only the coasts care about the issues in the more rural areas. He could ignore them and it wouldn't affect his chances to be re-elected at all.

[Joe]

the country is a lot smaller now.

...

[Steve]

What is this obsession people have with geographic area?

The system is designed to where a candidate must appeal to a number of geographic areas to win an election. This is the way the Founders wanted it.

Now do you think this is the ideal solution for the 21st century? The idea does have some merit if this was the 1700s but this is 2003, the country is a lot smaller now.

Keep in mind that different geographical regions also have different interests. They all deserve a share of attention, not just those with lots of people (Which generally tend to be urban).

[Perinquus]

Are you blind? Under direct popular election a canadite does NOT carry the 9 most populous states. He ONLY carries those who vote for him instead of the whole fucking state. This means that the canadite must campaign in as many population centers as possible (even small ones) to get more votes.

And the voter fraud issue is a red herring. There is equal chance at it for both types of elections.

But the candidate can and will campaign only in the large population centers, because he could carry the entire rural population, and it would not do him any good if his opponent carries a substantial majority of the votes in the big cities. So he'll write the smaller population centers of and focus on the big urban areas.

[Lord MJ]

The system is designed to where a candidate must appeal to a number of geographic areas to win an election. This is the way the Founders wanted it.

Now do you think this is the ideal solution for the 21st century? The idea does have some merit if this was the 1700s but this is 2003, the country is a lot smaller now.

Keep in mind that different geographical regions also have different interests. They all deserve a share of attention, not just those with lots of people (Which generally tend to be urban).

Yes they all deserve attention, which is why we have representatives for each area. Are you saying that the sole reason for having the EC is so that candidates campaign in less populous states. Well, even in the EC candidates spend little time campaigning in the smaller states because they know they can get 60+ votes by getting the most votes in NY and California.

[Xenophobe3691]

*SNIP*

Look at how little of the country Gore needed to win in order to have a virtual tie with Bush. And Gore would have won if not for the Electoral College. Is this the type of system you'd prefer?

I haven't found a breakdown of Congressional Districts but I have to doubt that is would be much different from the above breakdown by counties. Even in Montana.

That is a highly deceiving picture. Most of the red is in rural counties that have a population of less than 100,000 but could easily encompass all of NYC and the WPB-Miami Metropolis in space. If you have a picture of the country by demographics (Like those pictures you see of how your brain perceives your body), and then showed it, you'd see how damn deadlocked that race was. I live in Palm Beach County. I know how fucked up the system is, believe me.

[Lord MJ]

Are you blind? Under direct popular election a canadite does NOT carry the 9 most populous states. He ONLY carries those who vote for him instead of the whole fucking state. This means that the canadite must campaign in as many population centers as possible (even small ones) to get more votes.

And the voter fraud issue is a red herring. There is equal chance at it for both types of elections.

But the candidate can and will campaign only in the large population centers, because he could carry the entire rural population, and it would not do him any good if his opponent carries a substantial majority of the votes in the big cities. So he'll write the smaller population centers of and focus on the big urban areas.

The problem with this argument is that no candidate will ever carry, "the entire rural population" nor would any candidate carry all of the votes in big cities. And if the population differential between the total of big cities and rural is that big, such that carry a majority of the votes of big cities = won election regardless of how the rural population votes, then the rural population is so small that it is ridiculously unfair to create an artificial mechanism so that a person in a rural area has "more say."

Fortunately the rural population isn't that small.

[Joe]

Yes they all deserve attention, which is why we have representatives for each area.

That's not good enough. They're supposed to have representation in all aspects of the federal government, not just the Congress.

Are you saying that the sole reason for having the EC is so that candidates campaign in less populous states.

That's part of it, and a big reason. To prevent smaller states from being neglected in the national election.

Well, even in the EC candidates spend little time campaigning in the smaller states because they know they can get 60+ votes by getting the most votes in NY and California.

And unless you can prove that instating a direct popular election will somehow fix this problem or at least make it less of a problem, you don't have much of an argument.

[Alyeska]

Are you blind? Under direct popular election a canadite does NOT carry the 9 most populous states. He ONLY carries those who vote for him instead of the whole fucking state. This means that the canadite must campaign in as many population centers as possible (even small ones) to get more votes.

And the voter fraud issue is a red herring. There is equal chance at it for both types of elections.

But the candidate can and will campaign only in the large population centers, because he could carry the entire rural population, and it would not do him any good if his opponent carries a substantial majority of the votes in the big cities. So he'll write the smaller population centers of and focus on the big urban areas.

You seem to fail to understand a very simple concept. Without the Electoral College it is impossible for a canadite to carry an entire population. Right now the EC ENCOURAGES the very thing you claim is bad. The simple reason is that a canadite only needs to get the largest single vote in that area to win the ENTIRE state. Removing the EC means a canadite must work HARDER to get votes from these very same regions. Because this would risk alienating the rural votes in the smaller states and loosing potential votes against areas that you would be hard pressed to get much more... Remove the EC and canadites now must campaign everywhere.

[Phil Skayhan]

That is a highly deceiving picture. Most of the red is in rural counties that have a population of less than 100,000 but could easily encompass all of NYC and the WPB-Miami Metropolis in space. If you have a picture of the country by demographics (Like those pictures you see of how your brain perceives your body), and then showed it, you'd see how damn deadlocked that race was. I live in Palm Beach County. I know how fucked up the system is, believe me.

Do you mean a breakdown by population of an area?

Or how close the election was in each county?

[Lord MJ]

That's not good enough. They're supposed to have representation in all aspects of the federal government, not just the Congress.

They do, any US citizen 18 years or older would be free to elect any one he chooses. And that person will be one vote amongts 270,000,000 (if the entire population voted.)

That's part of it, and a big reason. To prevent smaller states from being neglected in the national election.

So if rural areas are neglected by a candidate, the rural population can vote for the other guy, if he actually took the time to campaign to rural areas.

And unless you can prove that instating a direct popular election will somehow fix this problem or at least make it less of a problem, you don't have much of an argument.

I never said it would fix the problem, but it would mitigate it. Each of 270,000,000 (once again, if everyone voted and was eligible) can vote. So if a candidate saw that the vote he was getting in the cities wasn't enough to be 135,000,000 he would have no choice but to get the votes he needs from the rural areas.

[Perinquus]

You seem to fail to understand a very simple concept. Without the Electoral College it is impossible for a canadite to carry an entire population. Right now the EC ENCOURAGES the very thing you claim is bad. The simple reason is that a canadite only needs to get the largest single vote in that area to win the ENTIRE state. Removing the EC means a canadite must work HARDER to get votes from these very same regions. Because this would risk alienating the rural votes in the smaller states and loosing potential votes against areas that you would be hard pressed to get much more... Remove the EC and canadites now must campaign everywhere.

That sounds good, but it is simply not how it will work out in reality. In the 2000 election, for example, Vice President Gore could have put together a plurality or majority in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and California. He could have ignored the entire rest of the country, and no doubt he would have in a direct popular election. His political strategists would no doubt have told him that campaiging in the boonies was simply not a worthwhile investment of his limited time. Even if he carried the majority of the votes in the sticks, it wouldn't pay the dividends come election day that bringing in a big majority of the votes in the big urban areas. New York City, L.A., San Francisco, Boston, Denver, Chicago are big population centers whose people vote overwhelmingly democrat.

At the risk of repeating myself, this country was never intended to be a democracy. It was set up as a constitutional republic. James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the founders created a republic, not a true democracy. The founding fathers understood that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the founders did not believe that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. So they set up our constitution so as to put limits on any unchecked power, including the arbitrary will of the people. The principle of "one man, one vote" is simply not central to our government, and it never has been. I am amazed at how many people seem willfully ignorant of this fact. Neither the Senate, nor the Supreme Court, nor the president is elected on the basis of one person, one vote. This is why Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, and its population of 33 million. Consistency would require that if we abolish the Electoral College, we dump the Senate as well, or at least change it to have the number of senators from each state be proportional to the size of each state's population, just like the House of Representatives.

Our government also divides power not only among the three branches of the federal government, but then divides it again among the federal government and the states. The Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections. Consequently, it is an important part of our federalist system - a system worth preserving. Historically, federalism is central to our constitutional effort to restrain power. And moreover, one of the things we have learned over time is that devolving power to the states sometimes leads to important policy innovations (such as welfare reform, for example). It acts almost as a laboratory where many groups are running experiments. Some are successful, some are not, and some are more successful than others. The division of power among the states creates innovation in public policy, and what works successfully in one state is then often copied or adapted by others, and even sometimes by the federal government. Federalism is not perfect, but on the whole it has been quite a successful system. Removing the electoral college would dilute our fedaralist government, and take the U.S. further away from its roots as a constitutional republic.

[Aeolus]

Doesn't the electoral college system sort of violate the "One man, one vote" principle where everyone's vote should carry equal weight?

No such principle actually exists in the presidential election. It existis in the election of representatives. The president is elected by the states. Using a popular vote is simply a tradition. The people vote for electors and the electors vote for the president. But if the states chose they could simply choose electors by vote from there own senates

[Aeolus]

Yes, it should. Democracy is meant to give an equal say to the people, not an advantage to those who happen to live in less populus areas, etc. Majority vote is what matters, thats democracy. Too bad for the people in suburbia if they get screwed over, more people would have been otherwise.

The US is not and was never ment to be a pure democracy. The founding fathers new how dangerous and unstable pure democracy was. So they set up a system of checks and balances. The people vote for the house. The states (now the people) choose the senate and a combination of the two choose the executive. The executive and senate choose the courts. The courts balance out the house.....and so on

[Aeolus]

Personally, I say no. If you look at the areas of the country that voted Democratic in the past election, they are centered around major cities - NYC, Los Angeles, and the like. If you did away with all of those, then campaigns wouldn't even bother with the smaller states and would merely campaign in the larger cities where the voting counts. To me, it ensures that the little guy in the small town has a vote that counts.

Bullshit. Without the electoral college EVERY vote counts. Last election my vote was MEANINGLESS and did not go anywhere. I get sick and fucking tired of the old line saying the small states get over representation. Fucking bullshit. Montana voted all 3 of its votes for GWB and I didn't fucking vote for that dumbass. Not to mention nearly half the population didn't vote GWB.

The simple fact that twice in the last century two presidential canadites LOST even when they won the popular vote proves how the system is flawed.

Just becauce the people in California, New York and Texas may want something does not mean that something is good for the country as a whole. The opinion of ALL the states matter no matter how small they may be. The East should not be able to walk all over the West nor the North over the south or the Coasts over the heartland.

[Aeolus]

Yes, it should be done away with. It's an amazingly stupid system.

It won't be abolished, though, because it favors does currently in power(Dems and Repubs).

How is it stupid? It forces the candidates to campaign across the nation instead of going to the more populous states. If we were to abolish the system. My home state of NH would be virtually ignored.

On the contrary. Instead of being able to concentrate on a key few states or cities, a president MUST go out and get every vote. Right now the small states are WORTHLESS. Presidents fucking ignore the 3 vote states because they are going after Florida, California, Texas, New York, etc...

You have the absolutly backwards. Canidates fight over swing states The biggest California, New York, Illinois, and Texas are not heavily fought over...everyone basically knows how they will vote. Florida is importand because it is both big and split 50/50 between Rep. and Dems.

[Aeolus]

I would support reform of the electoral college, mostly because I think such a thing would be doable and it's complete elimination is not.

Agreed. It would be possible to talk some of the states into reform. But it is ABSOLUTLY IMPOSSIBLE to get the small states to abolish the college.