In the US, should the electoral college be eliminated?

[Aeolus]

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?

Because we live in a Federation of States. It would not be fair if a coalition of 9 or 10 larger states got togeather and ran roughshod over the other 40 smaller states.

[kojikun]

Because we live in a Federation of States. It would not be fair if a coalition of 9 or 10 larger states got togeather and ran roughshod over the other 40 smaller states.

Nor would it be right for a few million people living in the midwest to hold more power then a hundred million in urban areas.

[Joe]

Because we live in a Federation of States. It would not be fair if a coalition of 9 or 10 larger states got togeather and ran roughshod over the other 40 smaller states.

Nor would it be right for a few million people living in the midwest to hold more power then a hundred million in urban areas.

They don't.

[Holtzman]

I think the college is a fine idea. Someone before stated that you wouldn't need to go to smaller states without it. I mean literally that would mean the group that controlled the cities would almost always win. Few people vote as it is, and with candidates not visiting them they would not even bother voting at all. Possible of course.

[Alyeska]

I think the college is a fine idea. Someone before stated that you wouldn't need to go to smaller states without it. I mean literally that would mean the group that controlled the cities would almost always win. Few people vote as it is, and with candidates not visiting them they would not even bother voting at all. Possible of course.

Did you even read this thread? Its impossible to control the cities. Right now the system encourages people to concentrate solely on the high count states because its winner take all.

[Joe]

I think the college is a fine idea. Someone before stated that you wouldn't need to go to smaller states without it. I mean literally that would mean the group that controlled the cities would almost always win. Few people vote as it is, and with candidates not visiting them they would not even bother voting at all. Possible of course.

Did you even read this thread? Its impossible to control the cities. Right now the system encourages people to concentrate solely on the high count states because its winner take all.

Except that GW Bush won the last election precisely by not doing this...

[Alyeska]

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.

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

[Alyeska]

I think the college is a fine idea. Someone before stated that you wouldn't need to go to smaller states without it. I mean literally that would mean the group that controlled the cities would almost always win. Few people vote as it is, and with candidates not visiting them they would not even bother voting at all. Possible of course.

Did you even read this thread? Its impossible to control the cities. Right now the system encourages people to concentrate solely on the high count states because its winner take all.

Except that GW Bush won the last election precisely by not doing this...

Oh, so that explains why GWB showed up in Montana exactly once for half a day and completely bypassed Alaska, Hawaii, and Peurto Rico (all of them have 3 votes each)

[Aeolus]

Because we live in a Federation of States. It would not be fair if a coalition of 9 or 10 larger states got togeather and ran roughshod over the other 40 smaller states.

Nor would it be right for a few million people living in the midwest to hold more power then a hundred million in urban areas.

Thats why we have BOTH a House and a Senate.
The electorial collage tries to balance out the executive so all THREE branches of goverment represent both the big states and the small

[Alyeska]

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.

Your entire post is irrelevent. Your biggest point was bringing up the senate while ignoring the house of representatives.

Please explain why its right to deny me the chance to voice my opinion. I did not vote for GWB yet my vote wasn't counted, my entire state voted GWB irregardless of them not wanting him THAT much.

[Aeolus]

I think the college is a fine idea. Someone before stated that you wouldn't need to go to smaller states without it. I mean literally that would mean the group that controlled the cities would almost always win. Few people vote as it is, and with candidates not visiting them they would not even bother voting at all. Possible of course.

Did you even read this thread? Its impossible to control the cities. Right now the system encourages people to concentrate solely on the high count states because its winner take all.

But the cities largely vote as a block already and no that is not because of the college.(the cities are not states)

[Joe]

Oh, so that explains why GWB showed up in Montana exactly once for half a day and completely bypassed Alaska, Hawaii, and Peurto Rico(all of them have 3 votes each)

...
...
...

[Aeolus]

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.

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

I don't want to remove the college. I approve of it. I don't think the reason for the college is to control where the canidates campaign. I think it's purpose is to give the smaller states more power in the election. So a coalition of big states cannot by themselves choose the president

[Aeolus]

Did you even read this thread? Its impossible to control the cities. Right now the system encourages people to concentrate solely on the high count states because its winner take all.

Except that GW Bush won the last election precisely by not doing this...

Oh, so that explains why GWB showed up in Montana exactly once for half a day and completely bypassed Alaska, Hawaii, and Peurto Rico (all of them have 3 votes each)

I doubt those are swing states. And Puerto Rico's vote are symbolic as it is not a state yet

[Joe]

Montana was a state picked to favor Bush heavily, so it would have been pointless to campaign there too much.

[Lord MJ]

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.

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

I don't want to remove the college. I approve of it. I don't think the reason for the college is to control where the canidates campaign. I think it's purpose is to give the smaller states more power in the election. So a coalition of big states cannot by themselves choose the president

The thing is, in a direct election, there can be no coalitions of states. The president will be chosen based on a sum total of votes. Thus 270,000,000 voted, and there are two candidates a candidate would have to get 135,000,000+ votes to win.

How can states coalition together. Can they dictate that 100% of thier people will vote for candidate A? Even if the majority of the people of those states voted for candidate A, everyone else in the state who voted, voted for candidate B, and those votes all count towards candidate B's total. In the electoral college, the votes of the minority of a state don't count at all. If the democrat wins 55% of California, then 45% of those votes don't count in the electoral college.

[Aeolus]

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

I don't want to remove the college. I approve of it. I don't think the reason for the college is to control where the canidates campaign. I think it's purpose is to give the smaller states more power in the election. So a coalition of big states cannot by themselves choose the president

The thing is, in a direct election, there can be no coalitions of states. The president will be chosen based on a sum total of votes. Thus 270,000,000 voted, and there are two candidates a candidate would have to get 135,000,000+ votes to win.

How can states coalition together. Can they dictate that 100% of thier people will vote for candidate A? Even if the majority of the people of those states voted for candidate A, everyone else in the state who voted, voted for candidate B, and those votes all count towards candidate B's total. In the electoral college, the votes of the minority of a state don't count at all. If the democrat wins 55% of California, then 45% of those votes don't count in the electoral college.

There can be coalitions of interest. People in different regions have different needs and desires. The college and senate are there to make sure the federal gov has to pay attention to all of them.

[Aeolus]

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

I don't want to remove the college. I approve of it. I don't think the reason for the college is to control where the canidates campaign. I think it's purpose is to give the smaller states more power in the election. So a coalition of big states cannot by themselves choose the president

The thing is, in a direct election, there can be no coalitions of states. The president will be chosen based on a sum total of votes. Thus 270,000,000 voted, and there are two candidates a candidate would have to get 135,000,000+ votes to win.

How can states coalition together. Can they dictate that 100% of thier people will vote for candidate A? Even if the majority of the people of those states voted for candidate A, everyone else in the state who voted, voted for candidate B, and those votes all count towards candidate B's total. In the electoral college, the votes of the minority of a state don't count at all. If the democrat wins 55% of California, then 45% of those votes don't count in the electoral college.

The president is elected by the states not the people (except by proxie) Everyones vote counts in the election for the electors. We live in a FEDERAL system. That is not going to change.

[Lord MJ]

I do however propose a compromise. Keep the EC, but eliminate the "Winner take all" system.

How would this work? Each state gets the same number of electors that it does in the current system.

But the candidate that wins the most votes of the state does NOT get the entire state, he gets a number of electors in proportion to the number of votes in that state he got.

So if candidate A got 55% of California, then he would get 55% of the electors. And if candidate b got 45%, he would get 45% of the electors.

This would greatly reform the system, make it more fair, and allow for third parties to make it into the EC. Under this system, Perot and Nader would've had seats in the EC. They wouldn't have enough seats to win the election, but they would've had seats nontheless.

Finally it virtually forces candidates to campaign in small states because they wouldn't get 100% of all the big states that they usually count on winning.

[Aeolus]

I do however propose a compromise. Keep the EC, but eliminate the "Winner take all" system.

How would this work? Each state gets the same number of electors that it does in the current system.

But the candidate that wins the most votes of the state does NOT get the entire state, he gets a number of electors in proportion to the number of votes in that state he got.

So if candidate A got 55% of California, then he would get 55% of the electors. And if candidate b got 45%, he would get 45% of the electors.

This would greatly reform the system, make it more fair, and allow for third parties to make it into the EC. Under this system, Perot and Nader would've had seats in the EC. They wouldn't have enough seats to win the election, but they would've had seats nontheless.

Finally it virtually forces candidates to campaign in small states because they wouldn't get 100% of all the big states that they usually count on winning.

I am not opposed to that idea in principle, as long as the states voluntarily agree...such as Maine(2 winner take all the rest by district) But in the end the STATES must maintain the right to choose their electors as they see fit

[Lord MJ]

I do however propose a compromise. Keep the EC, but eliminate the "Winner take all" system.

How would this work? Each state gets the same number of electors that it does in the current system.

But the candidate that wins the most votes of the state does NOT get the entire state, he gets a number of electors in proportion to the number of votes in that state he got.

So if candidate A got 55% of California, then he would get 55% of the electors. And if candidate b got 45%, he would get 45% of the electors.

This would greatly reform the system, make it more fair, and allow for third parties to make it into the EC. Under this system, Perot and Nader would've had seats in the EC. They wouldn't have enough seats to win the election, but they would've had seats nontheless.

Finally it virtually forces candidates to campaign in small states because they wouldn't get 100% of all the big states that they usually count on winning.

I am not opposed to that idea in principle, as long as the states voluntarily agree...such as Maine(2 winner take all the rest by district) But in the end the STATES must maintain the right to choose their electors as they see fit

I'm sorry, but if there is a conflict between what's best for the people and whats best for a political entity, the people win every time.

If the state decides to that it wants the majority part to get all the votes, then it should be forced to change that. Why? Becuase it's not representing the needs of the people of that state. The state legislatures are controlled by the same people that control the Federal Government, Democrats and Republicans. If we leave it up to the states, then the democrats and republicans will vote for the way things are, since it gaurantees that the Dems and Repubs will be the only two major parties around.


(Of course for this very reason, this compromise will never pass. Since the congress has to approve any amendment to do this, and the Democrats and Republicans would NEVER give up power like that, this amendment would die on the floor of the senate.)

[Alyeska]

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.

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

I don't want to remove the college. I approve of it. I don't think the reason for the college is to control where the canidates campaign. I think it's purpose is to give the smaller states more power in the election. So a coalition of big states cannot by themselves choose the president

And yet this very system allows the large states to control the system while denying the vote of the minority in most states.

[Aeolus]

I do however propose a compromise. Keep the EC, but eliminate the "Winner take all" system.

How would this work? Each state gets the same number of electors that it does in the current system.

But the candidate that wins the most votes of the state does NOT get the entire state, he gets a number of electors in proportion to the number of votes in that state he got.

So if candidate A got 55% of California, then he would get 55% of the electors. And if candidate b got 45%, he would get 45% of the electors.

This would greatly reform the system, make it more fair, and allow for third parties to make it into the EC. Under this system, Perot and Nader would've had seats in the EC. They wouldn't have enough seats to win the election, but they would've had seats nontheless.

Finally it virtually forces candidates to campaign in small states because they wouldn't get 100% of all the big states that they usually count on winning.

I am not opposed to that idea in principle, as long as the states voluntarily agree...such as Maine(2 winner take all the rest by district) But in the end the STATES must maintain the right to choose their electors as they see fit

I'm sorry, but if there is a conflict between what's best for the people and whats best for a political entity, the people win every time.

If the state decides to that it wants the majority part to get all the votes, then it should be forced to change that. Why? Becuase it's not representing the needs of the people of that state. The state legislatures are controlled by the same people that control the Federal Government, Democrats and Republicans. If we leave it up to the states, then the democrats and republicans will vote for the way things are, since it gaurantees that the Dems and Repubs will be the only two major parties around.


(Of course for this very reason, this compromise will never pass. Since the congress has to approve any amendment to do this, and the Democrats and Republicans would NEVER give up power like that, this amendment would die on the floor of the senate.)

1.) You seem to have the mistaken idea that the Republican and Democratic "partys" are monolithic entities, their coalitions of many smaller interests
2.) Pure democracy IS NOT a good thing
3.) We are a FEDERAL UNION
4.) The small states will never give up their rights in our federal union.

[MKSheppard]

This is why Montana, with 883,000 residents, gets the same number of Senators as California, and its population of 33 million.

Thats what the House of Representatives is for....

[Aeolus]

And how would removing the Electoral College change this? You just stated these states vote straight down the line every year without change. This means removing the EC means these states will continue to vote this way. That means the canadites will NOT be campaigning solely in the major urban centers like you claimed.

I don't want to remove the college. I approve of it. I don't think the reason for the college is to control where the canidates campaign. I think it's purpose is to give the smaller states more power in the election. So a coalition of big states cannot by themselves choose the president

And yet this very system allows the large states to control the system while denying the vote of the minority in most states.

You really don't understand how the electoral college gives the small states more power do you? It's been explained several times. Elimination of the college would not increase the voice of the small states...it would drowned out their voices entirely