Pros and Cons of Leaving the Electoral College?

[Enduro]

And electing Presidents based on popular vote?

[LLR]

Post of mine from a little while ago, lightly edited:

Here's why the EC should remain

A) If there were no Electoral College, all campaigning would be blanket ads, and then it would be a battle of who had more money. With the Electoral College, candidates pick battlegrounds and actually meet voters, meaning they can win by being a better candidate/person, and don't just have to be the richest. Candidates also have to spend less time fundraising.

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss

C) Sure, ties are chaotic, and that's why my above plan should exist.

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

[AGA]

I would favor a popular vote over the electoral college, but there are both benefits and drawbacks to the system.

A pro of leaving the electoral college would be that every vote would count equally due to the absence of "safe" states. Parts of the country, such as the New York and Dallas metro areas, would get more attention since every vote would be tallied towards the same total, and campaigns would reach more voters overall. Also, the leaving the electoral college would prevent scenarios where candidates can win the presidency without the approval of a plurality of voters. Eliminating the electoral college also ensures that every vote has the same electoral power since voters in small states have increased electoral power due to the senatorial boost under the electoral college. However, some people consider this as a benefit of the system rather than a con. A final benefit of leaving the system is that it would eliminate faithless electors, which can legally cast ballots that do not correspond to the winner of their respective state in 24 states. There was a faithless elector as recent as 2004 from Minnesota.

The cons of leaving the electoral college include the fact that the checks and balance system that grants more power to small states in presidential elections. Also, it would be more difficult for candidates to campaign as there would no longer be a handful of competitive states. The electoral college makes sure that candidates can appeal to voters across the country and not just rack up high margins in one region.

[Enduro]

Post of mine from a little while ago, lightly edited:

Here's why the EC should remain

A) If there were no Electoral College, all campaigning would be blanket ads, and then it would be a battle of who had more money. With the Electoral College, candidates pick battlegrounds and actually meet voters, meaning they can win by being a better candidate/person, and don't just have to be the richest. Candidates also have to spend less time fundraising.

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss

C) Sure, ties are chaotic, and that's why my above plan should exist.

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

I don't see how PV would negate the need to meet voters. Actually, I don't get how campaigning would be effected in that way, but if it means less campaigning. Good. These things get more negative every year, and turn away voters from actually voting. If campaigns were actually about educating voters, and not trashing the other candidate until you win, then I would consider that a bad thing.

They'd campaign in highly populated areas that tend to vote for people with similar views. Examples: a pro-coal candidate might want to invest time and money in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other states with a sizable coal industry; an anti-gun candidate might want to campaign in big cities like Chicago which is dealing with high amounts of gun violence.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Post of mine from a little while ago, lightly edited:

Here's why the EC should remain

A) If there were no Electoral College, all campaigning would be blanket ads, and then it would be a battle of who had more money. With the Electoral College, candidates pick battlegrounds and actually meet voters, meaning they can win by being a better candidate/person, and don't just have to be the richest. Candidates also have to spend less time fundraising.

B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss

C) Sure, ties are chaotic, and that's why my above plan should exist.

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

Agreed, it's also effective in such a gigantic country in order to preserve its democratic system's sanity. If the candidates would have to campaign EVERYWHERE, they would be spread thin. It would also decrease the importance of lower population states like NH, since there would be little point to try and persuade voters there. Lastly, the electoral college makes the US unique and keeps the states in it unique and not part of a giant block.

[Del Tachi]

One negative consequence of abandoning the electoral college would be the idea that a national popular vote is incompatible with our federal system for three reasons:

(1)  Voting laws vary tremendously from state-to-state.  Laws concerning registration, voter I.D., and early/absentee voting are all enforced on the state level.  Under a national popular vote, campaigns would target states with easier voter registration requirements, laxer rules on early voting, etc.  While not necessarily a problem, it definitely flies in the face of the argument that several NPV supporters make saying that "all votes should count equally".  

(2) A close election could mean chaos.  Under the electoral college system, problems in tabulating votes only impact the results in a single state, which minimizes such problems' effect on the national result.  While the Florida fiasco in 2000 was certainly problematic, it would pale in comparison to a situation under a national popular vote where only a few thousand votes separated the top candidates.  In such a scenario, either campaign could lawyer-up and go "vote shopping" in states/precincts with friendly judges willing to order recounts, discount affidavits, etc.

(3) A national emergency could lead to a unresolvable election dispute.  Imagine a situation like Hurricane Sandy where a large event displaces millions of voters around election day.  Under the current system, disruptions such as these are unlikely to cause gridlock because their effects are limited to a specific state(s) that, individually, is unlikely to determine the national winner.  Under a national popular vote, the situation becomes much different, with the way that the elections are held in these areas having national implications.  Once again, the election outcome would be much likelier to end-up in the hands of judges thanks to legal mumbo-jumbo.    

[Slander and/or Libel]

Question to the pro-EC voices: if it's such a good system, why do no other countries use it? Why do no states use state-level versions of it?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Pros of leaving:

1. There's a small chance that more people will vote since the president would be directly elected.
2. The EC has been wrong 4 times: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
3. Everyone's vote matters, not just the people who live in swing states.
4. No other country uses it.


Cons of leaving:
1. Only the most populated places will have any campaigning
2. 4 out of nearly 60 elections isn't that bad of a score.
3. Appealing in major cities doesn't work everywhere else.
4. The election takes longer to call, having to wait until every vote is counted.

[HisGrace]

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

More states would get ignored under a straight popular vote. Both sides would just rally their respective population centers in that case. With the EV, any competitive state could be the difference in a close election.

Question to the pro-EC voices: if it's such a good system, why do no other countries use it? Why do no states use state-level versions of it?

That's an irrelevant question to me. A lot of countries or just a few countries having a certain policy doesn't make the policy good or bad. That's just argument ad populi.

[Slander and/or Libel]

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

More states would get ignored under a straight popular vote. Both sides would just rally their respective population centers in that case. With the EV, any competitive state could be the difference in a close election.

Question to the pro-EC voices: if it's such a good system, why do no other countries use it? Why do no states use state-level versions of it?

That's an irrelevant question to me. A lot of countries or just a few countries having a certain policy doesn't make the policy good or bad. That's just argument ad populi.

It's not dispositive, but it's hardly irrelevant. The fact that no other countries use it is at least evidence that none have found it to be worth implementing after watching it in use here. That alone doesn't make it good or bad policy, but it should give us pause.

[BundouYMB]

I support the current system of electoral votes. However, I don't think there's a need for actual electors with the risk of faithless electors. We should keep the current system but bind electoral votes to the candidate that wins a given state.

[LLR]

D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?

More states would get ignored under a straight popular vote. Both sides would just rally their respective population centers in that case. With the EV, any competitive state could be the difference in a close election.

Yeah, that was my point.

[RohnertPark]

Electoral College Pros:
Significantly more fun from an armchair politico perspective.
In close elections recounts are localized and thus cheaper/easier.
Don't have to send reporters to those pesky safe states like Wyoming and Connecticut.

Electoral College Cons:
Getting only 4 out of 60 elections wrong may be "pretty good", but last I checked 4 is 4 more than 0.
Gives certain demographics/states disproportionate power (albeit the IA/NH primary system is arguably worse for this).
I'm in California and I want attention.

[muon2]

EC is an outdated 18th century electoral system. America must move out of the 18th century and into the 21st century.

But the way I see it the UK is equivalent to the EC if every state used individual districts to award electors and no +2 bonus for winning the state. Parliamentary systems don't directly elect the PM but indirectly elect by awarding the office to the winner of a majority of districts. Should the UK move "into the 21st century" and have a direct election of the PM independent of the MPs?

[Slander and/or Libel]

EC is an outdated 18th century electoral system. America must move out of the 18th century and into the 21st century.

But the way I see it the UK is equivalent to the EC if every state used individual districts to award electors and no +2 bonus for winning the state. Parliamentary systems don't directly elect the PM but indirectly elect by awarding the office to the winner of a majority of districts. Should the UK move "into the 21st century" and have a direct election of the PM independent of the MPs?

Is there a reason we should assume a system with more offices directly elected to be a more advanced one somehow?

[muon2]

EC is an outdated 18th century electoral system. America must move out of the 18th century and into the 21st century.

But the way I see it the UK is equivalent to the EC if every state used individual districts to award electors and no +2 bonus for winning the state. Parliamentary systems don't directly elect the PM but indirectly elect by awarding the office to the winner of a majority of districts. Should the UK move "into the 21st century" and have a direct election of the PM independent of the MPs?

Is there a reason we should assume a system with more offices directly elected to be a more advanced one somehow?

I wouldn't make that assumption since the result at the extreme is a situation like IL with 7000 units of government, most of them filled by direct election.

[Slander and/or Libel]

EC is an outdated 18th century electoral system. America must move out of the 18th century and into the 21st century.

But the way I see it the UK is equivalent to the EC if every state used individual districts to award electors and no +2 bonus for winning the state. Parliamentary systems don't directly elect the PM but indirectly elect by awarding the office to the winner of a majority of districts. Should the UK move "into the 21st century" and have a direct election of the PM independent of the MPs?

Is there a reason we should assume a system with more offices directly elected to be a more advanced one somehow?

I wouldn't make that assumption since the result at the extreme is a situation like IL with 7000 units of government, most of them filled by direct election.

It just seemed like your question presumed that a system where the PM is directly elected as opposed to elected by a majority of the MPs would be closer to the 21st century, which I read as more advanced. It's not necessarily clear to me why that would be.

I was just having a talk with a friend about this, and about how FPTP tends to militate toward a two party equilibrium. He has much more of an understanding of British politics than I do, and was telling me that while there are more than two viable parties in the UK, they more or less tend to operate in geographical zones where only two of those parties are viable. If the PM were directly elected, it seems as though it would place a heavy incentive on all of those regions to align their party structure with the national one, since that office is winner take all.