Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Ebowed]

In order to supplement this thread, a poll on the Electoral College.

I say abolish it.

[Alcon]

I know how rooted it is in the fundamental principles of American democracy, but to me, it seems like any system that gives Wyoming nearly three times as much representation as Califronia is inherently unfair.

[© tweed]

I made a poll on this way back when, and we ended up getting 80 votes on it.  But the table got knocked out on D-Day, when the whole  forum got messed up.

I vote yes.

[Emsworth]

No, for the reasons given in the thread linked above.

[A18]

I know how rooted it is in the fundamental principles of American democracy, but to me, it seems like any system that gives Wyoming nearly three times as much representation as Califronia is inherently unfair.

The electoral college gives California over 18 times as much representation as Wyoming.

[Ebowed]

I know how rooted it is in the fundamental principles of American democracy, but to me, it seems like any system that gives Wyoming nearly three times as much representation as Califronia is inherently unfair.

The electoral college gives California over 18 times as much representation as Wyoming.

The number of people per electoral vote is almost three times higher in California than it is in Wyoming.

[dazzleman]

I know how rooted it is in the fundamental principles of American democracy, but to me, it seems like any system that gives Wyoming nearly three times as much representation as Califronia is inherently unfair.

The constitution attached significance to states that many don't today.  That's why every state was guaranteed two senators and one representative, regardless of population.  You're picking an extreme example, a state with very low population.

I would argue that if the electoral college is unfair, so is the Senate, and in a much bigger way.  The Senate doesn't assign power based on population at all, while most of electoral college votes are based on population, since 435 out of the 538 electoral votes are population-based.

But here's the Catch-22 -- in order to change the electoral college, you would need the approval of legislatures of 38 states, with no provision made for population.  In other words, just like the Senate, and to a much smaller extent the electoral college, the populations of the states approving or disapproving an amendment don't matter.  Wyoming is exactly equal to California in terms of power to accept or reject a constitutional amendment.  Any proposal to get rid of the electoral college is a non-starter, since the smaller states will never, never approve it, and there are more than enough of them to ensure defeat of the amendment.

So it's pointless to argue about whether the electoral college should be abolished.  I happen to think not, that it serves a useful purpose in forcing candidates to seek broader geographical appeal, despite some of the anomalies of the system.  I don't want a system that gives more power to corrupt urban machines, and would allow candidates to ignore large sections of the country.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The electoral college does just that.  There's no reason for John Kerry to visit Kansas because he won't win the state's electoral votes.  If there were no electoral college, the candidates could visit states not to win states, but to gain votes that will actually count in a nationwide total.

[Giant Saguaro]

Until someone can come up with a good alternative, no. A straight popular vote, no. I like the EC for many of the reasons mentioned.

A lot of people complain about the EC when they lose a close one or when a third party does damage, possibly throwing it one way or the other, but the truth as I see it is just because it doesn't stack up in one's favor is no reason to scrap it. If there is to be an alternative, there would have to be a really good, really fair alternative, and I haven't seen it, to be honest.

[Ebowed]

A third party can do little damage under the EC system.  In a straight popular vote, third parties would matter more and would get more votes because people in swing states wouldn't need to worry as much about "wasting" their vote.

[Emsworth]

A third party can do little damage under the EC system.  In a straight popular vote, third parties would matter more and would get more votes because people in swing states wouldn't need to worry as much about "wasting" their vote.

A personally feel that an electoral system that encourages two parties is best. With more, governing tends to become somewhat difficult in a congressional (rather than parliamentary) system. With just two parties, the Senate, and sometimes even the House, ends up in gridlock; with more, such an outcome could become even more common.

Of course, the Electoral College does not directly influence the composition of Congress. However, it is a part of the overall system that encourages two parties.

[Ebowed]

I would perhaps feel the same way if either of the two parties adequately represented my views.

[A18]

I know how rooted it is in the fundamental principles of American democracy, but to me, it seems like any system that gives Wyoming nearly three times as much representation as Califronia is inherently unfair.

The electoral college gives California over 18 times as much representation as Wyoming.

The number of people per electoral vote is almost three times higher in California than it is in Wyoming.

Your point?

[Ebowed]

I know how rooted it is in the fundamental principles of American democracy, but to me, it seems like any system that gives Wyoming nearly three times as much representation as Califronia is inherently unfair.

The electoral college gives California over 18 times as much representation as Wyoming.

The number of people per electoral vote is almost three times higher in California than it is in Wyoming.

Your point?

I believe my point was:  The number of people per electoral vote is almost three times higher in California than it is in Wyoming.

[A18]

So in other words, you don't have one, since that has nothing to do with my post.

[Ebowed]

So in other words, you don't have one, since that has nothing to do with my post.

No.  You claimed that the electoral college gives California "over 18 times as much representation" as Wyoming.  It is true that the state of California is given more representation than the state of Wyoming, but the people of Wyoming have more representation in regards to to the proportion of population in the state.  I'll repeat it again:  The number of people per electoral vote is almost three times higher in California than it is in Wyoming.

[A18]

You claimed that the electoral college gives California "over 18 times as much representation" as Wyoming.

Which is a fact. It's also a fact that the people of California have over 18 times as much representation as the people of Wyoming.

Repeating something irrelevant does not qualify as a point.

[Ebowed]

How is it irrelevant?  The people of California have less representation than the people of Wyoming proportionally; in order to amend that you would have to raise California's number of electoral votes significantly.

[A18]

The states elect the president; not the people.

[Ebowed]

Which is exactly the problem.

[Alcon]

You claimed that the electoral college gives California "over 18 times as much representation" as Wyoming.

Which is a fact. It's also a fact that the people of California have over 18 times as much representation as the people of Wyoming.

Repeating something irrelevant does not qualify as a point.

Relative representation.  You would have to pretty much be an idiot to not realise that I meant that, even if I phrased it badly.

[A18]

We'll debate intelligence when you learn how to spell realize.

Which is exactly the problem.

Yeah, see unlike you, I actually like federalism and self-government, and don't support rewording landslide majorities in a single state over widespread support throughout the country.

[dazzleman]

Yeah, see unlike you, I actually like federalism and self-government, and don't support rewording landslide majorities in a single state over widespread support throughout the country.

This is a major reason I support the electoral college.  It effectively limits the influence of any single state.

The electoral college also narrows the range of the political spectrum, and encourages a two-party system over a multi-party system.  I believe this is a good thing, since parties are forced to compromise and work together if they want to win.  Unlike in a parliamentary system, being a splinter party generally just guarantees a total loss of power, rather than sometimes making that splinter party into a power broker.

[nclib]

I say yes, and replace it with a popular vote.

I don't want a system that gives more power to corrupt urban machines, and would allow candidates to ignore large sections of the country.

This could also happen in a statewide election--urban areas could still control states' votes.

Why is it a concern that urban areas would control national elections, but not a concern that urban areas control statewide elections?

[The Dowager Mod]

Abolish it.
The small states already get an advantage from getting 2 senators.