What is your opinion on the electoral college?

[DFLofMN]

Hey everyone,  just wanted to start some discussion (I bet this may have been done before in some form or another) but I just want to hear some arguments pro, con, neutral etc. for or against retaining the electoral college system.  Use past or current presidential elections and why you think that one way would be more beneficial over the other, or what as an alternative you would see as more fair.  As for myself, I still have not made my mind up on this issue,

Thanks!

DFL of MN

[Sam Spade]

I've always liked the electoral college because it allows a state like Minnesota to become important at the Presidential level.  If we were just about popular vote, everyone would go and campaign in the places with the greatest population.  If gives certain states more value in the process.

Secondly, as any statistician will tell you, your vote is much more important power-wise when it's placed among 2 million votes, as in Minnesota, as opposed to 100 million votes nationwide.  The mathematical chances of your vote being the deciding one in that situation is greatly enhanced (I don't know the math).

Besides, it's in the constitution and it's just plain fun.  I still wish Senators were appointed by state legislatures, so I guess that shows my feeling on the matter.

[Alcon]

I have mixed feelings.

Although I do like how it balances out (and makes pollwatching a lot more fun) I think a vote in Wyoming being nearly five times as powerful as a vote in California isn't a great thing.

I'm not passionate either way.

[The Vorlon]

If it were not for the electoral college, the closest New Mexico would ever get to a Presidential Candidate would be about 43,000 feet as Air Force One flew over on it's way to LA.

The other factor is a simply pragmatic one - the Weather!

Imagine it's 2000 all over again.

The eastern seaboard is being pounded by a huge winter Blizard. 3 feet of snow, power out...

Voter turnout is thus lower in NY, NJ, etc...

Bush wins the PV because of a snow storm...?

That.. and this way we have 50 sets of polls to watch... not just 1

[MODU]

I would keep the Electoral College for the mere fact that it is the "great equalizer."  Since the college votes are re-adjusted with each census, smaller states can compete fairly with larger states.  

[Defarge]

It has problems, but I personally don't see the need to completely change the system

[The Vorlon]

plus any 13 states can block a constitutional change...

say... the states with 3 evs each...  ?

[Erc]

Hey, there is a case to be made for having a pure PV system...but how would you implement it?

You could go with sheer plurality (candidate 2 of 5, with 23.45% of the PV, wins!)--although I don't personally like that, and neither did the framers (who had a mechanism for a no Electoral majority scenario).

If not, then you have to throw the election to the House...which would have elected Bush in '00 anyway, Dole in '96, Humphrey in '68...

Or you could go the Instant Runoff (...or Ranked Pairs or any other form of 'weird' voting...), which, by dint of its allowing third parties, won't be supported by anybody.

Plus, the electoral college...
a) Makes elections more interesting than just one number...heck, you couldn't have this place (US Election Atlas) without it.
b) Retains the federal system (say what you will, I still like it)
...and other stuff already mentioned.



Note:  as willingness to go to the polls probably does vary with party, Blizzards and such can easily have an effect as it is now...but considering that NY and NJ will still probably go Democrat nonetheles, it's certainly not as large.


To reform the College as it stands?  Maybe the ME/NE method, but that gives too much power to gerrymandering in my opinion.  And the CO system is about as flawed as you can get, as due to third parties actually getting votes, it gets thrown to the house every close election.  Yes, yes, we have to end the duopoly on power, etc. etc. etc.  But when it comes to a tradeoff between unfairness in politics and a sheer undemocratic outcome (Dole winning in '96, as Perot and Nader win enough to send it to the House, for example)...I'll pick the unfair outcome any time.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

We can't go to a direct popular vote, because canidates would campaign solely in cities, and we would again have that extreme rural/urban divde.  Right now, you see most liberals in cities, but a good 35-40% are out in the country.  Same on the other side. 

[Light Touch]

The point is, under our Constitution, the States elect the president (through electors), not the people.  The States are free to determine how electors are selected.

I think the EC is one of the few "right" things about our government.

[Angel of Death]

Notice how only a fraction of the number of states determine the winner. To give people in smaller states more power is one thing, but to effectively disenfranchise three quarters of the entire population is unjustifiable.

I ask what is wrong with a weighted popular vote such that the relative voting power of an entire state stays the same?

[A18]

The same reason we have a Senate

[Light Touch]

Notice how only a fraction of the number of states determine the winner. To give people in smaller states more power is one thing, but to effectively disenfranchise three quarters of the entire population is unjustifiable.

I ask what is wrong with a weighted popular vote such that the relative voting power of an entire state stays the same?

Misleading statement -- the states all have power relative to their representation in Congress, but the ones with more even distributions politically will get more ATTENTION, and because they can swing either way, are "making the decisions".

If Utah became a swing state, you can bet you'd see Bush and Kerry all over that place.  Not as much as Ohio, but they'd actually show up there.

[Angel of Death]

Exactly! So why should only the so-called swing states get all the attention? The Massachusetts Republican and the Utah Democrat are never heard.

[A18]

What if the country was split 80-20?

Would say, "why should only the 80% get all the attention." It's the exact same thing.

Democrats can't win in Utah. Republicans can't win in Massachusetts. That 20% can't win nationwide.

They are heard. They vote towards their state's electors like anyone else. What you mean to say is that they LOSE.

[millwx]

Maybe it's just because I've never lived in a tiny state, but I hate the Electoral College system.  I fully realize we live in a Republic, not a "true" Democracy.  But I do think we should strive for that.  As such, the people (i.e., the popular vote) should dictate.  It usually does, but has failed to do so three times in our history.  I really detest the notion of a voter in Montana, proportionately, having their vote count for more than my own.  And that is precisely how it works.  That's very poor, in my opinion... allowing one citizen to have more power than another in determining an election.  And things aren't always so razor thin like in 2000 where an EV/PV split would be understandable.  In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes lost by a relatively whopping 3% in the PV, but still won the EV.  I find something like that just outrageous.

But, like I said, maybe if I lived in Montana or Idaho or North Dakota or Alaska I'd have a different opinion. 

[Angel of Death]

It would make more sense that in order to protect smaller states they would have disproportional representation in an another veto-capable organ, which in this case they do in the form of the Senate.

[Democratic Hawk]

I like the Electoral College. Presidential elections would be pretty boring if the president were elected nationally by PV.

Dave

[ATFFL]

I think the Electoral College needs a football team.  More people would pay attention to it and it would help with all the football analogies we throw around.

Seriously, it needs to stay unchanged or, if we can get a good fix for gerrymandering, go to the ME/NE method.

[Erc]

The 1876 election was messed up.  In more ways than one.  Blame the result on Reconstruction, or the House, or that one judge who died, or voter intimidation/fraud, but not on the Electoral College.

[Democratic Hawk]

The 1876 election was messed up.  In more ways than one.  Blame the result on Reconstruction, or the House, or that one judge who died, or voter intimidation/fraud, but not on the Electoral College.

Was that the election which saw the Democratic Party gain a virtual hegemony in Dixie for so long?

Dave

[Angel of Death]

Perhaps it's possible to abolish the Electoral College by compensating the loss of smaller state influence by giving more power to the Senate in return, like in the form of the right to initiate revenue bills.

[Giant Saguaro]

I fully support the EC system. It obviously gives folks a say in states who would more likely not have any say if we went just by PV. If you live in SD or WY, for example, and we went by a PV, then it's more likely that you can just throw your vote away. Right in the trash can.

The EC is as fair as we can do for now. Everyone gets to participate and be important, not just the people in the major cities, because we all pay taxes and we are all impacted by what the government does.

Because one loses or because a small state tips the election does NOT mean it's unfair.

[dbpman]

I would much rather see it go back to the split EC votes where the winner of a district gets the vote and not the winner take all system we have now in the majority of the states

If the split EC votes by district were implemented the worry about 1 state being the deciding factor would be gone... so 2000 wouldnt have seen florida being the scape goat

[jacob_101]

I love the electoral college and can't think of a better way to elect a President from all our unique states.  Its gives all of us a chance to have a say.