Are there good reasons to retain the electoral college?

[Muse]

I'm so in favor of eliminating the electoral college aspect of the presidential election and going to a most votes method. Are there any good reasons not to do so? It just makes me mad that some states don't count. The major parties figure that any of a great many states that tend to go for the opposing party are not worth paying much attention to because if they need them, they're going to lose anyway. Yes, I'm in one of those states (CA). We never even see all those ads on TV that decide the election (in states like Ohio and Florida).

 

[theeedude]

In theory, I agree that the president should be elected directly, in practice, not yet. We need to set up our system so we can reliably count votes across the country first. Otherwise it will take forever to do recounts if every questionable vote is in dispute.
Also, if you are in CA, and it really bothers you so much that your vote doesn't count, your money still does count, so just give some to your favorite candidate or party so they can reach out to voters in battleground states.

 

[Craig234]

The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossble to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

The *only* way I see that's feasible for it to change is if the other states who want it changed organize a campaign of economic and political pressure on the states who don't, which would force them to give in. I'm not sure it's feasible.

The history is that this was a compromise to get the constitution approved by the less populated states, IIRC.

The defense for the electoral college is that it prevents the masses in more populated states from dominating the few people in less populated states.

My response to the argument is that "yes, that's the weakness of democracy, the way the minority can be excessively shortchanged - but this just shifts things around, it doesn't make them fairer and in fact makes them less fair to the voters in the larger states, who suddenly have less than one vote. Why not give extra votes to short people, to the very poor, to any other group who can get shortchanged by not being the majority? People in less populated states are not more deserving than others to be singled out for extra representation."

 

[blackangst1]

Only if we make it a requirement to take some kind of political aptitude test. The average voter is absolutely naive to politics. By choice mind you, but still.

In theory, yes. In practice, no way.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Only if we make it a requirement to take some kind of political aptitude test. The average voter is absolutely naive to politics. By choice mind you, but still.

In theory, yes. In practice, no way.

Definitely, we don't want people who elected Bush voting again 😀

 

[Rainsford]

Well there aren't really reasons, plural, for the electoral college at all...good or otherwise. The ONLY reason is that it makes states, rather than individuals, the important factor. This is to allegedly make sure the voice of the smaller states isn't lost, but that also implies that the views of someone living in a less populous state somehow has value beyond how many individuals share those views. I freely admit that if it was just popular vote, the small states would have less voice...but they have less people, so I don't see why that's so bad.

 

[Muse]

Don't the states get electoral votes in proportion to their population? So on the average, any voter is represented by the same number of electoral votes. So, I don't understand the argument that it gives proper representation to voters in the less populous states.

The effect of the EC as I see it is to neutralize any landslide victories. It doesn't matter if a state is won by one vote or 30 million. Either way, the same number of electoral votes falls into the pocket of the winning candidate. This is corrupt! If swing states refuse to understand that and refuse to ratify an appropriate ammendment, they are undermining themselves by endorsing their own corruption. If we are going to survive, we must weed out things that undermine our effectiveness. We have major problems. How are we going to overcome them if we don't fix obvious root causes of problems? We ended slavery, at least legal slavery. We made many kinds of discrimination illegal, and that battle continues. I think we have to eliminate the electoral college.

 

[JEDIYoda]

abandone that sucker

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Muse
Don't the states get electoral votes in proportion to their population? So on the average, any voter is represented by the same number of electoral votes. So, I don't understand the argument that it gives proper representation to voters in the less populous states.

No. That's the whole point of the problem: each state gets two senators, period, who each count for an electoral vote.

So Wyoming, for example, gets one electoral vote for their population, plus two more for Senators.

(Not to mention that their hundreds of thousands of people get the same Senate vote as over 30 million Californians).

I'd rather see the Senate keep the things that are constructive, like its 6-year terms and looser debate rules, and get rid of the overrepresentation of less populated states.

See my post above on the only way it'll happen, IMO.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Muse
Don't the states get electoral votes in proportion to their population? So on the average, any voter is represented by the same number of electoral votes. So, I don't understand the argument that it gives proper representation to voters in the less populous states.

Nope. Electoral votes are given out based on the number of congressmen and senators representing the state. While this is loosely correlated with population, the rule is two senators and at least one congressman for every state, while any ADDITIONAL congressmen are given out based on population. What this means is that most of the electoral votes of high population states are based on population, while many of the electoral votes of the lower population states are based on the mandatory minimum.

A good example is that California has about 660,000 people per electoral vote, while Iowa has 426,000 people per electoral vote, and Wyoming has 171,000 people per electoral vote.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Muse
Don't the states get electoral votes in proportion to their population? So on the average, any voter is represented by the same number of electoral votes. So, I don't understand the argument that it gives proper representation to voters in the less populous states.

No. That's the whole point of the problem: each state gets two senators, period, who each count for an electoral vote.

So Wyoming, for example, gets one electoral vote for their population, plus two more for Senators.

(Not to mention that their hundreds of thousands of people get the same Senate vote as over 30 million Californians).

I'd rather see the Senate keep the things that are constructive, like its 6-year terms and looser debate rules, and get rid of the overrepresentation of less populated states.

See my post above on the only way it'll happen, IMO.

My favorite comparison is between the voting power of the residents of San Francisco and the residents of South Dakota, which have about the same population.

The residents of South Dakota get 3 electoral votes, while the residents of San Francisco get the equivalent of 1 electoral vote. I know San Francisco is the bastion for liberal hedonism and all that, but this does not seem like a fair system to me.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Muse
Don't the states get electoral votes in proportion to their population? So on the average, any voter is represented by the same number of electoral votes. So, I don't understand the argument that it gives proper representation to voters in the less populous states.

No. That's the whole point of the problem: each state gets two senators, period, who each count for an electoral vote.

So Wyoming, for example, gets one electoral vote for their population, plus two more for Senators.

(Not to mention that their hundreds of thousands of people get the same Senate vote as over 30 million Californians).

I'd rather see the Senate keep the things that are constructive, like its 6-year terms and looser debate rules, and get rid of the overrepresentation of less populated states.

See my post above on the only way it'll happen, IMO.

I wouldn't have a problem with scrapping electoral college (I'd like for my vote to actually count in an election for once), but changing the Senate to a proportional system like the House would probably result in disaster. You would have 4 or 5 'power states' that would effectively control the entire legislative branch. Other states would have absolutely no way of accomplishing anything for their citizens.

 

[yllus]

Certainly. It's to avoid the Civil War part II in voting for the executive branch.

It's not a perfect system, but it is the best of a bunch of flawed ones. Once you start to consistently marginalize the states with smaller populations, their natural inclination is going to be to wonder what's in it for them.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Balt
I wouldn't have a problem with scrapping electoral college (I'd like for my vote to actually count in an election for once), but changing the Senate to a proportional system like the House would probably result in disaster. You would have 4 or 5 'power states' that would effectively control the entire legislative branch. Other states would have absolutely no way of accomplishing anything for their citizens.

One - why is this so bad, when it reflects the 'one voter, one vote' principle?

Two - then why don't we see this '4 or 5 big state' dominance in the House, really?

You need to show me more why the fairness of treating voters equally is outweighed by whatever injustice exists for less populated states and why they get special treatment.

Other groups in society who are in the minority don't get special treatment in how many votes they get.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Balt
I wouldn't have a problem with scrapping electoral college (I'd like for my vote to actually count in an election for once), but changing the Senate to a proportional system like the House would probably result in disaster. You would have 4 or 5 'power states' that would effectively control the entire legislative branch. Other states would have absolutely no way of accomplishing anything for their citizens.

One - why is this so bad, when it reflects the 'one voter, one vote' principle?

Two - then why don't we see this '4 or 5 big state' dominance in the House, really?

You need to show me more why the fairness of treating voters equally is outweighed by whatever injustice exists for less populated states and why they get special treatment.

Other groups in society who are in the minority don't get special treatment in how many votes they get.

1. Your system wouldn't reflect the 'one voter, one vote' principle. That would be a true Democracy rather than a representative democracy which is what our legislative branch is based on.

2. Maybe you don't see it in the House because the House knows it can't create a budget that gives 100% of its funding to 4 or 5 states and leaves the rest of them with absolutely nothing. Why do they know this? Because it would never pass the Senate in its current form.

The fact is this, people in these smaller states pay income taxes just like people in larger states. Under the current system, they usually get more than they put in and that makes people in larger states unhappy. However, under your system, they may not get anything at all, despite the fact that they are still paying taxes. It would effectively be 'taxation without representation'.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Balt
I wouldn't have a problem with scrapping electoral college (I'd like for my vote to actually count in an election for once), but changing the Senate to a proportional system like the House would probably result in disaster. You would have 4 or 5 'power states' that would effectively control the entire legislative branch. Other states would have absolutely no way of accomplishing anything for their citizens.

One - why is this so bad, when it reflects the 'one voter, one vote' principle?

Two - then why don't we see this '4 or 5 big state' dominance in the House, really?

You need to show me more why the fairness of treating voters equally is outweighed by whatever injustice exists for less populated states and why they get special treatment.

Other groups in society who are in the minority don't get special treatment in how many votes they get.

1. Your system wouldn't reflect the 'one voter, one vote' principle. That would be a true Democracy rather than a representative democracy which is what our legislative branch is based on.

2. Maybe you don't see it in the House because the House knows it can't create a budget that gives 100% of its funding to 4 or 5 states and leaves the rest of them with absolutely nothing. Why do they know this? Because it would never pass the Senate in its current form.

The fact is this, people in these smaller states pay income taxes just like people in larger states. Under the current system, they usually get more than they put in and that makes people in larger states unhappy. However, under your system, they may not get anything at all, despite the fact that they are still paying taxes. It would effectively be 'taxation without representation'.

Doesn't a lot of that logic center around the idea that people are generally separated by state lines rather than other factors? I suspect the rural/urban divide is a larger issues than the difference between large and small states. Farmers in Iowa are pretty much like farmers in California, with the same needs and concerns. While dividing things by states might have made sense when this country was founded, things have changed a lot since then.

On the other hand, the counter-argument with the Senate is that Senators do not represent a specific area of their state, they represent the whole state. Among congressmen, there is less incentive for collusion among state reps, since they represent different districts and still compete to get money for their district. But with Senators, ANY money going anywhere in the state is good for getting votes...which makes it a lot more likely you'd have state voting blocks.

 

[Rainsford]

Whoops, double post.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Balt
I wouldn't have a problem with scrapping electoral college (I'd like for my vote to actually count in an election for once), but changing the Senate to a proportional system like the House would probably result in disaster. You would have 4 or 5 'power states' that would effectively control the entire legislative branch. Other states would have absolutely no way of accomplishing anything for their citizens.

One - why is this so bad, when it reflects the 'one voter, one vote' principle?

Two - then why don't we see this '4 or 5 big state' dominance in the House, really?

You need to show me more why the fairness of treating voters equally is outweighed by whatever injustice exists for less populated states and why they get special treatment.

Other groups in society who are in the minority don't get special treatment in how many votes they get.

1. Your system wouldn't reflect the 'one voter, one vote' principle. That would be a true Democracy rather than a representative democracy which is what our legislative branch is based on.

Let's not get into the tired "real democracy" silliness yet again - it doesn't exist outside of textbooks and groups of about 10 people or less.

The point is that "one voter, one vote" means in terms of representation. If blonde people are 30% of the population, but get 50% of the vote for reps, it violates the principle.

A few people in the less populated states get far more than their fair share of the vote. Among other things, it shifted 4% fewer votes for Gore and 5% more for Bush in 2000.

2. Maybe you don't see it in the House because the House knows it can't create a budget that gives 100% of its funding to 4 or 5 states and leaves the rest of them with absolutely nothing. Why do they know this? Because it would never pass the Senate in its current form.

This is a pretty good speculation. But more would be needed to substantiate it. And even if we did, it still leaves the question that of the countless groups of minorities in this country for many traits, why we should single out the trait of "low population state resident" for special treatment more than others. This answers your next point, too:

The fact is this, people in these smaller states pay income taxes just like people in larger states. Under the current system, they usually get more than they put in and that makes people in larger states unhappy. However, under your system, they may not get anything at all, despite the fact that they are still paying taxes. It would effectively be 'taxation without representation'.

Besides, why the exaggerated threat? Couldn't the majority of brown haired people vote "NO BENIFITS AT ALL!!" for blondes? Now see if they have more fun!

But they don't. Again, this is an inherent issue in democracy that needs a general solution, not unfair advantage for one group of states.

 

[Modelworks]

I wish it would change as well.
I remember my 7 yr old neice asking me on one of the elections how someone gets to be president
I told her well, everyone votes and then....
she interrupted "whoever gets the most votes wins"

Then I had to explain how the electoral stuff works and I could tell from the expression on her face that she too thought it was pretty messed up.

Out of the mouth of babes....

 

[Corn]

I find it ever so amusing to read the forum lefties bemoan Bush wiping his ass with the constitution then on the next page want to dismantle our constitutionally mandated system of government. Silly liberati.

 

[MadRat]

The only way I accept removal of the electoral college is to either put the vice president back to the runner up or also directly elect the vice president on their own ticket. Lame ducks for vice!

 

[GoPackGo]

Civics lesson everyone....The US is not a true democracy. Never was. Never will be.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn
I find it ever so amusing to read the forum lefties bemoan Bush wiping his ass with the constitution then on the next page want to dismantle our constitutionally mandated system of government. Silly liberati.

Of course you do, because you are a misguided, logic-deficient righty, as I'll show:

You fail to understand the difference between opposing the *violation* of the constitution as it exists to violate Americans' rights, and advocating a legal modification to make it more fair.

 

[Excelsior]

The electoral college is a large injustice to democracy, to the 'one voter one vote' idea, and it's all but impossble to change, because the number of *states* who benefit - albeit a relatively small percent of the nation's population, off the top of my head perhaps 20% - are more than the number needed to block changing it under the constitutional amendment requirements.

A large injustice to democracy? Maybe to direct democracy, but the framers of our constitution would certainly disagree with you.

Read the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...y_in_the_United_States

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You fail to understand the difference between opposing the *violation* of the constitution as it exists to violate Americans' rights, and advocating a legal modification to make it more fair.

I *guarantee* you wouldn't be advocating this position had Gore won, and Bush taken the majority.

"The Constitution is an outdated document".... right Craig?