Could someone re-explain the logic and use of electoral college

[paperfist]

It's a way to keep balance between big urban centers and rural areas. If all that mattered were the popular vote, candidates would focus solely on major population centers; big cities. I'm sure people in rural communities would be upset if they were so underrepresented as a demographic. Then again, you don't want people in low-population areas to have a disparity of power per vote as compared to people in high-population areas either. You need balance. The electoral college provides some semblance of that.

Realisitically, it could be improved, particularly if it were done by county/district rather than how most states do it, a popular vote for all the electoral votes that state has. But that still has a way of amplifying the voting power of rural counties, so it's not a perfect solution either.

I've never taken a candidate on their word and never have been swayed by an advertisement. So even if they focused on population centers I'm not sure how ignoring small populations would get them elected.

Back in the day they had to go everywhere via train to rally the votes. It should be that way today.

 

[Steeplerot]

So the white slave owners had proportional representation in the south where it was mostly slaves who could not vote

Sounded like a good idea back then, but led to a terrible legacy of the civil war and part of the mess we are in with a divided political populace. A union vs southern industry leaders and to this day political balkanization in the "melting pot" country. That in reality started as anything but.

 

[soulcougher73]

Please don't troll a thread filled with emotion-laden ignorance by interjecting facts and history. Thanks.

That is only part of the history of the EC. Its main funtion was to simply voting due to the fact they didnt have the means to tally that many people and had pony express for result delivery. So the EC went to DC on behalf of the state and casted their vote.

It is old and outdated in todays world and needs to go. It in fact keeps many people from voting all based on where they happen to live.

Example: I dont vote because i live in KS.
Vote for Romney? He's a shoe in with current EC. Why waste my time.
Vote for Obama? Why, Romney is a shoe in. Why waste my time.
Vote for 3rd party? Why, Romney is a shoe in. Why waste my time.

So no matter who i would vote for the end result will be the same in the ECs current form. Id get out and vote if the EC was gone beause 1 vote is 1 vote regardless where i or anyone else lives.

 

[soulcougher73]

The electoral college make it so individual states have a say. Otherwise it would just be how the overall population of the country voted.

How would the people of these individual states not have a say without the EC? Their vote would count just as much as anyone else.

 

[soulcougher73]

If the popular vote was all that mattered the candidates would only care about the largest cities.

And they would lose badly if they did this. The numbers just dont work out. Plus that is assuming just because you live in a city you are going to vote one way or another. Its just not reality.

 

[soulcougher73]

I suggest you guys watch these 2 videos to get a good idea about the EC and how it works and why it debunks the most commonly referred to myths about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&feature=BFa&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62

Another good follow up video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=BFa&list=SPC1C0D3F2BA472F62

 

[soulcougher73]

If we went by the popular vote it would be enormously tempting for some states to keep a candidate off the ballot. Even a state like California that will go heavily to Obama would have millions of votes for Romney.
By making some b.s. reason or qualification to keep Romney off the ballot one state could change the election.
Its not that far fetched since a couple of states were going to try and keep Obama off thier ballot based on his birth certificate, etc. Those were red states so they wouldn't have affected anything under the electora college, but if you can keep a candidate who would lose your state off the ballot under a popular vote system, you can swing the whole election.

That is a whole seperate issue and easily resolved by law. All candidates are on all state ballets. There fixed. States dont have say in it.

 

[soulcougher73]

How the Electoral College Works
The Trouble with the Electoral College

CGPGrey's videos are really well explained.

Ah looks like you beat me to it. Oh well they can watch them again in my post LOL

 

[Farang]

Advantages to EC:

(1) Requires a candidate to have a broad base of support.

(2) Imagine a Florida 2000 scenario, but over the entire US.

I think #2 is really what convinces me a national popular vote is a bad idea. However proportional allotment of electoral votes would also avoid this problem and would create a broader campaign.

 

[nehalem256]

Its more fun to watch the electoral map get colored in

 

[K1052]

This...completely. Those arguing for a popular vote are akin to the Federalists in the 1700's, believing in a strong Federal government and weak state governments. There is a reason why it's called "United States of America" and not just "America".

Arguably the Federalist (Hamilton) vision has effectively been realized at this point.

 

[hal2kilo]

The electoral college is fucked because the "powers that be" restricted the growth of Representatives. We should have something like 10k+ Reps now, which would mean the Electoral College would too better represent the populace. Just saying not all issues with the system are a result of the system itself, but outside interference.

Yes, the 435 representatives limit is way out of date. Something I can agree with you on.

 

[bfdd]

Yes, the 435 representatives limit is way out of date. Something I can agree with you on.

We need to repeal the act that limited it if we want better representation and more accountability for all the ridiculous spending. We'd probably rip away from the two party system as well if we rolled it back.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Without reading the entire thread, in the early days there could be dozens of people running for President. Each state had several canidates. the electoral college was to create a clear majority agreement.
Personally I feel it gives swing states far too much influence and we should move to direct vote

 

[piasabird]

Go back to school and take american govt.

The number of votes in the electoral college is based on the US Census.

Each state is allowed to vote their votes how they see fit and each state runs the election how they see fit. Most States vote all their electorial college votes based on the majority vote of their state. i.e. winner takes all. This is so each state can be guaranteed their state rights and be represented as an individual state.

Some talking heads sit around all night and try to determine the majority of the votes for each state. It is a waste of time watching this all night.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Advantages to EC:

(1) Requires a candidate to have a broad base of support.

(2) Imagine a Florida 2000 scenario, but over the entire US.

lol something like this happened in Taiwan in 2004 and it was a fiasco. With 80% turnout there's more votes casted than in California, so it took quite a while. I can't imagine them doing it in the US.

This is more reason to go electronic.

 

[piasabird]

I think we should take some large cities and make them separate from their state and consider them a district, Like District of Columbia. Some cities are so large that they have a voting block so large that they control the whole state.