Should the electoral college be eliminated?
The electoral college for better or worse has prevented the country from having multiple small competing parties. Thus preventing the country having to form coalition governments in order to govern. With two major factions, one in power and the other a strong opposition the nation is able to function with less turmoil.
No but it should be altered. Votes In each state shouldn't be winner take all they should be proportional but still represented by electoral college numbers
No. The electoral college forces a candidate to appeal to a large cross-section of this country rather than concentrating on only the large metropolitan areas. This is why the writers of the constitution established it.
Candidates only focus on like 5 states.
Except that's not true at all. Even with the top 10 biggest cities and their respective metropolitan areas don't even account for 10% of the population, hardly enough to to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.
The popular vote is a sham, the electoral college elects the president, not the popular vote . Remember bush vs gore? Who elects the electoral college? How could a third party ever penetrate the system?
That 2/3 of people say yes to this is proof-positive of the poor quality (or perhaps intent) of the public education system and its failure to teach students the Framers' intent when they devised it, how it works, why it is necessary and the consequences should it to be eliminated. Shameful.
What is your argument defending it?
America was created, intentionally, as a representative republic. E.C. preserves that.
There are a plethora of walks of life in America. Under direct election, all walks of life between the coasts would be unrepresented in the election.
The interests of citizens of about 48 states would be drowned out by the votes of the masses of people in NY and CA. A grossly non-proportional fraction of nation's population live in these 2 states. They are very similar ideologically and extremely dysfunctional socially, politically and financially. The entire nation would become that.
Secondarily, presidential candidates would spend zero dollars and zero time in the smaller states, not to mention they would also take zero interest in the concerns of the smaller states. Merely because they know they could earn every vote in the small state and it would not make a difference.
Instead, they will spend all money, time and concern on the large population centers in NY and CA knowing they are the only ones they need to please in order to win.
It was pure genius displayed by the brilliant minds who set the system up, and thoughtful analysis of the alternative has been all but abandoned amid the populist horn blowing the past couple of decades.
the electoral college is broken some of its members don't even have to vote corresponding to the voting results also it is completely unfair as in most smaller states you need less votes for a single electoral college vote for example we will say in Wyoming 100,000 votes = 1 electoral college vote while in California it could be 150,000 votes=1 electoral college vote. From what I've heard and understand the electoral college was just it by itself voting for president no outside forces influenced it at all besides the people in it. This was to try and make sure the uneducated majority wouldn't pick a crap president.
but we now (though some would argue otherwise) have a fairly educated population and the electoral college should be disbanded and we should become direct democracy in terms of picking president. The electoral college either needs to be changed to make it correspond and fair or disbanded
I'm not sure if I made this clear in my last one. The electoral college currently makes it where some peoples vote counts more then others which should not be the case
Thanks Otto great explanation.
@Logskin: That is not true. You can't compare my vote in NY to someone's vote in WY. My vote counts as much as anyone else's in NY and in WY everyone's vote counts the same as anyone else's in WY. Every state is a separate contest.
You COULD argue that since NY has about 100 times the population of WY, it should get 100 times as many electoral votes, but that would make anyone's vote in WY absolutely negligible.
Progressives have understood this for over a century, and their 100-year plan accounted for just this argument. On the surface, direct democracy sounds fair and logical and they use that fact to push the population into small geographical areas (i.e. urbanization) and rely on a citizenry misinformed by their public education to yell, "Yeah! Direct election!"
and why can't I compare different peoples vote the straight facts are that someone else vote makes counts more then another vote. And why do we care if they push for more in different states or cities we still can clearly see candidates views through debates and usually their websites. Just because they push in a certain city doesn't mean that they will absolutely vote for them. If the majority of people vote for a president then that person should be president or if we want the electoral college make it where there is no correlation at all to the way people vote in states have it what it should be and just have them vote solely on what they want not on what the results say. Because in the current system it makes people in wymomings vote counts more then more populated states
I'm done arguing this but I will leave a link to show the unfairness of it. If you watch it you can see how there are massive problems with it. I'm not saying there's a perfect way but there needs to be revisions
here's the link m.youtube.com/watch?safesearch=1&v=7wC42HgLA4k
Your video's creator has a few misrepresentations (that we are a democracy, for one) and at least one contradiction: he complains how OH has only 18 electoral votes when he feels it should have 20, but then talks about how so much time and money is spent by candidates there. Why spend so much time and money in an under-represented state?
Anyway, this guy has a better answer. Don't abolish college. Reform it. Either expand beyond 435 representatives or split electoral votes by district. That would at the very least preserve a semblance of the federalism that is supposed to be our governmental system as opposed to a democracy.
Accept that it would have a much more positive effect than a negative one. If you want info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.
My link is to a rebuttal of the video of which you speak. Believe me, I watched it.
Even if we accept the argument that the college represents states, the electoral college is still a failure. It take votes away from more populous states and gives extra voting power to states with smaller populations. As a Californian, my vote counts several times less than someone from Vermont or Wyoming. That's pretty unacceptable IMO.
Actually, it is the only thing saving us from the entire country becoming like California.
I see pros and cons to both. But as a conservative in Washington state my vote for president doesn't really matter. My state will vote blue. It would be nice if my
Vote actually did something.
That's exactly why the electoral college should be eliminated
Shaw, I feel your pain as a conservative in NY state. But as dire as it seems for conservatism in America, if there was no E.C. it would be game-over for certain.
As it is, we can still hold out hope in our traditional red states (fewer all the time, but still...) winning and every few elections being able to sway a handful of purple states our way.
Without it, we're doomed for sure. With Soros spending so much to organize voting drives on the left. With the left's unconstitutional impediment of state voter ID laws. With the left's largely unopposed insistence that illegals come here, stay here and vote here (because they can't be IDd).
We could completely write off America as a progressive-socialist oligarchy by 2020 without electoral college.
Hang tough, brother!
Yes, definitely, because if we got rid of it then there'd be absolutely no risk of having another republican president. But as an election process in general, in order to ensure each state has a representative voice, it's probably best to keep it.
No. If you want your vote to count, you need the Electoral College (unless you just live in one of the five biggest cities).
That's not true at all.
Not true at all. Even if you had the top 10 most populated cities and their respective metropolitan areas, you still wouldn't have even 10% of the population, hardly enough to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.
Definitely pros and cons, but helping protect the interests of the more rural states is reason enough to keep it. The last thing normal people want is for city people to make any of the decisions that affect us all without regulation and adult supervision.
It's very annoying and frustrating having a smaller amount of rural people determine federal laws that affect a larger amount of city people (house of representatives).
You could make a case for that in the senate, maybe, where WY with a half million people and CA with 39 million each get two. Not in the House, where seven states out of the fifty only get one representative each, and CA alone gets 53.
yes but by protecting the smaller states we also make the smaller states votes count more. so a citizen in wyomings vote is worth more then someone in California's
Except that even with the top 20 most populated cities with their respective metropolitan areas, you still wouldn't have even 10% of the country's population, hardly enough to win. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.
"It makes sure people pay attention to the small states!!!" How many times are Wyoming and Hawaii visited by candidates? How many times are New York and California visited? Gimme a break.
California: 38.8 million people
Electoral Votes: 55
38,800,000/55 = ~705,000 people per electoral vote
Wyoming: 584,000 people
Electoral Votes: 3
584,000/3 = ~194,000 people per electoral vote
Nobody sees a problem with this?
The problem with the electoral college is that in many states, all electoral votes go to the one with the most votes. In effect, the whole population of that state is considered to have voted for that candidate. It's why most politicians only will campaign in the so called battle states. I thin one or two states divide the electoral votes by voting districts.
Maine and Nebraska award one elector for the victor of each congressional district in the respective state plus two electors for the candidate who gets the most votes overall statewide. It makes a lot more sense to me than "winner take all" in the rest of the other 48 states and would make electoral college results more in line with the popular vote if all states were to adopt this method.
If we get rid of the electoral college, individual states no longer have sovereignty and an individual voice if their own, of course it should stay.
That makes no sense. We need to implement popular vote!
They do still have a voice. They are called congressmen (congresswomen)
chandler that was awful of course they have a voice in government it's called the legislative branch
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
Otherwise the larger states can just bully the others.
How are people ignorant of its purpose?!
You all took the Constitution test!
Bully is an incorrect term for it. It forces the smaller states to conform to a popular candidate. If the smaller states had a lot of power they could overrule the popular vote. Also it can create a system where people could win without the popular vote. Let's suppose there are 100 people in the U.S split into ten groups. If the Orange party wins 6 people in 6 groups and loses all the other groups completely it would allow an orange candidate to win with 36 votes over the 64 of the other party.
"Stupid little states, don't know what's good for 'em"...
it's unfair tilton it makes a Wyoming vote matter more then someone in California so in reality it's more like the smaller states bullying the larger ones
and smaller states already have the senate did that not give them enough power and equal footing
If the the purpose of the Electoral College was to give smaller states more power and fight the big states, it's failed miserably. I'm not good at explaining things, so I'm just going to detect you to a video called "The Trouble with the Electoral College" by CGP Grey on YouTube. It explains why we should abolish the Electoral College, by showing all of its problems, one being that it does not give smaller states more voting power
Eliminate it. It's outdated.
How? And what would not be "outdated" in a hundred years if we changed it?
My vote actually counting will never be outdated.
How exactly is it not counted? Unless you don't vote.....
If you vote democrat in Texas or you vote conservative in California: your vote doesn't count.
I should rephrase. If it wasn't winner take all I'd be happy.
As someone who has fled the People's Republic of California, I do agree it kinda sucks when my vote isn't counted in the total. But it doesn't "not count". And it gives a voice to those who aren't in huge cities. If it was just a popular vote, only the big cities would get any attention. And if it was not winner take all, it wouldn't be the Electoral College anyway.
We'll agree to disagree.
If you don't live in a swing state, for example, voting Republican in California means NOTHING. California Republicans might as well not vote because the electoral college is winner take all
That's part of why I left!
I live in Kentucky that has always been conservative, so my vote no matter if I vote liberal is always going to the republicans, so why should we keep this outdated electoral college BS in place. Why the hell do we do super delegates? Our voting system is crap
Super delegates are only in the Dem primary. Electoral College is general election.
Yea I know that.
Good luck with amending the Constitution to do that.
It is amazing to me that people that swear by The Constitution and the founding fathers on the items they like want eliminate the electoral college. The same people who gave you the second amendment when both the military and civilians just had muskets gave you the electoral college. Perhaps you should read why they did
Ummm about even percentages of both parties said they wanted to get rid of it so idk why you just want to bitch about conservatives....
Actually I was wrong. More Republicans than Democrats want to get rid of it so your bitching is pretty misplaced.
I'm a conservative Republican and I am in favor of the electoral college, who exactly are you referring to?
No one can say we have any sort of democracy. What a joke.
During Obamas last 8 years he has re-apportioned and carved out a slanted re-districting plan that heavily favors the Democrats in the Electoral College in the next election. If the Republican voters allow the Establishment RINO's like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, John Kasich & Ted Cruz to Thwart Trumps Presidential Bid then the Electoral College will be further Transformed in the Democrats favor and may prevent a Republican from ever winning an Election again in America.
Ted Cruz is part of the Establishment? What?
Tiredofit, just let the Trump supporters vent. They got their man, and when he gets destroyed by Hillary they'll have to own him. They don't care about uniting the party, and it will cost them. Their anger blinds them to Cruz's anti-establishment actions in the senate.
What makes you think Cruz is establishment? Given Ted's Senate record of NOT caving to Dem's demands(something Grandma Mitch does quite a bit)the establishment of the party can't stand Cruz. They hate Trump, but Ted isn't their poster boy.
Cruz a RINO? Are you serious?Jeb, Johnny, Mitt and Don are RINO's,no doubt. But while Ted was arguing pro 2nd amendment cases in SCOTUS, D.T. was writing checks to Liberals' Senate and Presidential campaigns. Spare me your ignorance. Spare all of us.
The Bush-Cruz connection is clear. Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for president. A top policy adviser, Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bush man with deep ties to the political and financial establishment. Ted and wife Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice. Condi helped give us the phony war in Iraq. Heidi then went to the Bush U.S. Trade Representative as a top deputy to U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick, who wired Heidi’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and job at Goldman Sachs. The bailed-out bank then loaned Cruz $1 million secretly to finance his Senate race. Crux would also borrow an undisclosed $1 million loan from Citicorp.
I was in disbelief like the rest of you until I did a little research on Cruz and his fake anti-establishment posture.
Then why has he been one of the very few to stand up to the establishment as a senator?
And the actual establishment Senate leadership hates him just for the fun of it. Got it.
The electoral college is needed, it gives a voice to areas of the country that are not as condensed population wise (farming communities etc.). Otherwise the heavily populated coastal cities would essentially speak for and therefore run the country. The interest of a farmer in Nebraska is not the same as a white collar person in New York.
So you're in favor of giving certain minority segments of our population a disproportionate share of power? Seems rather elitist to me.
They don't get a disproportionate electoral amount, this is why my state of Kentucky only gets 8 electoral votes, Indiana and Tennessee 11 and so on. California gets a huge number in comparison due to its large population.
This isn't true at all. Only a select number of states get the most attention now. The top 10 populated cities are only 8% of the vote. That's not anywhere close for them to focus only on big cities
States, not cities
More reason to break up this nonsense and operate as sovereign States, ala Europe
While I like the idea of states rights as well, Europe is in shambles because of the European Union. If there was anything we didn't want to emulate, it should be the Europeans.
So don't do the common currency or fix what's broken.
Because THIS isn't working out
Amen BossHogg on not emulating the EU.
You said cities in your original post
Except that's not the case at all. Even with the top 100 most populated cities, you wouldn't even have 20% of the vote, hardly enough to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.
Fixed not eliminated. Direct democracy would be awful in close elections
Direct democracy is when the people decide the legislation.
I thought it was when everyone votes and whatever option has the most votes wins
Yes, but for legislation, not for people.
Instant. Runoff. Voting.
Before overhauling or eliminating the Electoral College. Voter fraud needs to be eliminated. Everything from non registered & illegals voting, to the ☠ dead voters in Chicago, who rise every 4 years to vote 100% DemLib !
There has been 31 cases of voter fraud in over one billion votes cast. There is virtually no voter fraud in the United States. Please show us all confirmed massive fraud voting in America, because it doesn't exist!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't catch voter fraud as it happens, then you will never know it happened.
"Well you can't DISPROVE there's an invisible pink elephant next to me!"
And I believe in the tooth fairy😂 There is no vote fraud!
There is no vote fraud that you can prove. If we check IDs then you will be able to ensure and prove that there is no vote fraud.
Your a DemLib Jackass🐴, so I can prove, there will never be elephant next to you pink or any other color🐘 😂
Great ad hominem
lol coming from the guy who doesn't understand that if you don't have a way to prove something, you can't prove or disprove it.
Eliminating it would make candidates campaign for every vote in every states and not just independent and undecided voters in FL, Ohio, VA, and the like.
Not that I don't like the attention as a Florida voter and all.
It makes it so only 10 out of the 40 states are relevant to those running for President. It's make my vote totally worthless, being a Conservative in California, as it would to a liberal in Texas. The answer is to be a real democracy and make every citizens vote equal.
40 states are already pretty much decided each election. Candidates only campaign in about 10 and only about 10 are battleground states that matter.
I know what you meant, but it should be "10 out of the 50 states"
Hahaha my bad. I didn't see that
A real democracy wouldn't have any of this representative bullshit every four years. In a real democracy, we the people determine which laws we want to live under.
But we aren't a democracy, we are a democratic republic.
I wouldn't get rid of it, just change it.
I agree. We have to have much better voter turnout to eliminate it all together. A popular vote represents just as poor a sample as the electoral college.
My biggest hope is that there is enough vote for a third party to break the electoral system.
No, because it's reliable enough and it stands as a reminder that the states are still important bastions of political power.
Get rid of the winner takes all rule at the very least. Make each district independent
Not a good idea. That would make the district drawing process even worse
How would it be worse? They are already drawn to give a vote to a party.
Because those lines change regularly, which would take even more power away from the people. And it would create a big advantage for one Party.
Because California and texas don't have an unfair advantage with winner takes all
Not at the moment they don't. They're baked in.
What I'm arguing is this- the outcome of two or three presidential elections would be predetermined by whomever drew the congressional district boundaries.
It would be less easy to predict if the minority wasn't silenced.
I have no idea what you're talking about
I'm for popular vote. Everybody's vote should have equal value.
I don't like the delegates but the smaller states should remain more counter balanced from the mob rule of larger populations because this is supposed to be the United *States* not the United *State*.
Require voter ID
Well no cause it's not a RIGGED SYSTEM ITS A REPUBLIC everyone forgets that that's really what we are
We would still be a republic if the president is elected by popular vote. Republic- a form of government where the citizens elect their representatives to make policy decisions. Your "it's a republic" argument clearly doesn't work here.
Yes but major republics do have things like the electoral college and PERSONALLY I don't see a problem with it. Sure sometimes it's a real piece of Shit but it keeps dumbasses from getting elected. I know everyones vote matters, but sometimes the people are just REALLY DUMB and the college has to pick the smarty choice for the country and go against their will. After this election with the people voting in two of the most unfavorable candidates ever I'm GLAD we have one. Also we've always had it since the start of our country so we WERE founded to be like this, so why change it ?
This is just my personal opinion tho
Absolutely! It's a rigged system that should not exist.
No. If you're gonna do that why not abolish states as well?
Because the states still govern over there boundaries too.
They should be awarded on the basis of the majority vote of each individual congressional district, not the winner-take-all that we have in 48 states, and certainly not eliminated.
I'd like to see the electors awarded by the vote in each congressional district rather than the winner take all system we currently have
At the very least eliminate the so-called super-delegates and require a valid I.D.
Super delegates are used in the nominating conventions, not the electoral vote, but yes, they should be eliminated.
Voter id is raysis
Yes, and even if the president were elected by popular vote we would still be a republic. So the "no we are a republic" argument doesn't work.
It needs restored, and the party system ended.
As much bad as it does. It is also needed.
And make the Midwest even more irrelevant??
I honestly can't say a popular vote would do that. The Midwest (ftr I'm using the Census' definition of the region) has a little over 1/5 the population, it's home to much of the Corn Belt (and the simultaneous breadbasket) as well as some major urban areas, and the region as the whole is purple enough (combined with a history of swinging) that a popular vote wouldn't hurt the region. If anything, it might actually be helped.
That being said, there are advantages and disadvantages to both the Electoral College and a national popular vote, but the Midwest probably has a best of both worlds scenario
It wouldn't though. Because even if you added up the top 100 most populated cities, you still wouldn't get even 20% of the population, hardly enough to win an election. If you want more info on why the Electoral College should be abolished, just look up "The Trouble with the Electoral College" on YouTube by CGP Grey. It's only about 6 minutes long, so it won't take up too much of your time, but it's still very informative.
Absolutely. Gotz ta goz.
With the current electoral college system, only 6 states matter, the rest are irrelevant. Needs an overhaul.
Gives power to the states. Besides there isn't really anything wrong with it. People just complain when it doesn't align with the popular vote, which doesn't even make sense since the electoral is more important.
In what world is it fair to have the majority lose? Especially in a democracy
We aren't a democracy.
We are a republic.
We are a democracy in a republic.
A republic with democratically elected leaders.
Which is a republic...
You do realize that the US form of government doesn't have to be labeled by only one word? It is indeed a republic because it is governed by elected leaders. It is also a constitutional form of government because the government (is supposed to) abide by the Constitution. Additionally, it is a representative democracy. These various descriptions of government are not mutually exclusive of each other and are all correct.
@red, suppose you have 10 friends and are deciding where to eat as one group. Six friends want to go to restaurant A and the other four restaurant B. It doesn't make sense for all 10 people to go to restaurant B because that's what the least amount of people want. That's what happens with the electoral college. It makes no sense to elect a president who got more electoral votes than the runner up who got the popular vote. This country has the principle of majority rule with minority rights. The majority should decide who's president not some archaic system that holds no true value today. The all or nothing electoral college system completely ignores potentially millions of voters who voted for candidate number 2 because he lost to candidate number 1 by as little as one vote.
Exactly, we can still have a republic without the electoral college 🙄
Yes, it should alway be labeled by two words...
That's it. No discussion or attempted twisting.
Black and white. Zero grey area.
You can type all you want. Don't care.
Hell, use the entire charcuterie limit.
I can do it in 22 letters.
We are NOT a democracy.
Why is there always someone who gets their panties on a knot about the democracy-republic thing?
We all know. It was in the Pledge of Allegiance. It's just a crutch. Let it go.
Then stop saying "we're a democracy" and I will.
If it were eliminated the Republican party would be no more.....so yes
Just what the U.S. Needs a unopposed DemLib party running everything, it's worked so well, & done such a "fabulous job" the past 8yrs NOT !!!!!!!!😱
It sure wasn't unopposed, but despite all the gloom and doom from the right, at least the economy is growing.
To date no one on either side of the political aisle has come up with a viable replacement that political opposites will agree with. So before we dump something that may not be the best but is working, lets first develop and proof a working replacement.
As my state's voters in the presidential election are always for "show"... I focus on state and local elections.
The lousy thing about voting in a state where the total population is less than 750,000 (and also on the west coast) is that your presidential vote is never going to matter - electoral college or not. The good thing, however, is that you have an opportunity to actually know your government representatives. I know all of them, and they know me by first name, because I choose to be involved.
No, we should keep it just like it is and better educate people on exactly what it is, how it works and how they can participate.
We're a republic, so let's keep it that way, how the founding fathers intended.
We'd still be a republic if it were a popular vote
Wouldn't we be a direct democracy? Or am I mistaken?
No because we'd still have representatives who make the calls.
Nonetheless, I'd rather keep the electoral college. I don't trust the general public with large decisions such as that, because they can be heavily swayed by emotion, rather than facts.