Against the electoral college

[removeduser_487563287433]

Should you not know, the electoral college is the method by which the President of the United States is elected, and it is, in my opinion at the very least, grossly undemocratic. It uses the archaic first past the post electoral system, now used only by India, the UK, Canada and the US out of all the liberal democracies of the world. Believe it or not, but this system means that the vote of a citizen in California or Texas isn't worth as much as a citizen in Wyoming. Actually, that's not true at all, because with the exception of about fifty people from California, about thirty people from Texas and three people from Wyoming, nobody in these states has a vote for the Presidental election! The electors do, and although they are meant to vote in the way the majority of their states does, many of them are not legally obliged to do so, and rarely they will vote on their personal whim. Finally, to show how defunct the system is, four times in the US' relatively short history has it elected a President who received less votes than his rival, including that notorious child-President, George W. Bush. If any of this is democratic I will eat my hat.

Why are the value of the votes unbalanced between large and the smallest states? Well, states get electoral college votes based on the amount of representatives they have in the lower house of Congress in additition to their two Senators. The number of Congressmen a state has is based on population but every state must have at least one, and it automatically gets two senators. This means states like Wyoming, that do not even have the population to justify a single representative get a massive three votes for a tiny population.

Of course this is assuming that these people even see their vote carried out by their electors. Faithless electors, meaning those electors who vote against the majority of their state, have appeared 158 times, the last being in 2004. The fact that the electoral college is based on the principle that US citizens are not to be trusted with their own vote is just stunningly undemocratic, and in fact ironic, seeing as the last faithless elector was probably an accident. This is almost beyond belief... but it is so... only 538 people in the United States get to vote in the Presidental election.

And of course, the biggest problem with the electoral college - it instals people who lost the election. It can also been abused, such as in Bush v Gore 2000.

Oh, there are arguments you can make in defence of the electoral college, sure, but the idea that it even flirts with democracy certainly isn't one of them.

[Gaidin]

What if this particular election is not designed, nor intended, to be democratic?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Then, much like other archaisms, such as the originally unelected upper House, it should be reformed, or replaced.

That's the point, dear.

[Gaidin]

Why should it be reformed when we don't want a pure democratic government in the first place?

That's the point you won't accept, dear.

[SigniferOne]

Right, Gaidin.

The point of the electoral college is to have the elected president be a president over the entire landmass of the country, and not be determined by a few populated clumps in the cities deciding the laws and principles for the rest of the country. Bush won less votes (in the cities) but he won more States, whereas Gore had a lot of popularity in a few major cities and none anywhere else.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Right, Gaidin.

The point of the electoral college is to have the elected president be a president over the entire landmass of the country, and not be determined by a few populated clumps in the cities deciding the laws and principles for the rest of the country. Bush won less votes (in the cities) but he won more States, whereas Gore had a lot of popularity in a few major cities and none anywhere else.

Actually were you to base it on a popular vote it would actually help to take away power from the cities and the heavily populated swing states. Yes, the minor states with five blokes and a sheep will lose out (only fair) but Republican voters in California or Democratic voters in Texas will actually have an opportunity for their vote to count.

[SigniferOne]

Actually were you to base it on a popular vote it would actually help to take away power from the cities and the heavily populated swing states. Yes, the minor states with five blokes and a sheep will lose out (only fair) but Republican voters in California or Democratic voters in Texas will actually have an opportunity for their vote to count.

It isn't fair for five blokes and a sheep to lose out. If the people in heavily-populated states want their votes heard, they need to move six people into the state with five blokes and a sheep, and take over those electors. In other words, people need to spread out throughout the whole country. Tightly-packed population clumps determining the progress of the whole country may be democratic but not ideal.

There is little in the more pure democracy of Britain that is ideal. The ideal constitution was the constitution up to George III.. at best up to the Acts of Parliament. When the Acts stripped House of Lords of power, they turned Britain into mobocracy, and you only need to know the history of Athens to know what happens to that. There is no 'backbone' to the country, whatever the people wish is instantly granted to them, wildly swinging the ship of state and necessarily making sure that it will eventually overturn.

[Farnan]

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

This does a pretty good job of explaining the neccessity of the system.

[Gaidin]

Would you like to ***** about the Senate as well Ferrets? After all, a bill has to get through there in order to become a law, and it's certainly not based on population.

How about the Supreme Court? They're not even elected, and they don't even serve a term.

I'm tired of hearing this bs about the electoral college from people who want to throw around the word 'democracy' like its some sort of magical catch phrase and criticize a country that has no interest in being a pure democracy in the first place. Get off it or move to a different part of our government because this is really really old.

Our voters are still as stupid today as they were 200 years ago. We just don't want them in control of our entire government. Get over it people.

[Caelius]

and it is, in my opinion at the very least, grossly undemocratic.

The crux of this entire thread IMO.

To answer it: The Electoral College is at worst a necessary evil, it was never designed to be democratic. The founders didn't want elections turning into spouts of mobocracy, which is exactly why the weight of the popular vote is superceded by the electors.

Believe it or not, but this system means that the vote of a citizen in California or Texas isn't worth as much as a citizen in Wyoming.

No, you mean that they aren't worth more. Frankly, that's a good thing. It's exactly how the Electoral College is meant to work.

Actually, that's not true at all, because with the exception of about fifty people from California, about thirty people from Texas and three people from Wyoming, nobody in these states has a vote for the Presidental election! The electors do, and although they are meant to vote in the way the majority of their states does, many of them are not legally obliged to do so, and rarely they will vote on their personal whim. Finally, to show how defunct the system is, four times in the US' relatively short history has it elected a President who received less votes than his rival, including that notorious child-President, George W. Bush. If any of this is democratic I will eat my hat.

The US is a constitutional federal republic (with a strong democratic tradition), and contrary to popular belief that does not make it synonymous to a democracy.

Why are the value of the votes unbalanced between large and the smallest states?

To maintain intersectional equilibrium between the political power of the large states versus the small ones.

This means states like Wyoming, that do not even have the population to justify a single representative get a massive three votes for a tiny population.

Read directly above.

The fact that the electoral college is based on the principle that US citizens are not to be trusted with their own vote is just stunningly undemocratic

I'd dispute that too, as would some political philosophers like Democritus, Plato, and Cicero.

But unless you want to get into a rediculously drawn out debate over classical democratic ideals, I suggest we agree to disagree.

This is almost beyond belief... but it is so... only 538 people in the United States get to vote in the Presidental election.

That's not true. Any US citizen has the power to vote in a Presidential election, but it is their delegated representatives thar are voted for by them and the rest of the American public who have vested enumerated powers under the Constitution to submit their votes within the Electoral College. It's still more complicated than that, but that is the simplest way of answering it.

And of course, the biggest problem with the electoral college - it instals people who lost the election. It can also been abused, such as in Bush v Gore 2000.

No it can't, that power lies solely with the Supreme Court. They were the ones who had the authority to determine who had won, the Electoral College is just a tool.

Oh, there are arguments you can make in defence of the electoral college, sure, but the idea that it even flirts with democracy certainly isn't one of them.

I'd agree.

Yes, the minor states with five blokes and a sheep will lose out (only fair) but Republican voters in California or Democratic voters in Texas will actually have an opportunity for their vote to count.

Uh...no, having any state within the US "lose out" wouldn't be fair, at least according to the Constitution anyway. That's one of the reasons why infrastructure behind the Electoral College exists for in the first place. States like New Jersey and Connecticut would be in the same amount of uproar they had over two hundred years ago if a measure like that were passed.

[Tiwaz]

I'm tired of hearing this bs about the electoral college from people who want to throw around the word 'democracy' like its some sort of magical catch phrase and criticize a country that has no interest in being a pure democracy in the first place. Get off it or move to a different part of our government because this is really really old.

This caught my attention...

I thought democracy IS magic word. Using it can justify even invasions leading to deaths of tens of thousands.

So why it would not be worthy word to strip archaic tradition which made this mentioned invasion possible? (I have problems believing Gore would have gone to Iraq)

[Gaidin]

This caught my attention...

I thought democracy IS magic word. Using it can justify even invasions leading to deaths of tens of thousands.

So why it would not be worthy word to strip archaic tradition which made this mentioned invasion possible? (I have problems believing Gore would have gone to Iraq)

Do I look like President Bush? Am I throwing around the word 'democracy' like it's the skeleton key to the world?

Where is your point about what I am saying with regards to my statements.

You can easily change the Presidential election to national popular vote without reworking the whole system. I mean Senators being elected by people rather than state legislators changed up the original intention significantly, but nothing else was changed to counter-balance it. In my humble opinion you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I see you don't like answering theoretical questions as they are asked. I shan't bother asking you anything similar in the future good sir.

[removeduser_487563287433]

To be honest, if you're going to take that attitude towards the executive I do not understand why not have a monarchy and be done with it.

And I really do hope that the defence of the system that installed George W Bush being that voters are "too stupid" was intended to be satirical.

[ajm317]

This is almost beyond belief... but it is so... only 538 people in the United States get to vote in the Presidental election.

Cannot similar statements be made about the Prime Minister in just about any parliamentary system?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Cannot similar statements be made about the Prime Minister in just about any parliamentary system?

Well firstly Prime Ministers in 'Parliamentary systems' can refer to just about any form of election, and I only have any particular knowledge in the United Kingdom's. In fact, the election of the Prime Minister in the UK is arguably even more undemocratic because he is not elected at all. In fact no written law states that the Prime Minister even exists, it is a position utterly formed by convention. In a general election in the UK people vote for their member of Parliament for their constituency. The party with the most seats in Parliament is asked to form a government by the monarch and the leader of that party is, by convention, asked to serve as Prime Minister. How the parties select their leaders is utterly up to them.

But I don't really see what this has to do with the electoral college.

t Caelius

Thank of you for the reasonable post. Questions; do you agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread that Americans are too stupid to be trusted in a Presidental election? If so do you think electors and Supreme Court Juctices should intervene to instal losing candidates? If not for what reasons do you support the electoral college and its democratic failings?

[ajm317]

Well firstly Prime Ministers in 'Parliamentary systems' can refer to just about any form of election, and I only have any particular knowledge in the United Kingdom's. In fact, the election of the Prime Minister in the UK is arguably even more undemocratic because he is not elected at all. In fact no written law states that the Prime Minister even exists, it is a position utterly formed by convention. In a general election in the UK people vote for their member of Parliament for their constituency. The party with the most seats in Parliament is asked to form a government by the monarch and the leader of that party is, by convention, asked to serve as Prime Minister. How the parties select their leaders is utterly up to them.

Well my understanding was that in most parliamentary systems that the legislature chooses the Prime Minister, and is thus generally not directly elected.

But I don't really see what this has to do with the electoral college.

Well the implication was that because the Electoral College is undemocratic, it needs to be removed. I was just pointing out that the equivalent position in most countries is not democratically elected either, so if that is indeed a problem, you would expect it to apply to a lot more than just the U.S.

Personally I am not in favor of the Electoral College. At this point in history, I don't think it makes sense, but I can see the logic behind it. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

[Last Roman]

the electoral system is outdated and unnecessary in this day and age.

I think that if we did away with it, we'd see an increase in voter turnout as more people would feel that they're vote counts.

I can see why it was necessary, but not any more

[Big War Bird]

the electoral system is outdated and unnecessary in this day and age.

I think that if we did away with it, we'd see an increase in voter turnout as more people would feel that they're vote counts.

I can see why it was necessary, but not any more

Why is it outdated? Does the USA not have a federal form of government? It seem to me if we have such a system, the Electoral College is an important part of preserving that system.

[Last Roman]

Why is it outdated? Does the USA not have a federal form of government? It seem to me if we have such a system, the Electoral College is an important part of preserving that system.

the federal system does not need the electoral college. The president can be elected by the popular vote, it won't change the entire set up of our government. Either way, it's not like the electoral college has really stopped the trend of more power going to the national gov't.

I really see no good reason why we should keep it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

How does it prop up the federal nature of the USA?