Electoral College - should it be abolished?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Frankly, I don't see a reason why an electoral college should operate in a democracy, especially in a country that advertises itself as the par excellence liberal democracy. It's an outdated, aristocratic institution that needs to be abolished.

If I were American, I would want my vote to be directly counted, thank you very much, but I'm deliberate enough to know who am I voting for.

It may have been a nice idea in the 18th or 19th century, but we are in the 21st century, for god's sake. Voters are grown-up adults, so they can make a decision on their own, after all why should it be called a democracy (where the people rule)?

This institution also enables to win the election by winning eleven states (the large swing states) and disregarding the rest of the country.

Not to mention in several elections (last time in 2000) the candidate receiving the plurality of the nationwide popular vote did not become President.

Moreover the Electoral College distorts vote results (in favour of the the 2-party monopoly) and eliminates any advantage to a political party or campaign for encouraging voters to turn out.

[cfmonkey45]

The Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers to balance out the disproportionate populations between states, so states with larger populations like Virginia wouldn't be able to drown out smaller states like Delaware or Rhode Island in decided whom the next president should be.

You do, however, bring up a good point. However, my one suggestion is that it not be disbanded entirely, but rather the Electoral votes be delegated in proportion to how the population votes.

For example, I live in California, which has the reputation for being the most liberal state in the union, because they have the "winner take all strategy", which means that because 54-58% of the population votes Democratically, the other 46-42% of the most populous state in the union become disenfranchised... their votes are utterly worthless.

So yes, I agree with you to an extent that this is not necessarily fair nor democratic (although we are a Republic, which is different from a democracy )

[C-Rob]

yes, because then we wouldn't have gotten Bush.

[Gaidin]

Deja vu...

[Iron Juggernaut]

Yes. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.

[Winter]

The Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers to balance out the disproportionate populations between states, so states with larger populations like Virginia wouldn't be able to drown out smaller states like Delaware or Rhode Island in decided whom the next president should be.

The electoral college was founded because the founders didn't want an unqualified or bad candidate to be swept in to office on a wave of what they felt were ignorant people's votes.

[nate895]

I wouldn't vote in your poll if I could, because it is both biased and we are not a "democracy" we are a Federal Republic consisting of 50 sovereign states. It would be impossible to institute a national popular vote due to the sovereignty of each state and getting to decide who is on their ballot.

Edit: Only three times has the loser of the popular vote won the Presidency, 1824, 1880, and 2000, and one of those the popular vote didn't count at all.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I wouldn't vote in your poll if I could, because it is both biased

How is my poll biased? Please use arguments to prove your opinion.

and we are not a "democracy" we are a Federal Republic consisting of 50 sovereign states.

Then why does the USA want to "enforce" democracy in the other parts of the world? Clearly, it makes no sense. Republic just indicates the form of the state btw, as opposed to monarchy. By this measure, every Western European country is "repubic" officially, even Switzerland is a federal republic, which nonetheless has direct democracy. These are outdated concetps.

Where really matters, is the governmental system. USA is a democracy, namely a representative democracy. As it has general suffrage, elections, all the civil liberties, fundamental rights and obligations of the citizen and government established by a constitution, etc.

It would be impossible to institute a national popular vote due to the sovereignty of each state and getting to decide who is on their ballot.

Why? This has nothing to do with the so-called "sovereignity" of the US member states, which is an illusion btw. Or do you really believe that North Dakota is a sovereign country?

The classical elements of sovereignity (namely an own army, and independent foreign policy) are not even available anymore.

Edit: Only three times has the loser of the popular vote won the Presidency, 1824, 1880, and 2000, and one of those the popular vote didn't count at all.

This doesn't prove nothing, injustice can't be disclaimed with statistics. If it happened once, it's wrong. Electoral College should go, and let the voters decide the Big Question.

[Dash]

Yes. Some people in my state (Illinois) won't vote for Obama because they already know he'll crush due to Chicago backing him, so they don't vote because they believe it's pointless.

If it were abolished, I think it would give people more initiative to vote for their candidate.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Actually the Electoral College was part of the major compromise between small and large states that also resulted in the US Senate... If state divisions still carry any meaning to the public et all the Electoral College should be preserved, except for a reform that delegates according to the due proportion of popular votes instead of the "winner carries it all" philosophy.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Actually the Electoral College was part of the major compromise between small and large states that also resulted in the US Senate... If state divisions still carry any meaning to the public et all the Electoral College should be preserved, except for a reform that delegates according to the due proportion of popular votes instead of the "winner carries it all" philosophy.

I see your point, but the really crucial point is, why are the electors empowered to freely vote? I cast my vote to Mr. X, why in the world should I empower him to eventually vote for Mr. Y? Why does the government regards me as an incompetent, irresponsible person to have his say about who will be the president? This is based on the assumption that people can't make political decisions, because they are not mature enough for this kind of sport.

[nate895]

I see your point, but the really crucial point is, why are the electors empowered to freely vote? I cast my vote to Mr. X, why in the world should I empower him to eventually vote for Mr. Y? Why does the government regards me as an incompetent, irresponsible person to have his say about who will be the president? This is based on the assumption that people can't make political decisions, because they are not mature enough for this kind of sport.

Most states (26, I think, constituting electoral majority) will send you to jail if you break your pledge and the party offended wants to charge you.

How is my poll biased? Please use arguments to prove your opinion.

No, I want this aristocratic institution to freely decide who will be the president of the USA regardless of my will and vote, because I can't decide who would I vote for.

If you don't see how that is inherently biased, I can't help you.

Then why does the USA want to "enforce" democracy in the other parts of the world? Clearly, it makes no sense. Republic just indicates the form of the state btw, as opposed to monarchy. By this measure, every Western European country is "repubic" officially, even Switzerland is a federal republic, which nonetheless has direct democracy. These are outdated concetps.

Where really matters, is the governmental system. USA is a democracy, namely a representative democracy. As it has general suffrage, elections, all the civil liberties, fundamental rights and obligations of the citizen and government established by a constitution, etc.

Republic: Rule of law

Example: Posse gathers to hunt down someone. When found, the sheriff brings him to the county jail to await trial for his crime.

Democracy: Rule of the mob

Example: Posse gathers to hunt down absolutely anyone, finds, put up to a vote on whether to kill them or not, vote is 36-1 in favor of death, execution commences.

As far as enforcing democracy goes, your government is lying to you. It has been known to do that.

Why? This has nothing to do with the so-called "sovereignity" of the US member states, which is an illusion btw. Or do you really believe that North Dakota is a sovereign country?

The classical elements of sovereignity (namely an own army, and independent foreign policy) are not even available anymore.

Articles of Confederation:

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Now, you cannot, according to international law, give up your sovereignty except via a treaty in which you specifically state that you lose your sovereignty, the words must be written on the paper. Now, if you can point out where in the US Constitution it says that states lost their sovereignty, you win.

This doesn't prove nothing, injustice can't be disclaimed with statistics. If it happened once, it's wrong. Electoral College should go, and let the voters decide the Big Question.

Voters can't vote on Constitutional amendments.

[Strattios]

Your poll had horrible choices.

I say keep it. We all get to vote and all our votes count for something (except in Washington State). I'm far more concerned about only letting people who are allowed to voted being counted and that they are all counted.

Besides, we're a Republic. Looking back at our political origins with the Romans, it is very similar to how they voted, which was by neighborhoods or districts within Rome.

Besides, the Government screws up enough and I don't want the Federal government counting up all the votes one by one. If they do anything similar to Washington State, the Democrats would never lose as they would come up with numbers like "1.8 million people voted for Obama in Washington, while 2 million voted for McCain. We decide we didn't count right so we recounted. 3 million for Obama and 1.9 million For McCain." For those of you who don't know, Washington doesn't have that many voting age citizens. Same thing when the Democrats won the Governor's race. Counties that were heavily Liberal were reporting more votes than they had voting age residents.

I think Voting should be privatized and that GE and members of either party shouldn't be allowed near the ballots.

[Gaidin]

I see your point, but the really crucial point is, why are the electors empowered to freely vote? I cast my vote to Mr. X, why in the world should I empower him to eventually vote for Mr. Y? Why does the government regards me as an incompetent, irresponsible person to have his say about who will be the president? This is based on the assumption that people can't make political decisions, because they are not mature enough for this kind of sport.

That would be a question to ask the governments of the states that don't require them to vote with the popular vote.

[Iscariott]

I see your point, but the really crucial point is, why are the electors empowered to freely vote? I cast my vote to Mr. X, why in the world should I empower him to eventually vote for Mr. Y? Why does the government regards me as an incompetent, irresponsible person to have his say about who will be the president? This is based on the assumption that people can't make political decisions, because they are not mature enough for this kind of sport.

Honestly, most people aren't.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I see your point, but the really crucial point is, why are the electors empowered to freely vote? I cast my vote to Mr. X, why in the world should I empower him to eventually vote for Mr. Y? Why does the government regards me as an incompetent, irresponsible person to have his say about who will be the president? This is based on the assumption that people can't make political decisions, because they are not mature enough for this kind of sport.

I, and the laws of many other states, agree with the assumption that electors are merely the middle men between the vote and should stay so. I disagree vehemently with the notion of "popular stupidity" being a justification for Electors: are they "smarter" at all? Giving them power to become faithless electors is betraying every concept of Democracy they should stand for.

But as said the Electoral College is still a good idea for representation, and IMO with some changes it could be far better without destroying the stability of the system or benefiting the 51% at the expense of the 49%, which it currently does in many states.

Anyways, without the electoral college where would the candidates campaign? All the major cities of course and they would tailor their platform to those people, nobody else. This one man = one vote crap refuses to recognize that right now candidates have to appeal to a wider base than if it was a direct vote. While I recognize the anger over not having your vote count if you don't live in a swing state, what would happen if you don't live in a dense urban area with the new direct vote?

The current system works exactly as you describe here: a few swing states get a disproportionate amount of representation and are the battleground of the two major candidates, whereas about 80% of the country known as "the rest" is merely a spectator. Voting for Obama in Wyoming or McCain in California is fruitless, thanks to the current system, and in no way it promotes a wider coverage of political campaigns than direct voting.

[Celsius]

I want direct democracy. I want my vote to count. the election of 2000 is a perfect example of this.

[Musthavename]

It's strange this. I can't comment on the American system too much, but I think this comes down to First Past the Post against Proportional Representation, but if i'm going completely off tangent please tell me.

Now, in the UK theres a similar system but with constituencies instead of states. But for example in mine, it's almost always going to be Tory. My votes almost useless as it'll probably be Tory no matter what (though admittedly, i'd vote tory at the moment easily :p). Yes, it creates issues. For example, I believe that last General Election, more people (at least in England) voted Tory rather than Labour, and Labour are currently in goverment.

Now on the face of it, thats unfair. But then you think about the alternative, proportional representation. The thing with this, is it always creates hung Parliaments & coallition goverments, which in my view, means a Goverment with much weakened powers. Despite the fact I absolutely hated Labour (as the two terms they had were awful, the third's worse), I admitted to myself i'd rather have it than a hung Parliament and a defunct Goverment.

Ofcourse, that brings me back ontopic. Proportional representations flaw is because it generally results in a huge numbers of parties. But with the Presidential elections, theres only really two contenders, and its not like someone needs to have a majority for it to function. So yes, it would be far fairer in America to have a "each vote counted once and equally" style system.

[favre4ever]

7/1/2005
population
estimate
New York, N.Y.

8,143,197

Los Angeles, Calif.

3,844,829

Chicago, Ill.

2,842,518

Houston, Tex.

2,016,582

Philadelphia, Pa.

1,463,281

Phoenix, Ariz.

1,461,575

San Antonio, Tex.

1,256,509

San Diego, Calif.

1,255,540

Dallas, Tex.

1,213,825

San Jose, Calif.

912,332

Detroit, Mich.

886,671

Indianapolis, Ind.

784,118

Jacksonville, Fla.

782,623

San Francisco, Calif.

739,426

Columbus, Ohio

730,657

There you have the list of stops on any presidential candidates' campaign if it were a direct vote. 15 cities and to hell with every other american (80% of the population). McCain and his famous town hall stops would be soundly destroyed by anyone who visited these and a few other key cities.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I think there is a common fallacy here, and the debate will soon be derailed, if we continue to discuss how the electoral college is easier, cheaper, better for small states (which is not true btw ) etc. We're talking about political principles. One man = one vote: this priniciple is not provided with an "electoral college". Europe has discovered this improvement a long time ago; after deliberating where indirect election leads: political outcast and corruption of the votes; moreover the distortion of the party system (simplifying the choices into 2 men / 2 party). European countries have a much more subtle party system, which results in the better representation of various social interests, thus in a higher level of social peace.

And no one ever in this thread answered to the following questions yet, I ask them again, maybe some of them will respond: why are the electors empowered to freely vote? I cast my vote to Mr. X, why in the world should I empower him to eventually vote for Mr. Y? Why does the government regards me as an incompetent, irresponsible person to have his say about who will be the president? This is based on the assumption that people can't make political decisions, because they are not mature enough for this kind of sport.

I'm happy to know the majority of the voters made a mature and progressive decision, by choosing option 1: Abolish the Electoral College! Now wonder if we would vote for electors, entrusting them to vote for us in this poll at their discretion.