Should the electoral college be abolished?

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:46 pm

elynch wrote:

well, the general public elected gore over W. I mean, Gore seems nutty, so i'm not sure if the public was unstable in TRYING to elect him or not

I always feel a bit hesitant at commenting on another country's politics, but if Gore seems 'nutty', he seems to me a paragon of sanity and rationality, even on his own terms let alone by comparison with the real nutters and con-men making up your current administration, including of course the very recently departed Rummy.

Having seem clips of his movie and his appearance a few months ago on the Daily Show, I do find it hard see any 'nutty' aspect to the guy, whereas words fail me to describe George W....

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

Brian37 condescends by suggesting one would only oppose the electoral system because he or she dislikes particular past results. Like many people, I object to the electoral college because, just as with the Legislature, it is anti- one person one vote.

I don't know what kind of abuse Brian37 thinks it protects us against.

Brian37 wrote:

The electoral college is a brilliant odity because it serves as a reminder that we are not mob rule by vote.

Of course, the electors aren't a mob ? Confused

The founding fathers set up the bicameral congress as a compromise to balance interests active at that time. (Merchants in some states and slave owning planters in others) Because the Congress contains the Senate with two seats per state regardless of population, that antiqated relic of a system makes the US a non-representative democracy.

Appropriately, the judiciary and executive branch have their own jobs, which work alongside Congress in the business of government.

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:22 pm

I'm against the electoral college for a few simple reasons:

1. It is anti-equal rights. A person's worth in vote is determined by where they live and the population size of that area rather then being based on any form of equality.

Elections, because of the electoral college, are also more about reaching an area of people based on their location. Thus borders and line divisions are more important than reaching and communicating to the voters in any sense of individuality. Just attempting to appeal to certain areas in enough. This actually perpetuates party partisanship and segregation.

2. It is an outdated system, originally created to speed up the voting process and simplify things in terms of generality for the grand-scale. This of course leads to many problems. Rounding up or down doesn't provide and accurate representation of the people, as is evident when one can win the popular vote and still loose the election.

Addressing the supporters:

In what way does the electoral college allow for more dissent in the electoral process? It has become a different way of adding up the numbers, but this doesn't provide a venue for change. It allows certain politicians to challenge and even over-ride the will of the people in their jurisdiction, but I await to see any positive benefit in this. I don't want my vote over-ridden and don’t see the reason for a point system based on territory.

It doesn't prevent monopolies by nature. Granted it can be used that way, but it just as easily can grant a certain party/group power of monopoly making this a non-argument. The fact that it can be used both ways is reason against it. A double-edged sword makes a terrible weapon. Easily manipulated power is dangerous for us.

How does the existence of an electoral college lead to less of a "mob rule" system? In reality, it merely passes the power from the larger mob to a smaller mob. This takes away the voice of many in the process. No less a mob, just the elitist mob that has a higher voice over the present mob.
Not that that it has been shown how the "mob rule" system is a bad thing, “Mob rule” is descriptive of democracy in general.

How does the electoral college grant voters autonomy? In many ways, it removes it. In a generalistic sense, we are the state and districts in which we vote rather then the nation as a whole because of the electoral college. This is less autonomy through grouping us.

Accountability? In what sense is there increased accountability and for whom? Is placing more responsibility on certain representatives placing accountability on them? Not necessarily. Even if it did, this isn't an argument for the electoral college. It is irrelevant in the subject of whether or not this system should exist.

Checks and balances? This is really a subjective view on the electoral college's role. It often doesn't check anything or provide balance. Providing a different system for counting doesn't check for anything within the old system, it abolishes it. This is the opposite of a check because it is it's own system within it’s own check to look within. It doesn't provide balance either. It instead adds in a fluctuating system of "voter value," making it anti-balance to the individual. Since certain territories are more important then others, there is a lack of stability here as well.

I have a hard time seeing the generalized statements made in favor of the electoral college as reasons for it to be. Upon examination, they do not hold up. The people don't need their own watchdog to look over their shoulders. That isn’t what they are for.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

It should be abolished.

Confident Learner Joined: Jan 04, 2006 Posts: 93

As I was reading Brian's post, I got the impression that either he or I didn't have a clue about how the electoral college worked. Since I understand and agree with pretty much the rest of comments on this thread, as well as various articles on the topic. I can only conclude that Brian37 is the one here who is confused.

The only valid point he made was that we shouldn't try to get rid of something just because it doesn't work for our side. Definitely. But I don't see anyone making such a claim nor do I get the impression that this is the reason for pushing to rid ourselves of such a convoluted system.

Down with the electoral college.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Arkaro wrote:

As I was reading Brian's post, I got the impression that either he or I didn't have a clue about how the electoral college worked. Since I understand and agree with pretty much the rest of comments on this thread, as well as various articles on the topic. I can only conclude that Brian37 is the one here who is confused.

The only valid point he made was that we shouldn't try to get rid of something just because it doesn't work for our side. Definitely. But I don't see anyone making such a claim nor do I get the impression that this is the reason for pushing to rid ourselves of such a convoluted system.

Down with the electoral college.

If you're, as a nation, going to impose democracy on others you should at least practice some yourself. Smile

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:11 am

The electoral college originally served as a buffer between the voters and the candidates. It was devised in a time when it took weeks to go from the northern tip to the southern tip of the country and when people would almost never got a first hand look at the candidates as they were without television,radio,etc. In fact it was considered rather gauche to actively campaign for oneself.The electoral college reflected a degree of distrust of the common man's ability to select intelligently from the candidates.It also overstates the voting power of people in the least populated states. If you divide the electoral votes in California into its population and compare this to say, Alaska, you will find that the average Alaskan has more selection power.Another issue is the "faithless elector" ,which has occurred approximately ten times in history, where an elector violates his or her pledge and votes for a runner-up in the popular vote. This has not yet impacted the outcome but it is a potential problem.

Of course the most common criticism is that the winner of the popular vote has now lost four times in the electoral college.There are a number of reform proposals out there that perhaps we can discuss, a straight popular nation wide vote being the simplest.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

[quote="PJS"]There are a number of reform proposals out there that perhaps we can discuss, a straight popular nation wide vote being the simplest.[/quote]

I know of these two
1) A straight popular vote, as PJS mentions
2) The number of electors in a state going to each candidate reflecting the proportion of votes the candidates receive in that state.

The straight popular vote supports equality amoung citizens and bases the selection for that national office on the choice of the nation's citizens, not state affiliated electors.

The second option maintains the extra weight that the citizens of less populous states wield in deciding the presidency. If implemented in every state, the outcome of popular and so distributed electoral votes might more frequently coincide -- or it might not.

According to my reading one source of data, the ten most populous states get 48% of the electoral votes and contain over 54% of the nations population. Under the current system, if the 11 most populous states each supported jones by a 1% margin and the remaining 39 states supported smith by a 1% margin, a majority of the population supports jones and she also receives the most electoral votes. Under a system which allocates each states electoral votes according to the proportion of votes, smith probably wins although she received less than half the popular vote.

Only further analysis would tell if that outcome would occur less frequently than in our current system. Surely someone has done it. More to the point, implementing a change in the system wouldn't come easy.

Moving to a stright popular vote would require a constitutional ammendment. On the other hand, each state makes the rules by which it conducts elections and counts votes.

Any state could change its laws or procedures to put the second method of counting into effect. It seems unlikely that states would coordinate to do this all at once. A state that does makes that change independently eliminates any chance that its citizen's votes will play a decisive role in the presidential race.

The US more badly needs a better legislative system -- a seperate topic that I won't open right now.

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:47 am

[quote="materialguy"][quote="PJS"]There are a number of reform proposals out there that perhaps we can discuss, a straight popular nation wide vote being the simplest.[/quote]

Moving to a stright popular vote would require a constitutional ammendment. On the other hand, each state makes the rules by which it conducts elections and counts votes.

Any state could change its laws or procedures to put the second method of counting into effect. It seems unlikely that states would coordinate to do this all at once. A state that does makes that change independently eliminates any chance that its citizen's votes will play a decisive role in the presidential race.

The US more badly needs a better legislative system -- a seperate topic that I won't open right now.[/quote]

Good post. In order to add an amendment to the Constitution 3/4ths OR 38 states would have to ratify any proposal.Since a straight popular vote lessens the influence of more than twelve relatively unpopulated states, at least some of such states would have to vote to ratify an amendment which in effect lowers their decision making power. That is, there is a major state's self interest obstacle to such an amendment ever happening. As Materialguy pointsout there is some discretion at the state level in how the electoral votes get divided. I believe 48 states use a "winner-take-all" system and two (Maine and Nebraska?)use a district type deal where whoever wins that part of a state gets the electoral vote.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:44 am

The electoral college should be continued and more power should be taken away from the Federal Government and returned to the states.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

Saitou wrote:

The electoral college should be continued and more power should be taken away from the Federal Government and returned to the states.

Would you please try to persuade us by explaining your reasons for favoring the electoral college over a popular vote?

I don't know how this would relate to your second stated preference that "power should be taken away from the Federal Government and returned to the states." Maybe you don't mean to imply any relation between those preferences. Although we apparently don't think about government with the same vocabulary and logic, nothing says that can't change through discussion.

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:55 am

In the original model the states were supposed to elect the president and not the people directly. This makes perfect sense when you think of the freedoms individuals used to have. The constitution had to be amended so that the Feds could tax the people.

If governmet power is diminished then people can govern themselves more.

I support a model where each state is almost a seperate nation but where their common interests and needs are handled by the federal government.

A similar reason to why the electoral college exists is why the senate exists. Do you understand why the senate was a good idea or do you support getting rid of that too?

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:17 am

Saitou wrote:

I support a model where each state is almost a seperate nation but where their common interests and needs are handled by the federal government.

A

Shades of the Articles of Confederation. One can make a case for further decentralizing power but,of course, the devil is in the details. What would be considered "common interests" or "common needs". I am not asking this in an adversarial mode, but I just believe federalism is actually quite interesting and the division of powers geographically is such a long standing issue in U.S. history.In fact, although I have not thought through all the specifics myself, I do see some advantages to local/state autonomy on many issues.This is especially the case in a country where region seems a significant factor politically.

Also, getting back to the original topic, are you troubled at all by the fact that people in small states have more voting power than people in more populated states? Just curious.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

Saitou wrote:

In the original model the states were supposed to elect the president and not the people directly. This makes perfect sense when you think of the freedoms individuals used to have. The constitution had to be amended so that the Feds could tax the people.

If governmet power is diminished then people can govern themselves more.

I support a model where each state is almost a seperate nation but where their common interests and needs are handled by the federal government.

A similar reason to why the electoral college exists is why the senate exists. Do you understand why the senate was a good idea or do you support getting rid of that too?

To answer your question, I would abolish the Senate. Don't worry, that anti-democratic institution isn't going anywhere.

Having state boundaries play a role in mediating political decisions doesn't necessarily diminish "government power" (which I take you to mean the size of government relative to the private sphere.) It likely has the opposite effect, as I'll argue.

As for the federal system, does letting states elect the president lead to more autonomy for states? Does our system of having congresspeople tied to states and congressional districts within states lead to more autonomy?

The U.S. constitution grants each state a large degree of freedom in determining the laws within its boundaries. National laws have become relatively more important over time. What's happened to state autonomy? State elected congresspeople enacted laws giving more scope to the national government and an electoral college elected executive expanded their agencies to executed various regulations.

Some see this as perverse and insidious. We get characatures of "the government" as a force with a will of its own. I suggest that we get real and blame --or credit-- voters. Why would voters elect and re-elect representatives who endorse this expansion of federal power despite the existance of state governments over which individuals may have more influence? Perceived rational self interest.

A congress person answers to people in their state. It often makes sense for a person within a state to try to involve the federal government in the advancement of "state" interests. People can and do call upon their state governments. However, the federal government represents a huge potential, because the people have developed it to good and ill.

Earlier, I said that having state boundaries play a role in mediating political decisions likely increases the size of government. It does so by forcing artificial constituencies. If we had a national legislature chosen at large, people would organize around interests regardless of whether those interest have a geographic component. Because congress people have a geographic constituency, they seek to funnel money to local projects. This constitutional constraint on how we select leaders diverts resources from programs that would benefit people at a lower cost. The fight for pork (geographically directed spending) is a zero sum game. It only evokes political, not managerial, creativity.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

Saitou wrote:

I support a model where each state is almost a seperate nation but where their common interests and needs are handled by the federal government.

I forgot to comment on this. I agree that different levels of government should exist to serve more and less local issues. For instance, I think the national government needn't involve itself in crimes against property and individuals except where the crime crosses state boundaries or threatens the national government. As I understand it, that resembles what we have in the U.S.

Some activities, like CO2 emissions cross national borders. We need international treaties to deal with harmful transnational effects.

Local, state, and national governments could all be elected at large (within their respective boundaries) without any diminuation of the authority legitimate to their roles.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore