5 Reasons to Keep the Electoral College - Daniel Lowenstein

[stebecool]

I can't believe that no one has mentioned weather. Imagine if at election time, there is an early snowstorm or just inclement weather that keeps turnout low in liberal northeast or west coast states or some inclement weather in southern conservative states on election day. That could significantly sway the outcome of the election. The electoral college makes sure that each state will always get its fair share of votes no matter what. This might be the biggest reason to keep the system as it is.

[rdcress1]

Maybe we should just find some way to increase the weight of the votes cast by those who pay no income tax and those who live on government subsidies. Then we could increase the influence of the multinational corporations and banks and unions on congress. Then reduce the weight of the votes for the working class and we'll just print money at will and sit around chanting and wiggling our fingers in the air. This issue is a no brainer - no need to change the EC - there's ultimately no benefit.

[rdcress1]

There is not a single good reason to eliminate the electoral college. All the rhetoric about voters being disenfranchised is just that - meaningless rhetoric. What great effect would eliminating the EC have on the U.S. other than allowing the large population centers to elect their candidate or allowing the election of a charismatic socialist bent on destroying this nation... oh... wait... I think that's already happened.

[macarion]

This is complete bullshit. I'd like to take a shit into this guy's mouth.

[SIMKINETICS]

Until we get a public education system that seriously teaches logic, critical thinking & analysis of the fundamentals of propaganda, popular democracy will be unwise. YouTube comments everywhere reveal a blatant vulnerability to brainwashing across most of the electorate public. Representative democracy is also prone to influence by moneyed interests, but it is at least left in more informed hands. Regardless, unregulated influence marketing is the greatest threat to democracy in general.

[JeramyTheGirl]

this is great help with my comparative politics essays, but he does get a bit confused with his numbers ...

"thir..fou..fith point..............."

[Beroean30]

We are a representative republic. Most countries have a system modeled this way. We are based on others representing our voice. The EC, electing Congress, etc are based on representative democracy. Even in congress, the percentage of the vote and the number of seats you win dont always match since you have 435 separate elections. Winning congress is based on winning the most districts or states. We could go back to the old days and have EC based on districts like Nebraska and Maine have.

[Beroean30]

It is not an office for the populace like the House is. It was to be a Federal office representing the consensus of the entire nation. In a popular vote as long as you ran up the numbers in cities, other areas wouldnt matter. At least with the EC, you have to build a coalition and each coalition was different whether it was Clinton, the Bushes, Obama , Reagan, Nixon, FDR etc. Obama even showed that the EC makes you win a broad base of supporters.

[Beroean30]

If we went by the popular vote, we'd still have to cater to the larger swing states. losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote is very rare. Even with a national vote you'd have the issue of a candidate winning fewer than 20 states but still winning the popular vote. How is that better than the electoral college? People against the EC dont understand the concept of federalism and prefer a mobocracy. Getting a consensus of the states is a great idea of electing a President.

[Beroean30]

For someone that has lived in a country with less federal balance, Canada, I see the merits of an electoral college or a senate with equal representation. Otherwise you ahve countries like Canada where politcs is completely controled by Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta amd BC. Leavign the rest of the provinces at an disadvantage. This is why so much regionalism and factionalism exists. If we went solely by the popular vote, we'd still ahve to cater to the larger swing states

[darkmiles22]

What an idiot. We should respect California and Texas, so we should keep the electoral college? Does he realize that per capita your vote for president is worth less if you're in a big state like those two? Someone in Alaska has 3 times the voting power of a Californian, someone in Wyoming has 5 times.

The electoral college and the whole system of the election to the Senate does nothing but give rural voters much more power than they deserve. Change the system.

[rdcress1]

@darkmiles22 That's the whole point. It balances the power of the states. It does not diminish the power of the big states since they receive additional votes based on the number of representative seats held. Therefore they still have more voting power. Besides what you advocate is simple majority rule. Do you truly wish this since the table can turn and you might be in the minority. How about lets just go to a simple majority vote for president rather than a plurality.

[darkmiles22]

@rdcress1 A constitutional republic restricts the tyranny of the majority just fine. Giving power to less populous states wouldn't prevent tyranny in the slightest; it would only shift the tyranny from the majority to those select small states.

You say that "it balances the power of the states," but states are artificial organs for representing the people. States don't have rights; people have rights. People deserve equal voting rights, not states.

[tinygirl505]

You know what's a great pragmatic idea that makes government work better? Apartheid - it's amazing how pragmatic and efficient government can be if, say, whole sections of the populations aren't even allowed to vote. Of course, there are some people out there who don't measure the quality of government by its efficiency - people who are concerned about freedom and democracy even, and especially when it becomes difficult. But I'll never change their minds no matter how many good reasons I give

[thestalkinghorse]

I think that the best reason to preserve the EC (of which I am a supporter) is that is makes factions less likely in this large and diverse country and tends to force us into a middle ground (governing consensus). Anyone might look at one election result and say it should have been otherwise, but over time the EC serves us better.

[prchristman]

Reason # 1: Adding to what I said below, I know the College vote currently determines the winner. But there can be enough of a disparity between the popular and EC vote that the EC totals seem almost artificial. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this.

#2: States are important. We don't need the EC to remind us of that. Since the "big government" days of the 1960s, the states have increasingly received more and more power.

I won't claim a popular vote system to be perfect, but ...

[docmagnus]

"Since the 'big government' days of the 1960s, the states have increasingly received more and more power."

Huh??

Either you're kidding, or your parallel-Earth USA still has the balance between the states and the federal government that is explicitly outlined in the Constitution. I, however, live in a country that has abandoned all pretense of federalism. We should rename the USA the "Unified State of America." States are nothing but provincial field offices for the leviathan in D.C.

[prchristman]

States nothing but provincial field offices? We could debate that endlessly. Not here, though, with the character count is restricted to 500. But do you support retaining the Electoral College? Which I think hardly dents this leviathan you see in D.C.

[prchristman]

Reason # 1: Clinton won in 1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote (vs. 38 for Bush and 19 for Perot), but (the argument goes) the larger 370 to 168 Electoral College majority for Clinton amplified his popular vote win. But I think the electorate generally heeds the margin of victory in the popular vote (5 percent in 1992) and the number of states won (32 + DC to 18) before the College vote (which receives the full spotlight only when it, not the popular vote, determines the winner).

[prchristman]

What do we have now with the College? Candidates campaign in the handful of battleground states. Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. Why campaign in blue New York or red Utah? Those electoral votes are spoken for. A popular election would open the campaigning up to the country as a whole. And perhaps confine it to large metropolitan areas, but I think that happens as it is anyway. Arguments that say the College somehow makes the elections more democratic are hardly conclusive.

[prchristman]

Only reason # 4 made sense. But the specter of a 2000 Florida debacle times 50 is no reason to keep the College. The nightmare can be avoided in other ways. And 2000, WITH the College, was bad enough.

The worst argument was # 5. Lowenstein has more faith in electors than I do. An election in the hands of a group of electors? Imagine the back-stage bargaining. The possible deadlock.

# 3: We would have had those leaders in a popular election too. They were not the result of the College.

[amet1980]

none of his argument have any validity.

democracy has now dead ends.

[bigfilmhat]

One thing that could be done is a have a slate of electors, like 15 electors that go to the popular vote winner. That would make a 2000 situation much more difficult but, not impossible.

[y1154]

abolishing the electoral college will divide america more then without it. It will give more candidates a chance in the presidential election and will separate the country

[Truth0rDeath]

Full of shit. This is bullshit.

Lowenstein... I'll remember that name.

[freesk8]

I think he's right. The number of cases where the electoral college vote is different from the national majority is minimal anyway.

My biggest objection is calling Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Wilson great Presidents. But the others he mentions were great or OK.

Churchill and Thatcher were great PM's.

[shudderbug]

These reasons were really weak! If you need a reason to abolish the Electoral College, just imagine how things might have been different in this country, had the winner of the popular vote in 2000 gone on to become President. Gore might have listened to the warnings about terrorist attacks, and acted on them, prior to 9/11. He might have acted sooner in Katrina. He might have avoided a war in Iraq. Just imagine an administration without Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Libby, Karl Rove and Dubya.

[Inkslinger03]

The intent of the Electoral College was for people to vote for the best-informed people they knew, and for those people to form a "search committee" to select the most qualified, not most popular, leader to be President.

It's still a smart idea, as the disappointing choices of the past four decades have shown.

Where in the Constitution does it say the public media shall lead the gullible to a predetermined and paid-for choice of leadership? Washington warned this would happen. I. I.

[Inkslinger03]

The Framers of the Constitution were right in creating the Electoral College. If the states had not been protected by this mechanism (the smaller states feared tyranny by a majority of votes by urban areas), they would not have ratified the Constitution.

If you want to abolish something that threatens effective functioning of our Federal government, the best choice would be to severely limit the powers of political parties. George Washington warned against political parties. I.

[bmacian]

"feared tyranny by a majority of votes by urban areas." That sounds suspiciously racist. I have a question in response: why should a smaller number of people with more property and money who are spread out in suburbs and rural areas have equal to or more of a voice than many, many more people who are not of that status? "Weighing" the two groups against each other is akin to segregation. It makes about as much sense as giving equal time to flat-earth believers and bona fide scientists.

[comradepinko]

Translation of point 1: We should mislead people into thinking their president was actually elected by a majority even when (s)he wasn't.

Idiot.

[junk11111111]

Points 1 and 2 are reasonable, too.

Point 1, is to ensure unity and not have division among the people and the states. If we dont have reasonable respect in a leader the country as a whole suffers (no matter if we like the person or not). It's still our government.

Point 2, is for the states to have recognition and not have one's state become neglected or usurped by the Fed.

One extra point, it's tied with a Republic form of government and not a complete democracy.

[Hooya2]

"Point 1, is to ensure unity..."

I'm sorry, but I don't think an illusion of a wide margin of victory really encourages people to follow him more.

"Point 2, is for the states to have recognition and not have one's state become neglected or usurped by the Fed."

Er could you elaborate? I'm not sure how the college does that.

"...it's tied with a Republic form of government and not a complete democracy."

Again, an illusion. The EC just goes with the popular vote anyway.

[Hooya2]

1. So the president seems to win by a wider majority? I'm sorry, how is that a reason?

2. The candidates don't have to listen to what people in California or Texas want because those votes are settled. Great job missing the point.

3. Those people won the POPULAR VOTE!

4. OMG A GOOD REASON! A national recount WOULD be a bitch.

5. Right, something that has never happened in 50 elections is really something we need to worry about.

Only one good reason in the bunch. Quality over quantity, man.

[Hooya2]

While I agree that a national recount would be a major problem, I believe the current set-up of the election presents a far worse possibility; the possibility that a man who wins the national majority might not win the presidency. It's happened before, and it may happen again.

When a system is capable of electing a president when the majority of voters are for another candidate, the system needs to be fixed, plain and simple.

[comradepinko]

The chances of a super close vote in one state are much higher with state races than one super tight race nation wide with a national popular vote.

The chances of the problem are reduced but the scope is widened. That's hardly a convincing reason, but then again none of his reasons were good.

[MrBobisawesome5]

@comradepinko your wrong



[rdcress1]

@MrBobisawesome5 Oh, your argument is so powerful I've just changed my mind!

[comradepinko]

@MrBobisawesome5 Thanks for that well thought out reply. You're an idiot.

[HuskyHero133]

@Hooya2 Plain and simple fact is that you "fixing" the electoral system would mean an end to the US experiment of self government. No joke. It would mean an end to federalism and an end to checks and balances that occur to curb the real threat of the tyranny of the majority.

I wish people would understand why Madison and the other founders created the nation and its constitution the way they did. THE POPULAR VOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WHO THE PRESIDENT IS! The states elect the President.

[vudumojo]

BS for sure.

Let us be like Britain and select good "leaders".

That says it all.

[fielsjd]

That was the best he could do? This is some of the dumbest stuff I have ever heard a university professor say.

[magichandpuppet]

1. His reason for the majority vs. the majority of the electoral college was not even a reason, just a bad explanation. Lame!

2. To bring publicity to the States as a reason? Seriously? Lame.

3. What? Ronald Reagan? lame.

4. Controversy in elections? What? Suggesting that we could possibly have a "more" controversial election decision than 2004?

5. Why couldn't we just hold another election?

This guy has no business teaching law. Five meaningless reasons.

[EverettsVLOG]

what a bunch of bullshit reasons. wow.