The Electoral College in US Elections

[bikerdude97]

who thinks The Electoral College should be gone?

[macarion]

flylike1, I salute you. Thank you for spreading the truth.

[Civsuccess2]

Also, founding fathers don't want "mob rule", so they let state government get control of the people who vote.

[flylike1]

20) If you try to make a case for tyranny of the majorityyou would have more success with this one created by the Electoral College.Swing states decide the election,creating tyranny of the minority, and lock states prevent minority votes from having significance,tyranny of the majority. If you believe in balancing tyranny with tyranny,then the EC is perfect. If not,the EC should be abolished in its entirety,in favor of the Popular Vote,thus allowing one vote to equal one vote,once and for all.

[flylike1]

19) Logically, we elect members of City Council and Mayors by city, Representatives by district, and Governors and Senators by state; quite simply, the electorate votes for its leaders throughout the area in which those leaders are allowed to govern. The President of the US is not the President of certain states as the Electoral College would suggest. By this logic, the President should not be elected by subdivisions of the region in which he/she represents, but by the region as a whole.

[flylike1]

17) I find it rather disheartening that those 10 million Republicans from California or 5 million Democrats from Texas could have NOT voted and there been absolutely no difference in the election; the same can be said for any voter who is not part of the majority in his/her state. For a vote to not be counted toward the election of the office for which it has been cast is a basic infringement of the very laws designed to protect the voter.

[flylike1]

16) Republicans in California go to the polls, in 2004 about 10 million, in fact. Yet continuously and unmercifully their votes are not counted toward the election of the president because they happen to not be the majority party in their state-the same can be said for Democrats in Texas;5 million Democrats from Texas would like to have a say in the election, but instead have their votes thrown out.recently new ad campaigns have bombarded the communications media; get out and vote it implores.

[flylike1]

15) What this means is that politicians have no incentive to campaign in lock states as only a majority of votes are needed for all of its Electoral Votes-the result for that state is inevitable regardless of whether or not the minority and undecided voters vote.Instead, those swing states are given improper and unjustifiable power;how can it be logical, or in the simplest sense,fair,for one voter to have more power over the election than another voter simply by merit of where he/she resides?

[flylike1]

14) The case against the Electoral College is strong. A direct popular vote would not create a tyranny of the majority but continuing the current system allows a tyranny of the minority. The most unreasonable scenario of the EC is the creation of swing states. In contrast to lock states where voters for one party greatly outnumber those from the other, a swing state is one in which the number of voters for either major party is marginal and reliant upon undecided voters for the outcome.

[flylike1]

12) Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers provided a built-in system, albeit strict, for the Constitution to be amended for a reason. Many of the amendments to the Constitution are a product of simple ideas becoming outdated.

[flylike1]

11) The key issues, the reasons we have the Electoral College today, which concerned the Founding Fathers were the lack of national political parties, and a related topic, the lack of communications network to bring presidential candidates before the entire electorate. The rest of the constitution, as you refer to it, has been amended 26 times; I applaud its versatility and admire its ability to withstand the test of time; its capacity for governing an entire nation is unmatched

[flylike1]

10) The discussion of whether or not the Electoral College was an ingenious invention is a contentious one; however, it is not debatable that it has outlived its stated purpose of the Founding Fathers that compromised upon it.

[flylike1]

9) But moreover, by your logic, wouldnt it be fair to give me, and Democrats throughout the state of Kentucky, a larger stake in the election of state legislature? After all, we are the minority, and have had to put up with the tyranny of the despotic majority for entirely too long!

[flylike1]

9) Furthermore, the tyranny of the majority assumes that the majority would exploit and/or take advantage of the minority (see the case for the tyranny of the majority theory). As a member of the state for Kentucky I find that both Senators are Republican and four of the six Representatives are members of that party. However, I am a Democrat in this predominantly Republican state; I do not feel taken advantage of or exploited as your tyranny of the majority claim says I would be.

[waveoflight]

your vote is worth nothing.

[utubetrollcopycat]

No, just yours.

[flylike1]

6) As for the phrase tyranny of the majority this is a misconception. First, all other major public offices of the United States of America are voted for by direct popular vote- from city council to mayors, Representatives to Senators; as a side note Id like to point out that until the 17th amendment, 1913, Senators were not elected or even voted upon, but appointed by a state legislature-a clear example that changing the way we elect leaders would not be unverifiable or without precedent.

[flylike1]

5) First of all, youre assuming that the small states reflect the minority views of the country- this point is debatable as well, do small states really deserve almost four times as much pull over electing the president? Nonetheless, the true ingenious invention of the Founding Fathers, one that was not a compromise but a consensus, was the system of checks and balances; one of which was a system to protect small states from large ones- the House and Senate.

[flylike1]

4) The Electoral College absolutely does not give minority views a voice. The minority views you speak of refer, no doubt, to the fact that smaller states control a larger percentage of Electoral Votes per capita than larger ones. Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes and ~ 500,000 people, about 166,667 voters per Elector; while California, the other extreme, has 55 Electoral votes for ~ 35,000,000 people, or about 636,000 voters per Elector.

[flylike1]

3) Today, though, with debates held on national stages, with voters more informed than ever, having all of the information they could want at their fingertips, there is no reason to disenfranchise voters, which is what the Electoral College does.

[flylike1]

2) The Electoral College reflects a basic mistrust of the American people- remember that when the Electoral College was decided upon, only a select number of people, all of whom were men, could vote. Of those men, most had little interest in government and even fewer had a strong grasp on its complexities; in a time before television, internet, radio, etc. this mistrust was most probably justifiable.

[flylike1]

1) To say that the Electoral College was an ingenious invention, that it was a simple and easy decision is a popular thought, but actually It was merely a compromise (between popular vote and congressional election) that has become outdated.

[DamonShivers83]

If Bush can initiate a war w/o the approval of congress, then why is a constitutional amendment an issue as far as removing the EC goes?

[DamonShivers83]

If the electoral college is not seated by Senators or Representatives, Then who are these state appointed people? Are they Lawyers, Judges, Business Men & Women? Does anyone know? Can I be on the electoral college? The troubling part is that these people are NOT REQUIRED to vote as the majority in their state did. Unless you trust these APPOINTED people who you do not vote for and don't know, your vote for the president doesn't count for shit.

[DamonShivers83]

No Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit, under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

[WhiteCamry]

There's nothing wrong with the EC per se. What really skews it is the winner-take-all racket by which the Big Two Parties hijacked it. They bet to win all a state's electors by winning the minimal statewide majority. This was the real cause of the 2000 Fiasco and is why the Democrats never called for reform. Recounts, yes, but never reform.

[XplosiveMindFields]

who selects the electoral college?

[therealhaxwell]

Americagov, thanks for the concise definition of the Electoral College.

[GUALLACOL]

If the electoral college vote is so great, then why cast a vote in the popular vote?

[dddienst]

The national election is made up of 51 simultainious state elections for president. The value of each state's vote or outcome is normalized by the electoral collage system so places with a low population have more sway in the election yet populous states still get more votes.