The Electoral College - Election 2008

I never really talk about politics or anything of the sort, but this is something I actually feel strongly about. The Wikipedia article on the Electoral College is much more thorough than I am at explaining the ins and outs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 2008
• election
• obama
• mccain
• electoral
• college
• leviosaa

[GrahamCrackerGirl]

Is it bad that I am writing a paper on the electoral college later tonight, so I listened "very carefully" to your video? :P

I can vote in the next election! I'm still pretty pumped, even if it doesn't technically count.

[Leviosaa]

i'm glad i could help out :]

[flylike1]

The case you're making is actually a great argument AGAINST the Electoral College.

You don't like having just a few states decide an election, the EC does that with swing states.

You don't like tyranny of the majority, that's exactly what happens with winner-take-all systems.

Electoral votes are determined by population size. The candidate receiving the majority of votes gets ALL the Electoral votes. The minority in each state is, by definition, suffering from tyranny of the majority

[flylike1]

"How would it be fair...to essentially decide every election?"

They wouldn't. Their population isn't all one party. With a pop. vote, everyone from their state gets to cast one vote, which counts as one vote. Penn, NY, Wyoming, North Dakota...one person, one vote.

However, with the Electoral College and the swing states it creates, the election IS decided by just a few states (OH, FL, PA recently), because a mere majority of votes allows a candidate to receive ALL of that state's votes.

[frio109]

One wonders why we even have a Electoral College. It is obscure and gives reason for 'intrigue' that a small group of people that actually elect the President.

[Ohyewildthong]

I completely agree with you here, although I am British and not American. I believe that the vote for your head of state should be done on PR. But that's just my two pence!

[lovelikeasin]

you did great and im glad you can vote i wasnt old enough to vote at the time but yea i get what your saying texas is always red

[fabdiva123]

You are so clever and bubbily! I love how you explain everything clearly, I agree!

P.S. Loved your book review!

[Halo4Lyf]

Actually that's not entirely true. I believe it's only 21 states that require their electors to vote according to the popular vote. There have been over 100 "unfaithful" electors in history, closer to 200 IIRC. It may seem outdated, but it still serves it's original purpose: distributing power between the more and less populous states.

Our original system is precisely why the Union has held together this long. Fiddle with it, and it'll break. And maybe it should. Might be for the best.

[Halo4Lyf]

The Founders actually intended for EVERY Presidential election to be decided by the House. The purpose of the EC, like just about every other institution put in place by the Founders, is about distributing power. Do away with the EC and you do away with the power-sharing it gives towards the smaller states, thus taking away any reason they have for staying in the Union at all. If the EC were done away with, I'd personally support any secessionist movement that arose because of it.

[Halo4Lyf]

The purpose behind the EC is to give the smaller states a reason to stay in the Union. If we went to a pure "one man one vote" system, any state with fewer than 10 million people would high tail it within one election cycle.

How would it be fair for New York, California and Pennsylvania to essentially decide every election? Because that's all it would take to get 50% plus one.

The Founders weren't big on "pure" democracy. It opens liberty up to the threat of the tyranny of the majority.