Abolish US Electoral College?

[Vlad Antlerkov]

The EC has given the small states too much power in proportion to their population. Unfortunately, abolishing it and not replacing it would make the small states irrelevant, which is just as bad. (Consider that the Boston metro area more population than VT, NH, and ME combined.)

My proposal for EC reform?

-- Get rid of the concept of "winner-take-all." Divide the EC votes a candidate gets from a state in proportion to the % of the vote they got in that state. (Example: You have three candidates, A, B, and C. A gets 55% of the votes in state X, with 20 EC votes, so he gets 11 EC votes. B gets 40%, so she gets 8 EC votes. C gets 5%, so it gets 1 EC vote.)
-- Base representation in the House on voting population, rather than actual population. (Would give an incentive to increase voter turnout.)
-- Cut the number of senators per state in half. (Cuts into the power of the smaller states without making them completely irrelevant.)
-- Require that a candidate win both the popular and EC vote to become president. (If the top candidate does not have a majority in the popular vote, have a revote two weeks later, between the top two finishers.)

Now, if I were living in Boston right now, I'd be advocating the total abolition of the EC.

[Sava]

It needs to be ditched, but popular vote is not the way to go. Even though Gore was the popular vote getter, and I'd rather see him than Bush in the office, true Democracy like that is not good. You can't have mob (majority) rule. People won't vote consistently on their beliefs, they vote solely on the hotly debated political issues that never get resolved. IMO, a true leader shouldn't be a politician.

[KrazyHorse]

You can't have mob (majority) rule. People won't vote consistently on their beliefs, they vote solely on the hotly debated political issues that never get resolved. IMO, a true leader shouldn't be a politician

Sava, what does that mean?

It's an indictment of any democratic form of election, not just straight popular vote.

[Sava]

Partisan politics has progress bogged down in the US government. The whole Ken Starr/Clinton thing is a perfect example. While everyone was worrying about who Clinton was screwing, al Qaida was planning 9-11. Even now, as Republicans and Democrats argue amongst each other, our borders remain open to terrorists, security has taken a backseat to profits and politics, and instead of solving security problems Dem's want to blame Bush for 9-11. And on the flipside, Bush is using the whole terrorism thing to work his own agenda too.

The large majority of people in America are not informed or intellegent enough to make decisions on who is the best to lead our nation. Popular vote is just a popularity contest whose outcome is largely dependent on who gives the best speeches and who spends the most money getting TV exposure.

Politicians constantly sacrifice the greater good for compromise on smaller issues and bureaucratic nonsense. It sickens me. Our nation is stuck in a cycle of bi-partisan rule. Do you think Americans actually decide their leader? They don't. They are given a few candidates in the primaries, chosen and endorsed by the parties. Then they each send the most popular of the respective groups to a runoff vote. It's stupid. The problem is, the parties won't allow any change to take place.

[Wraith]

The electoral college system should remain in place, but it should be restored to its original functioning.

It always amazes me how few Americans realize that the US President was not always elected by popular vote...
One of the main reasons of the Electoral College was to provide the states with a way to check federal power. When that went away, things started getting worse faster.

--"The US' system of checks and balances has been carried so far that they have difficulty doing anything at all."

Well, that was the original point. And for a few decades there it was working great. Unfortunately most of these checks and balances you're complaining about are being ignored these days, which is why there's such a mess.

There was a reason we weren't designed as a democracy, people. The systems being advocated here are more open to the "three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner" problems than the Constitutional system.

--"You can't have mob (majority) rule."

As I've said way too many times on this forum, the US system was designed to prevent mob/majority rule. It's just been mispresented to the public for so long (both through the media and in government schools) that most people don't seem to realize it.

Wraith
Why be difficult when with a bit of effort you can be impossible?

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, down with it. It's un-Democratic, as the last Presidential election shows.

The rights of the small states are protected against "abuse" of the larger states by the Senate and the Constitution.

I agree with KH that the EC effectively makes the votes of people in certain areas count more, and that's wrong. Why should I be penalized for living in an area with large population when it comes to my vote?

Every president elected should have a popular mandate, not an electoral one, to insure legitimacy.

[Sava]

"three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner"

That's the best quote I've heard that sums up why true Democracy is wrong. I think that the electoral college is the best method of choosing a leader at this point. But like many things in this world, it doesn't always go as planned.

[Ned]

Actually, if one thinkis about it, the EC enhances the power of one's vote. In states which are going to one candidate by large majorities, it makes little difference if you vote at all. However, if the election in a particular state is "too close to call," we have found that every vote counts. Just a few votes won Florida and those few votes gave the whole 25 EC votes to Bush. Now that is real voting power.

The way the EC is structured and implemented by the states causes American elections to be focused in so-called battle-ground states where both sides have a chance. Of course, no candidate spends much time in Wyoming. But they will also spend very little time and money in New York and California if those state's races are not close, as they were not in the last election. Rather the election is contested in states where the public is evenly divided.

Here the issues are really joined and the contest focused. The voter knows that their vote counts.

It is an amazing system. I have no idea if the founding father knew that this would be the outcome of their design. But it is unique in the world and the world's history.

Also, if it an't broke, don't fix it.

So I say, keep the EC just the way it is.

[Lincoln]

The EC works pretty well but it probably needs some tweaking. Europe is basically doing the same thing that we did when we formed a union of sovereign states. If the system is so bad why is Europe emulating it?

Absolute rule by the majority is not fair as has already been stated. There is no perfect system but the idea that is being followed by Europe at least makes an attempt to correct the abuses of mob rule.

Gore lost the election because he did not relate to rural America. We cannot let only those politicians rule that can appeal to the masses couped up in New York and Los Angeles and other big cities. A just society considers the voice of its weaker members. This system is about the best we can do considering the current corruption that will destroy any system.

edit: changed "he did" to "he did not". Gore pretty much lost the rural vote.

[Vesayen]

It should be abolished, but it never will be as it makes it easier for people campaining for high office.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, if one thinkis about it, the EC enhances the power of one's vote. In states which are going to one candidate by large majorities, it makes little difference if you vote at all. However, if the election in a particular state is "too close to call," we have found that every vote counts. Just a few votes won Florida and those few votes gave the whole 25 EC votes to Bush. Now that is real voting power.

Sure, if Bush had really won Florida. The problem this shows with the EC is that if it comes down to one state deciding the election, a candidate can easily get elected by fraud and other illegal means.

While fraud takes place on both sides, certainly, the EC helps make it a deciding factor, and increases the incentive for politicians to pursue fraud in large states where the polling shows it will be close.

Without the EC, the small-scale fraud campaigns carry out would be pretty much a useless strategy.

There is no way that selection of the president by purely democratic means is tantamount to mob rule. Remember, the checks and balances of the Senate and SCOTUS will prevent this from being the case. Any president who gets elected and tries to ignore the congressional clout of the small states will find himself paralyzed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Snapcase
I've no problem with votes being adjusted so that all states matter,

I do. The US is based on the power of the people and not the state. Why should a non-person (the State) get a vote?

[Sava]

Wrong Eth. The US is based on the power of the people which elects representatives. The US is a Republic because a true Democracy is mob rule, and then founding father's did not want the average citizen to directly elect the president, nor do I.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Asher


The idea of the Senate is to have rule of the majority while respecting the rights of the minorities. Comprende?

The Senate is in no way about that. That is what the Bill of Rights is for. The Senate was specificly created to give smallers states more say. Thats not all that bad but it really should have nothing to do with the election of the President as he is represents the People overall and not the several States. The Senate is more than enough.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sava
Wrong Eth. The US is based on the power of the people which elects representatives. The US is a Republic because a true Democracy is mob rule, and then founding father's did not want the average citizen to directly elect the president, nor do I.

The US has the Bill of Right for protection from mob rule. The US is not a true Republic. Rome was a Republic.