EC: Has it outlived its purpose? (political-nonpartisan)

[sweetness6280]

The Electoral College may have been a good idea when the Founding Fathers were compiling the constitution, but is it an idea whose time has passed? There have been a few proposed constitutional amendments which would abolish the EC, but none have succeeded.

Proponents of the EC maintain that it:

• Gives small towns/rural areas a voice, preventing an urban-centric victory

• Maintains the federal character of the nation and protects states rights

• Enhances status of minority groups

• Encourages stability through the two-party system

• Isolates voter irregularity/election problems

• Neutralizes voter turnout disparities between states

Opponents of the EC believe that it:

• Makes the national popular vote irrelevant

• Favors less populous states/rural areas

• Promotes disenfranchisement of minority groups

• Discourages third party candidates

• Focuses on small number of swing states, instead of entire nation

• Discourages voter turnout, except in swing states

We live in a different world, far removed from 1789. Do these differences render the EC ineffective and archaic? Should we replace it with a direct popular vote?

 

[3113]

The Electoral College may have been a good idea when the Founding Fathers were compiling the constitution, but is it an idea whose time has passed?

Here's the historical background of the EC:

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

Hence, the purpose of the EC has always been pretty much the same. To make sure that certain small states have the same power as big ones. This was the rightful fear back in the day when people lived and died in their state and a president from their state might favor the interests of their state (exports, imports, etc.) and states like them (rural south vs. urban north, for example and their shared beliefs). But we are way past that now.

If a person from Ohio is living in New York for a few years and having to register to vote there for those few years, why should they have less voting power than if they were still living in Ohio? And if a New Yorker is living in Ohio for a few years, why should they be given more power there than if they were living in New York? Why should a person's voting status change depending on where they're living in this country? And if we got rid of the EC, does anyone really believe that, say McCain would favor Arizona over other states? (Hm...Palin on the other hand....)

Given how freely we move about now, state to state, and given our shared interests and concerns when it comes to presidential politics (the crash in the housing market didn't affect just one state), I don't think the unbalance of voting power between states is the issue now that it was then. It used to be that people living in a state used to be almost always on the same team, and it used to be that certain types of states (rural vs. industrial) used to share interests and want those interests taken care of like, for example, the right to own slaves.

I think we moved beyond all that a good fifty years ago. Time to vote as a country instead of a handful of states.

 

[rgraham666]

On half the Senate is elected by 16% of the voters. The rural areas already have a say far out of proportion to their numbers.

Although not as bad the electoral college is slanted the same way.

I think, as 3 pointed out, given modern communications and transportation, the electoral college has pretty much outlived its usefulness. Time to go to a direct vote for President.

 

[Safe_Bet]

On half the Senate is elected by 16% of the voters. The rural areas already have a say far out of proportion to their numbers.

Although not as bad the electoral college is slanted the same way.

I think, as 3 pointed out, given modern communications and transportation, the electoral college has pretty much outlived its usefulness. Time to go to a direct vote for President.

That isn't really fair to say, Rob. The Senate IS offset by the House of Representatives.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Without the Electoral College, Candidates would only campaign in the largest six states. I figure, as a Californian, that means our number of votes cancels out the entirety of the Rocky Mountains. Do you really want that? Especially when we have this silly 'winner take all' system that can mean that 50.1% of Californians outvote all the Rocky Mountains? Besides, eliminating the Electora College would require a Constitutional Amendment. Amendments requre a two thirds vote of each house and then of the state legislatures. You think Montana is going to approve that? So the entire question is totally moot. It cannot and will not happen. Cope.

 

[Belegon]

While I feel that the EC may very well have outlived its purpose, I very definitely concur with V_M that there is no way in hell the smaller states are going to ratify an amendment that strips them of these powers.

 

[sweetness6280]

Hence, the purpose of the EC has always been pretty much the same. To make sure that certain small states have the same power as big ones. This was the rightful fear back in the day when people lived and died in their state and a president from their state might favor the interests of their state (exports, imports, etc.) and states like them (rural south vs. urban north, for example and their shared beliefs). But we are way past that now.

If a person from Ohio is living in New York for a few years and having to register to vote there for those few years, why should they have less voting power than if they were still living in Ohio? And if a New Yorker is living in Ohio for a few years, why should they be given more power there than if they were living in New York? Why should a person's voting status change depending on where they're living in this country? And if we got rid of the EC, does anyone really believe that, say McCain would favor Arizona over other states? (Hm...Palin on the other hand....)

Given how freely we move about now, state to state, and given our shared interests and concerns when it comes to presidential politics (the crash in the housing market didn't affect just one state), I don't think the unbalance of voting power between states is the issue now that it was then. It used to be that people living in a state used to be almost always on the same team, and it used to be that certain types of states (rural vs. industrial) used to share interests and want those interests taken care of like, for example, the right to own slaves.

I think we moved beyond all that a good fifty years ago. Time to vote as a country instead of a handful of states.

I have to agree.

Without the Electoral College, Candidates would only campaign in the largest six states. I figure, as a Californian, that means our number of votes cancels out the entirety of the Rocky Mountains. Do you really want that? Especially when we have this silly 'winner take all' system that can mean that 50.1% of Californians outvote all the Rocky Mountains? Besides, eliminating the Electora College would require a Constitutional Amendment. Amendments requre a two thirds vote of each house and then of the state legislatures. You think Montana is going to approve that? So the entire question is totally moot. It cannot and will not happen. Cope.

Actually, I disagree.

First, in a popular vote, no votes are "cancelled out." One person, one vote... and every vote counts. Unlike the EC, where using your California example, Republicans votes are basically of no value in electing a President. California is a blue state, and it's winner take all as far as electoral votes. That "winner take all" system in the EC exists in 48 states and DC. I live in what is now a "red" state. I will cast my votes, because I believe I have a responsibility to do so. But, my vote for President does not count. A candidate could win a state by only a handful of votes and get ALL of that state's electoral votes.

How much time have the candidates spent in Montana this election cycle? People in all states are irritated with the emphasis placed on getting electoral votes. Instead of speaking to a nation, the candidates pick and choose carefully which states they think they can carry. The majority of the country gets little or no attention. It is possible (though not probable) to win only 11 states and still gain the Presidency.

More and more people are feeling that elections are being stolen from them. While I agree that it is an uphill battle, I still think it is time. I also think we are closer than ever before to making it happen.

While I feel that the EC may very well have outlived its purpose, I very definitely concur with V_M that there is no way in hell the smaller states are going to ratify an amendment that strips them of these powers.

And 2 years ago, most people said that there was no way in hell a black man named Barack Obama could make a viable run for President. It's still important do things because they are right, not because they are possible.

 

[Belegon]

And 2 years ago, most people said that there was no way in hell a black man named Barack Obama could make a viable run for President. It's still important do things because they are right, not because they are possible.

Most people, true... but not this one. Point well taken, luv.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SWEETNESS

I recently read an article about how easy it is to vote multiple times. A federal court just ruled that you dont even need an address to get a ballot. So you can order several absentee ballots or vote at multiple precincts, and the governments hands are tied to stop you. When we go to same day voting the problem will be much worse.

But a state only gets its electoral vote, regardless of fraud. Florida wont get more than 27 electoral votes regardless of what the GOP does to suppress the Obama vote. The Constitution lets the state legislature decide who votes and what votes get counted, but the total vote cant be more than the electoral vote.

In other words, if Obama is ahead in the popular vote, Florida's GOP governor and legislature cant suddenly discover 10 million absentee ballots.

 

[JagFarlane]

I have to agree.



Actually, I disagree.

First, in a popular vote, no votes are "cancelled out." One person, one vote... and every vote counts. Unlike the EC, where using your California example, Republicans votes are basically of no value in electing a President. California is a blue state, and it's winner take all as far as electoral votes. That "winner take all" system in the EC exists in 48 states and DC. I live in what is now a "red" state. I will cast my votes, because I believe I have a responsibility to do so. But, my vote for President does not count. A candidate could win a state by only a handful of votes and get ALL of that state's electoral votes.

How much time have the candidates spent in Montana this election cycle? People in all states are irritated with the emphasis placed on getting electoral votes. Instead of speaking to a nation, the candidates pick and choose carefully which states they think they can carry. The majority of the country gets little or no attention. It is possible (though not probable) to win only 11 states and still gain the Presidency.

To follow up on this:

California has 55 electoral votes

Compare that to some other states:
Montana 3
Idaho 4
Colorado 9
Nevada 5
North Dakota 3
Oregon 7
Utah 5
Washington 11
Wyoming 3

Those are the "Rocky Mountain" states I can think of offhand, total of 50 electoral votes.

To be honest, I've been wanting to remove the electoral college for about 8yrs now. It would ensure that everyones vote really does count. Otherwise, you have say 49.9% of California votes for McCain and 50.1% votes for Obama, Obama wins all 55 electoral votes and the votes of those who lost really mean nothing.
The real reason for the Electoral College has to come via communication. In the days that it was created, votes would have to be carried via horse to a central area, sometimes taking 1+ weeks to arrive. The Electoral College allowed for faster decisions. However, in the day and age of instant reporting of votes, this is a process that can be phased out.

 

[neonlyte]

The only election where the popular vote count would have made a difference in the last 40 years is the 2000 election.

One is tempted to ask if the clock can be turned back

 

[JPMMURPHY]

The EC has been outdated for decades. Get rid of it. We shouldn't even be discussing states when discussing a presidential election. Democracy is about popular votes not local governments. I may be from California, Utah, or Kentucky but when you get right down to it I'm American voting for the leader of my country. Not Texan voting for a govenor.

 

[3113]

The EC has been outdated for decades. Get rid of it. We shouldn't even be discussing states when discussing a presidential election. Democracy is about popular votes not local governments. I may be from California, Utah, or Kentucky but when you get right down to it I'm American voting for the leader of my country. Not Texan voting for a govenor.

Well said! http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/3.gif