Since I got off topic in another thread, I decided to start this one...

How does everyone feel about the electoral college?  Is it still a "necessary" concept?  Is it fair?

Since I got off topic in another thread, I decided to start this one...

How does everyone feel about the electoral college?  Is it still a "necessary" concept?  Is it fair?


We must not forget that the United States of America is, in fact, a federation of STATES.  As such, the Constitution states that each state shall appoint its electors (The total of which is the "Electoral College") who cast their votes.

Also note that the USA is not a democracy, it is a Republic in which most laws are voted on by elected representatives.  In the case of electing the president it is a Federated Republic.

It is left up to the States to decide how the electoral votes are cast.  In most states (except Maine and Nebraska), the law is to vote 100% of the electoral votes for the candidate who won that state's popular vote. 

If I recall correctly, the winner of the Electoral Vote has NOT been the winner of the Popular vote in 3 presidential elections.  These elections were in 1876, 1888, 2000.

It would appear that eliminating the Electoral College is NOT a popular cause.  Why do I say this?  because it is completely in the power of each state to eliminate the "winner take all" approach to how it apportions its electoral votes.  Yet out of 50 states, only Maine and nebraska have done so.  Other, heavily Repub or heavily Democrat states have declined to mess with the "winner take all" approach.

As a supporter of States Rights and the "Federal System", I support the continuation of the Electoral College.  States that do not like the Electoral College can amend their STATE LAWS for how they apportion their votes.

LyricBoy is right.  The states are perfectly within their rights (I forgot if it was the Ninth or Tenth Amendment that allows them this) to decide what to do with the electoral votes.  The original intent was for a multi-party system (not just Democans and Republicrats) such that no party would achieve a plurality (50%+) of the electoral vote, putting the selection of the President in the power of Congress under Article II, methinks.  This happened when Jackson defeated JQ Adams in both electoral and popular vote, but failed to achieve the plurality in the electoral college thus allowing Congress to put JQ Adams into office.

The electoral college also protects the interest of the smaller states.  Otherwise, it would be possible for large states like California and New York to almost absolutely decide an election.  With the system now, CA and NY still have a huge say, but at least little states like the Dakotas and Wyoming can add up and offset those huge electoral vote numbers.

I believe another reason for binding all the electors is to prevent the Jackson vs. JQ Adams scenario, in which the "people" still had a say in selecting the President and the Congress won't get their fingers into it.  It also diminishes the power of the third party candidates.  Shady.

I have mixed feelings on this one.  The electoral college does give an extra weight to small states, but not much.  Little Vermont's 3 votes in the EC are not likely to hold the balance, although they may.  The real problem is the way we chose our representatives to the house.  I would propose that each party put up a ranked slate and reps be delegated on the basis of the proportion of the vote each slate receives.  That would encourage a multi-party system at least in the House of Representatives, which was, after all, supposed to be "the people's house", unlike the Senate, which was designed to be a millionair's club.

But back to the topic:  I guess I would favor eliminating the EC.  It really serves no purpose whatsoever, and as we know, can frustrate the will of the people.

I can see what you're saying, but on the flip side, the larger states have enough electoral college votes to swing the election as well.  A candidate could theoretically win by only winning 11 states.  Whereas, his opponent could theoretically win 40 of the states and not win the election.  It still doesn't seem right to me.


Yep, just like last time (look at the map of red states vs. blue states!).

Difference is, the dude with all the red states won.  Without the electoral college the people in the red states wouldn't have had their say.

There is a way you can eliminate the electoral college though.  Just elect in enough state and national lawmakers to allow the 75% ratification percentage necessary to change the Constitution.  Sounds easy, eh?

Yep, just like last time (look at the map of red states vs. blue states!).

Difference is, the dude with all the red states won.  Without the electoral college the people in the red states wouldn't have had their say.

There is a way you can eliminate the electoral college though.  Just elect in enough state and national lawmakers to allow the 75% ratification percentage necessary to change the Constitution.  Sounds easy, eh?


Yes, 30 states went for Bush and only 20 for Gore, yet those 20 states almost won it for Gore.  Fair?  I think not.  We should have listened to Patrick Henry who wanted one electoral vote per state reguardless of size.  Thus no race to 270 but a race to 26 electoral votes.  Had it been that way Bush would have had 30 electoal votes and Gore 20 and Florida wouldn't have mattered either way!  Patrick Henry had the right idea, New York and California are only 2 states yet they control almost 100 electoral votes.  The only big state Bush won was Texas which has less electoral votes then California but more then New York.

Yes, 30 states went for Bush and only 20 for Gore, yet those 20 states almost won it for Gore.  Fair?  I think not.  We should have listened to Patrick Henry who wanted one electoral vote per state reguardless of size.  Thus no race to 270 but a race to 26 electoral votes.  Had it been that way Bush would have had 30 electoal votes and Gore 20 and Florida wouldn't have mattered either way!  Patrick Henry had the right idea, New York and California are only 2 states yet they control almost 100 electoral votes.  The only big state Bush won was Texas which has less electoral votes then California but more then New York.

If the Florida officials had not corrupted the Florida election, it would be obvious Gore won the popular vote in Florida, thus would have gotten the electoral votes.  The only liberal calling for the end of the Electoral College after the 2000 election was Bill Press.  If the election was decided in favor of Gore, conservatives would be railing against the unfairness of the EC.
We tend to only favor "majority rule" when it favors our interests.  Blue states such as California and New York appear to have disproportionate power over red states such as Wyoming and North Dakota.  That is IF you are counting state by state instead of person by person.  Look at the populations and population densitities of states such as Montana and Nebraska.  Some counties in Nebraska have lower populations than a single Manhattan apartment building!
A lot of liberals and racial minorites live in those mega-cities of the blue states.  I think the red state Republicans resent this very much.  On the other hand, blue state Vermont ranks 48th in population, has no major cities, and is about 98% white.  Whereas blue state New Mexico has a huge Latino and Native American population and the metropolitan areas of Albaquerque and Sante Fe.  But NM has only five electoral votes (I think it's five, I'd have to check), anyway, it can work both ways.
The two senators required of each state regardless of population gives low population states an enormous advantage in the upper chamber of congress.  This helps even out some of the advantage the higher population states have in the EC.
Whether we elect the President by the EC or straight popular vote, we need clean and honest elections.  Right now the integrity of our elections is in jeopardy because of crooked officials like Katherine Harris and crooked voting machine companies like Diebold.

I think the systems needs to be changed.  I don't mind the electoral process, but there needs to be a change.  Say a state has 4 votes.  75% votes one way and 25% votes the other...3 votes should go to the first and 1 to the second.  That way the Republican votes count in states like California that mostly go Dem and the Dem votes count in states like Utah that always go Repub.

I think the systems needs to be changed.  I don't mind the electoral process, but there needs to be a change.  Say a state has 4 votes.  75% votes one way and 25% votes the other...3 votes should go to the first and 1 to the second.  That way the Republican votes count in states like California that mostly go Dem and the Dem votes count in states like Utah that always go Repub.



I stilll agree with Henry, 1 electoral vote per state reguardless of size.  California and Wyoming each have 1 electoral vote, if it was like that Bush would have killed Gore 30-20, no mess or problems and California wouldn't be able to boss around half the states.

The electoral college serves 3 purposes that I can see:

1.  Allows for a way to give the people popular selection of a candidate for President;

2.  Protects the interests of the scattered minority;

3.  Diminishes the power of third party candidates with the current system of binding electors.

If there was in fact a voting scandal in Florida (not saying there was or wasn't), both sides were at fault.  The Republicans were at fault for halting the recount (although it was after the 20th time or something and that got boring) and the Democrats were at fault for blocking overseas ballots and voting for Buchanan because they couldn't read.

The electoral college serves 3 purposes that I can see:

1.  Allows for a way to give the people popular selection of a candidate for President;

2.  Protects the interests of the scattered minority;

3.  Diminishes the power of third party candidates with the current system of binding electors.

If there was in fact a voting scandal in Florida (not saying there was or wasn't), both sides were at fault.  The Republicans were at fault for halting the recount (although it was after the 20th time or something and that got boring) and the Democrats were at fault for blocking overseas ballots and voting for Buchanan because they couldn't read.


The logic supporting the electoral collage, and the more extreme 1 vote per state serves to disenfranchize the majority.  The original Constitution was DESIGNED to do just that.  That's why, origanally, the Senate was chosen be the state legislatures.  That's why the electoral college.  Thats why Federal and Supreme Court justrices are appointerd BY THE president, with the consent of....the appointed Senate.  Read the Federalist # 10.  James Madison explains it in very clear (one might say proto-Marxist) terms.

The evolution of our Constitution, however, points to the broadening of democracy over federalism and elitism.  The Civil War amendments, the popular election of Senators, the vote for women, the vote for 18 year olds all are examples of broadening democracy. 

As to Florida, the problems there started LONG before the recount issue.  It started with the illegal purging of voters (mostly black) bothy non-felons and exempt felons, and proceeded to rigged voting machines.  Had those felonies not happened, the fight over military ballots would have been meaningless, as would have been all those Jews for Buchanan.