Posted on Aug 1, 2015
Has the time come to abolish the Electoral College???
15.1K
1.36K
640
16
16
0
What is the purpose of a popular vote by the American public IF a select group of people can negate that popular vote and choose someone else? IT HAS HAPPENED.
Election 2016
Politics
Elections
Voting
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 253
3
3
0
3
3
0
NO! This explanation by George Friedman lays it out clearly. I fully agree with this explanation but did not summarize it because it's complete and clear. The only segments not included are those which make direct reference to the current political situation. However, I have included all the parts that address the question at hand. All added emphasis is mine.:
[The Electoral College] …has attracted criticism, but the system was designed to hold the country together.
[edit]
…The president of the United States is not elected either by popular vote or even by the mathematics of electoral votes. Presidents are elected by electors – these are the people voters actually cast their ballots for on election day. All electors are selected by the parties to whom it is assumed they will be loyal. But legally, their vote is theirs and they are empowered by the constitution to use their judgement as they see fit.
The founders chose this method, and I think it is a pretty good one for a number of reasons. First, it has to be remembered that the United States was not founded as a democracy. Leaving out all those who originally were unable to vote (slaves, women, men without property in many states), the founders created a republic. A republic is a system in which voters do not govern directly, but select representatives to speak for them. The representatives are not bound to slavishly uphold public opinion, but to exercise their own judgment. They face periodic elections, every six years in the Senate and every two years in the House of Representatives. Initially there was another layer — the state legislators selected senators. State legislators were elected by the people and answerable come next election day. The people’s voice was intended to be heard, but moderated by passing through filters.
The founders wanted filters because they feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men (always men) mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt. [edit]. In addition, such men would not see public service as a career, and could act without fear of being voted out of office. Their livelihood was not to depend on election. They were answerable to the public, but did not fear or worship public opinion. Therefore, the founders did not believe in direct democracy at all. They founded a republic, a very different creature. [AP NOTE: a constitutional republic]
The electoral college is derived from this original conception of republicanism. The founders were trying to solve a serious problem with this system. They did not want a parliamentary system. Parliaments made the executive and the legislature one. They wanted the executive and Congress to check and balance each other (and do they ever). Therefore, having the legislature pick the president wouldn’t work. They needed another institution.
The founders didn’t want political parties as they feared factionalism. They never anticipated the two party system, which presents voters with basically a binary choice and minor parties on the margins. What could have occurred, and what might yet occur, is complete gridlock — a situation with many viable candidates, none with the majority of the popular vote or the majority of electoral votes. Who could solve this problem? An entity was needed that could negotiate, compromise and create a coalition to elect a president by majority. These people had to be free to change their votes in the course of negotiations. If even then no decision could be made, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, as it was in 1824. This would mean that one branch of government would be selecting the other branch, but this is only a last resort, since it was the last thing the founders wanted. The electoral college was created to solve political deadlocks without making the president a prisoner of the House of Representatives.
The founders did not opt for direct election of presidents because they opposed direct democracy [AP NOTE: which is essentially mob rule by a majority] and supported representative government. But there was another reason as well. The United States was a coalition of sovereign states. That’s why it is called the United States. Each state is required to have a republican government, but the United States is not a direct compact with the people. “We the people” are the foundation of the Republic, but the states are the legal foundation. The states wanted to be assured that one state would not override the interests of the others and no state would be completely excluded from consideration. Assume for a moment that one state had developed tremendously and contained over half the population of the United States. Assuming for this argument that they would all vote for the same candidate for president, the smaller states would be disenfranchised. Larger states could ride roughshod over smaller ones.
The states wanted to make certain that they would not be excluded. Therefore, each state was given two senators, regardless of size, and in one house of Congress all states were equally powerful. In the other house, representatives would be apportioned by the size of the population. The House of Representatives, elected every two years, would represent public opinion. The Senate would represent the interests of the states (regardless of population), limit the passions of the people by blocking the House, and make it difficult for the president to propose measures, make treaties and ratify appointments. The Senate was supposed to impose barriers and limits on the president and House. In the European Union, equality and unanimity between members is critical, but the United States chose a much more sophisticated system, combining a deep democratic process, with mediating layers to limit or block public passions.
The electoral college gives each state electors equal to their two senators and the number of representatives apportioned to them. No state has less than three electors, and therefore any state potentially can determine an election, and all regions, no matter how lightly settled, must be considered. Since any state might make the difference in the electoral vote, every candidate must consider each state’s interests.
The United States is a vast nation with highly differentiated interests. From the beginning, the founders were forced to face the fact that holding the nation together required concern for the interests of all states, and not only for those densely settled. A pure democracy would consider the nation’s interests as a whole. The founders were aware that the nation was not a whole, although all regions were needed. Assume, for example, one state holds the country’s entire reserves of a crucial resource, but has a small population. In a direct democracy, its resources could be distributed to other states and compensation ignored. That would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war. In any event, in a nation of united states, where all states are needed for geopolitical reasons, their interests have to be recognized.
The system the founders produced compels all candidates to pay serious attention to underpopulated states. In this election, highly populated states like California, Texas and New York overwhelmingly supported Clinton or Trump from the beginning. Smaller states like Nevada or New Hampshire became important. Without the electoral college, the idiosyncratic interests of small states would receive little notice, while a broad national marketing campaign, insensitive to significant regional differences, would decide the result. The centers of population along the two highly populated coasts, where many dismiss “flyover” states, would never have to face the realities of Michigan, Wisconsin or Nevada. In this election, flyover states were able to stun coastal America. They could not do that without the electoral college.
The United States is a geopolitical invention. The 13 original colonies were very different from each other. As the nation expanded westward, even more exotic states became part of the union. Constantly alienating smaller states through indifference could undermine the national interest. The Senate and the electoral college both stop that from happening, or at least limit it. Any state can matter in any election.
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing.
[The Electoral College] …has attracted criticism, but the system was designed to hold the country together.
[edit]
…The president of the United States is not elected either by popular vote or even by the mathematics of electoral votes. Presidents are elected by electors – these are the people voters actually cast their ballots for on election day. All electors are selected by the parties to whom it is assumed they will be loyal. But legally, their vote is theirs and they are empowered by the constitution to use their judgement as they see fit.
The founders chose this method, and I think it is a pretty good one for a number of reasons. First, it has to be remembered that the United States was not founded as a democracy. Leaving out all those who originally were unable to vote (slaves, women, men without property in many states), the founders created a republic. A republic is a system in which voters do not govern directly, but select representatives to speak for them. The representatives are not bound to slavishly uphold public opinion, but to exercise their own judgment. They face periodic elections, every six years in the Senate and every two years in the House of Representatives. Initially there was another layer — the state legislators selected senators. State legislators were elected by the people and answerable come next election day. The people’s voice was intended to be heard, but moderated by passing through filters.
The founders wanted filters because they feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men (always men) mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt. [edit]. In addition, such men would not see public service as a career, and could act without fear of being voted out of office. Their livelihood was not to depend on election. They were answerable to the public, but did not fear or worship public opinion. Therefore, the founders did not believe in direct democracy at all. They founded a republic, a very different creature. [AP NOTE: a constitutional republic]
The electoral college is derived from this original conception of republicanism. The founders were trying to solve a serious problem with this system. They did not want a parliamentary system. Parliaments made the executive and the legislature one. They wanted the executive and Congress to check and balance each other (and do they ever). Therefore, having the legislature pick the president wouldn’t work. They needed another institution.
The founders didn’t want political parties as they feared factionalism. They never anticipated the two party system, which presents voters with basically a binary choice and minor parties on the margins. What could have occurred, and what might yet occur, is complete gridlock — a situation with many viable candidates, none with the majority of the popular vote or the majority of electoral votes. Who could solve this problem? An entity was needed that could negotiate, compromise and create a coalition to elect a president by majority. These people had to be free to change their votes in the course of negotiations. If even then no decision could be made, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, as it was in 1824. This would mean that one branch of government would be selecting the other branch, but this is only a last resort, since it was the last thing the founders wanted. The electoral college was created to solve political deadlocks without making the president a prisoner of the House of Representatives.
The founders did not opt for direct election of presidents because they opposed direct democracy [AP NOTE: which is essentially mob rule by a majority] and supported representative government. But there was another reason as well. The United States was a coalition of sovereign states. That’s why it is called the United States. Each state is required to have a republican government, but the United States is not a direct compact with the people. “We the people” are the foundation of the Republic, but the states are the legal foundation. The states wanted to be assured that one state would not override the interests of the others and no state would be completely excluded from consideration. Assume for a moment that one state had developed tremendously and contained over half the population of the United States. Assuming for this argument that they would all vote for the same candidate for president, the smaller states would be disenfranchised. Larger states could ride roughshod over smaller ones.
The states wanted to make certain that they would not be excluded. Therefore, each state was given two senators, regardless of size, and in one house of Congress all states were equally powerful. In the other house, representatives would be apportioned by the size of the population. The House of Representatives, elected every two years, would represent public opinion. The Senate would represent the interests of the states (regardless of population), limit the passions of the people by blocking the House, and make it difficult for the president to propose measures, make treaties and ratify appointments. The Senate was supposed to impose barriers and limits on the president and House. In the European Union, equality and unanimity between members is critical, but the United States chose a much more sophisticated system, combining a deep democratic process, with mediating layers to limit or block public passions.
The electoral college gives each state electors equal to their two senators and the number of representatives apportioned to them. No state has less than three electors, and therefore any state potentially can determine an election, and all regions, no matter how lightly settled, must be considered. Since any state might make the difference in the electoral vote, every candidate must consider each state’s interests.
The United States is a vast nation with highly differentiated interests. From the beginning, the founders were forced to face the fact that holding the nation together required concern for the interests of all states, and not only for those densely settled. A pure democracy would consider the nation’s interests as a whole. The founders were aware that the nation was not a whole, although all regions were needed. Assume, for example, one state holds the country’s entire reserves of a crucial resource, but has a small population. In a direct democracy, its resources could be distributed to other states and compensation ignored. That would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war. In any event, in a nation of united states, where all states are needed for geopolitical reasons, their interests have to be recognized.
The system the founders produced compels all candidates to pay serious attention to underpopulated states. In this election, highly populated states like California, Texas and New York overwhelmingly supported Clinton or Trump from the beginning. Smaller states like Nevada or New Hampshire became important. Without the electoral college, the idiosyncratic interests of small states would receive little notice, while a broad national marketing campaign, insensitive to significant regional differences, would decide the result. The centers of population along the two highly populated coasts, where many dismiss “flyover” states, would never have to face the realities of Michigan, Wisconsin or Nevada. In this election, flyover states were able to stun coastal America. They could not do that without the electoral college.
The United States is a geopolitical invention. The 13 original colonies were very different from each other. As the nation expanded westward, even more exotic states became part of the union. Constantly alienating smaller states through indifference could undermine the national interest. The Senate and the electoral college both stop that from happening, or at least limit it. Any state can matter in any election.
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
PO2 Peter Klein let's consider California and Washington DC. California has a population of 37 million, and 55 electoral votes, or 1 vote for every 672,000 people. Washington DC has a population of 500,000, and gets 3 electoral votes, or 1 vote for every 166,000 people. (Just one of the more ridiculous examples of Washington DC's lying license plate slogan, "Taxation without representation.")
The electoral system was set up to insure small states had a voice. Without it, candidates might never be seen in Wyoming, Kentucky, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island.
However, as LTC Stephen C. pointed out, big cities are where people gather, who want a government handout. The voices of those who work for a living are being shouted down by those who vote for a living. Big cities are also where the news media resides, making them even more Liberal than they might be if they had reporters living in Pigwaller, Arkansas.
Surely you don't think direct election by popular vote is the answer? We need something better, but not that. But I do think it's time we found a way to magnify the voice of those who pay for our spendthrift government over those who receive benefits from the government.
The electoral system was set up to insure small states had a voice. Without it, candidates might never be seen in Wyoming, Kentucky, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island.
However, as LTC Stephen C. pointed out, big cities are where people gather, who want a government handout. The voices of those who work for a living are being shouted down by those who vote for a living. Big cities are also where the news media resides, making them even more Liberal than they might be if they had reporters living in Pigwaller, Arkansas.
Surely you don't think direct election by popular vote is the answer? We need something better, but not that. But I do think it's time we found a way to magnify the voice of those who pay for our spendthrift government over those who receive benefits from the government.
(3)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) Personally I'd like to see voting change so that everyone gets one vote plus their effective tax rate. If you pay 15% taxes, you get 1.15 votes. 28% taxes = 1.28 votes. If you pay 0 taxes, you get 1.00 votes.
It's not much, but it would help the payers get some respect for paying.
It's not much, but it would help the payers get some respect for paying.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
It's an interesting concept. Of course, it could have the consequence of eliminating secrecy, depending on the mechanics of implementation and on the method of verification of everyone's effective tax rate. But an interesting concept, nonetheless.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) Your effective vote would go down with your tax rate. You'd still have a vote of 1.00, even if you paid zero tax at all. The point of the idea is that people who pay taxes, particularly when 47% of the people pay no taxes, ought to have a slightly bigger voice in how much money is taken from them, which might result in the money being spent slightly more wisely.
(0)
(0)
Absolutely not. See how the gross majority of the United States is Red? Without the electoral college, HRC would have won with "popular vote" by a meme 100,000 votes out of a population of 330M. The cities have the grand majority - yet they do not come close to representing the United States as a whole. This is why we have the electoral college. The electoral college allows EVERYONE to have a voice. Believe me, the opinions, beliefs, and policies of the CITY do not reflect nor benefit those of the Americans in the rest of the country. Without the electoral college, the cities in California, New York, Texas, and Florida would be the only opinions that matter.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
Every system has flaws. The issue with the EC is that it changes the value of specific votes, while a popular election eliminates the value of votes.
As an example, with the EC, the value is shifted to "swing states" whereas without the EC, there would be NO VALUE to small states.
This changes the way politicians are forced to campaign. With the current system, politicians cannot just focus on major city centers or large states, they must go to smaller and medium states.
The major issue is not that we use EC, it is that most of the states have 10 or less votes, while some have 30+ (and CA has 55). As can be seen in the 2012 election, you can win a majority of states and still lose the election. Additionally, you can have a majority of votes and still lose.
This is compounded by the "Winner take all" modality we use. "If" we were to change the EC so that it became (semi) proportional, as in Winner of the state gets 2 EC votes, and the rest were distributed based on Popular vote (so in CA, it would end up being 2 towards winner and 53 up for grabs, 60/40 split), we would see MUCH closer EC races which aligned MUCH closer with popular vote, while retaining relative value across the board.
We must remember that the system we have was based on 1800~ populations, and State count. It was never designed to work with 320M people and 50 states.
As an example, with the EC, the value is shifted to "swing states" whereas without the EC, there would be NO VALUE to small states.
This changes the way politicians are forced to campaign. With the current system, politicians cannot just focus on major city centers or large states, they must go to smaller and medium states.
The major issue is not that we use EC, it is that most of the states have 10 or less votes, while some have 30+ (and CA has 55). As can be seen in the 2012 election, you can win a majority of states and still lose the election. Additionally, you can have a majority of votes and still lose.
This is compounded by the "Winner take all" modality we use. "If" we were to change the EC so that it became (semi) proportional, as in Winner of the state gets 2 EC votes, and the rest were distributed based on Popular vote (so in CA, it would end up being 2 towards winner and 53 up for grabs, 60/40 split), we would see MUCH closer EC races which aligned MUCH closer with popular vote, while retaining relative value across the board.
We must remember that the system we have was based on 1800~ populations, and State count. It was never designed to work with 320M people and 50 states.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Mmmm...not really. You are assigning votes to a "state" not a "human." If you are going to use the "states make up the union" screed, then how do you handle states that contribute no value? What value does Rhode Island provide to the USA? Or Utah? Or...? Get rid of the state logic. Get rid of the state model. Its flawed. We have moved beyond 13 colonies. We have communication methods to enable cross-country communication. Lastly on that angle - every state has electricity and water and food. So the fear of "one state with no electricity voting for everyone to be Amish," is just ludicrous.
Give every person one vote. One man, one vote. It works everywhere that its done. The only reason we don't do it in the USA is because I, the corrupt politician, do not want you, the yokel, to vote me out of office. So I enjoy the fact that the voting system you have is so convoluted and locked down and complicated that there is no way in hell you can stop me from screwing you.
Give every person one vote. One man, one vote. It works everywhere that its done. The only reason we don't do it in the USA is because I, the corrupt politician, do not want you, the yokel, to vote me out of office. So I enjoy the fact that the voting system you have is so convoluted and locked down and complicated that there is no way in hell you can stop me from screwing you.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Donald Murphy - Because we use a federal system of states. We don't use an individual system.
I'm not saying the state system doesn't have flaws, but so would a singular government system. We must have sub-divisions of government.
I'm not saying the state system doesn't have flaws, but so would a singular government system. We must have sub-divisions of government.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - "Government" would not change. You would still have your checks and your balances. You would still have representatives (senators, etc) to ensure that every state gets a fair say in this, a fair say in that. You would still have a supreme court.
OMOV just changes the voting. In OMOV, if the state of Texas had say, 1000 people and 710 of them voted for Trump and 290 voted for Clinton, all 290 of Clinton's votes would not go to Trump. So Trump would not "win" a state. A "state" would not come in to it.
OMOV just changes the voting. In OMOV, if the state of Texas had say, 1000 people and 710 of them voted for Trump and 290 voted for Clinton, all 290 of Clinton's votes would not go to Trump. So Trump would not "win" a state. A "state" would not come in to it.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I didn't respond to the survey because there wasn't an answer that fit.
What I will say is your vote does count. Only a couple states have ever gone against the popular majority in their state in splitting electoral votes.
The system could probably be revised, but it also works. The more glaring issue is that we have had the same two parties for what seems like forever. This is being overcome by some senators and representatives however.
What I will say is your vote does count. Only a couple states have ever gone against the popular majority in their state in splitting electoral votes.
The system could probably be revised, but it also works. The more glaring issue is that we have had the same two parties for what seems like forever. This is being overcome by some senators and representatives however.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Khanh Pham
Being of a different and opposing opinion I do like your simple and effective response.
a couple states have gone against the popular majority in their state, and they were able to do so. our popular vote therefore, only appears to work because the electoral agree with us. Do you apply the same rules for your family, your work center?
Where a rule can be followed if it is convenient, and disregarded when you feel the need? I wonder if there could be a penalty against electoral votes going against popular vote, and what could be fair for both the common people (pheasant) and ruling class. There should be penalty for betraying the duty promised, to represent the people.
a couple states have gone against the popular majority in their state, and they were able to do so. our popular vote therefore, only appears to work because the electoral agree with us. Do you apply the same rules for your family, your work center?
Where a rule can be followed if it is convenient, and disregarded when you feel the need? I wonder if there could be a penalty against electoral votes going against popular vote, and what could be fair for both the common people (pheasant) and ruling class. There should be penalty for betraying the duty promised, to represent the people.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SSgt Khanh Pham Valid point. The way the electoral votes were intended to work wasn't to go against popular vote within that state. The exception is ones who specifically state how their votes are split.
But you are right, there are probably loopholes that need to be closed.
But you are right, there are probably loopholes that need to be closed.
(1)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
I have more of an issue with the all or nothing rule. Even if you split votes the states votes go to the majority winner. So in a State like Idsho where the two votes pretty much always goes republican then a democrat in Idaho has no reason to vote since they know the votes are going to go to the republicans so there is no real "split"
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
SCPO (Join to see)
At the very least all states should have equal votes, much like each state has an equal number of senators.
At the very least all states should have equal votes, much like each state has an equal number of senators.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Michael Smith
So Montana...with the population of Alexandria VA, should have equal votes to New York City, with a population around 20 times the entire state of Montana. What happened to one person one vote?
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
MSgt Michael Smith
So in other words, abolish the Electoral College so that everyone gets one vote?
So in other words, abolish the Electoral College so that everyone gets one vote?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No! If we go with the popular vote then the Large Cities, and/or states will always determine the election. The smaller states, and rural America would never have their votes matter. I feel the best way to determine an election is count the counties won, not states. This would make everything more fair with the counties surrounding a larger city having a voice as equal to the city's. Currently President Trump would have still won the election since most counties went for Trump. Of course one side or the other would bicker and moan over this as well!
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SSG Randall Speck
I'm all in with sticking to the Constitution! We must fight against liberal ideas, and ways which push abolishment, and/or change to the Constitution to meet their wants. The Electoral College is the best way to go!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No, our forefathers put the electoral college in place to prevent civil war when one faction try's to force upon minority's that which they don't support.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google