1. Do you want California and Texas controlling what goes on for the vast and many different states/people? 2. Without an electoral college to give the people “some” dignity that their small state votes matter (Vermont, Montana), the eventual breakup of the USA would happen much sooner. Though one could argue the collapse of the USA into various republics would better satisfy the totally different country.
TWO reasons? The College does NOT reflect the wishes of the people. It is NOT democratic. Bush was outvoted by the citizens, but the College named the most dangerous man as President we have had in a century. Some observers can see a close result in the coming election and, once again, we may see the man with the most votes pushed aside because the Electoral College has a blinkered view of the results. Until the College truly represents the EXACT proportion of people in each State, it is stealing true democracy from us. Another mistake like Bush and we may never recover as a nation!!!!!!
The first answer is pretty much solid; the other answers are kind of not germane to your question. Funny how DrBrian leaves out Wilson, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Obama, whom is Bush on steroids (PATRIOT ACT resigned along with his NDAA, get real, my man!)
The college is about fair representation: there are even states whose institutions divvy up the electoral college vote based on their popular vote. I am inclined to think this wouldn't be sound if all states did this, because we'd have to change the number necessary to win the presidency.
1 year ago
Last edited at 3:54PM on 11/5/2012
1. The Electoral College should be kept to fill vacancies in the office of vice president, rather than letting a disgraced president choose an ally who is sure to pardon him for his crimes (as in 1974).
2. The Electoral College should offer instruction in methods of reforming electoral systems to make them more accountable to the people.
3. Other than those two roles, I can see little purpose for retaining this 18th-century anachronism. The current system ignores the votes of Republicans in California, NY, Illinois, etc. and Democrats in Texas, Arizona, Alabama, etc. It tears apart communities of interest in the metropolitan areas of Kansas City, St. Louis, and Cincinnati. It makes the election ride on a few marginal states, such as Missouri, Colorado, and North Carolina. When enough people ignore it and call the popular vote winner the president, we and the world will be better off.
4. Incidentally, Bush and Cheney never won a majority in the Electoral College. It was stolen both times. Stealing a car, a painting, or a diamond necklace does not change legal ownership. Stealing an election is no more legitimate.
You see, the Electoral College is a group of people to elect the President. If there needs to be a recount, they don't have to recount the whole COUNTRY, but only the states' votes. It also makes it a lot easier to vote, because in a popular vote, the votes are mixed between Democrat and Republican parties, and in an Electoral College vote, that state gets ALL of the votes on only one of the parties. The Electoral College makes a small victory look like a HUGE victory, and it makes the people running campaign in more rural areas, rather than just big cities.
The Electoral College's original purpose was to elect the president because when the nation was first started we believed that people weren't educated enough to vote. Now, however, with all the electronics that carry news to update us on politics, the Electoral College is really no longer needed.
1 year ago
Last edited at 8:52PM on 11/5/2012
We shouldn't keep the Electoral College.
The Electoral College was created at a time when information and communications were poor and slow. The Founding Fathers believed those people given the electoral votes would best reflect the popular vote. Today, communication is virtually instantaneous and information is at our fingertips. And computers can tally votes within seconds; improperly filled out ballots will still need to be examined and tallied by hand.
There are 538 electoral votes, representing one for each Representative and each Senator on the Hill, plus three for D.C. A candidate needs 270 to win. Mind you, he only needs to win 11 key states to win, so to the poster who said that small states have equal representation, sorry, but no, they don't. States like California and Texas, IIRC, have 11 electoral votes each. States like North Dakota and South Dakota, 3 each.
Party committees, per rules set by the states and IIRC federal rules, select the Electoral Voters. This allows the parties to stack the deck in their favor and prevent many potentially better qualified Independents from going to the White House.
The Electoral College was an excellent idea in the 18th Century. Since then we discovered that there is a relationship between magnetism and electricity, that the moon is not made of cheese, and that there exists other planets revolving around other solar systems. General ignorance on how elections work is the only reason we didn't pass a constitutional amendment to change it in the 20th Century. The 21st Century doesn't look any better, specially with a 50% high school drop out rate.
1 year ago
Last edited at 12:06AM on 11/6/2012
There are no good reasons. It's an anti-democratic anachronism and completely out of date. That also applies to the Senate, which also thwarts true representative and proportional power. It is insane that Montana and California both have only two senators with equal power. The oft-heard claim that the "little states" would suffer is speculation and a bit paranoid. If you insist that people come up with reasons why Idaho (as an example) would be harmed, what will you get? That we'll no longer want to buy their potatoes? Less populated states SHOULD have less representation (as they do in the House). We are not so short-sighted that we're going to make their people or their resources irrelevant.
I should add that some people claim that the population centers would dominate and that would favor one party over another because the popular vote would overwhelmingly favor one. Studies of the popular vote vs the EC vote over the years have shown that this isn't true.