Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Why should we keep the electoral college?

two reasons please.

Report as

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.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
California and Texas usually vote for different candidates. When that happens, one is out of power for four years. If California and Texas ever vote for the same candidate, that candidate is sure to win.

If you want the voters in small states to have equal status with the voters in large states, count their popular votes equally. If you want the small states rather than their voters to matter, that is not consistent with democracy, rule by the people.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because it supports equal and proportional representation. It would take a very long time to add up everyone's votes, instead the states do that and size it down.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Actually it does the opposite of proportional representation Ohio and Virginia will have much more sway this time than New York and California, which is insane. And the vote count remark is just ridiculous.
Report as
Add a comment...

The Electoral College is obsolete. But- because the constitutional amendment process is so lengthy and cumbersome, it will probably never be abolished.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Get rid of it. Bush got us into this trouble because of it. The friggin idiot

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Bush had nothing to do with it.
Report as
Add a comment...

listen you southern broke states most of the money put into taxes come from north east and Cali.while you southern states feed off it..you sure....you think its a good idea?

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
More federal tax money is spent in California than collected there, probably because of all the military bases and research facilities. A few states, like Illinois, pay more than they get back.
Report as
Add a comment...

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!!!!!!

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
I didn't leave them out - the Electoral College must be getting it right most of the time - otherwise it would have been changed. I am DEElighted that it returns the best person so often. The questioner was asking for reasons to KEEP the Electoral College and I am happy that many positive reasons will be found. But when it gets things wrong, democracy is the loser - can we agree?
Report as
Of course :)
Report as
Add a comment...

It has been a lot of years since I was educated about this but I do think it is obsolete and the popular vote should decide the outcome.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Keep it because:

1. It is constitutional.

2. Little states aren't bullied around by big states.

3. Presidential elections would be much more expensive covering the entire country rather than swing states.

4. People in swing states have more opportunities to actually get to know the candidates.

5. Recounting a single national election would be a nightmare.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
3 and 5 are ridiculous. 1 is true, which is unfortunate since it is not so easily amended. 2 is very questionable since it makes bizarro assumptions that agricultural states that provide our food suddenly would be crippled by not having the EVs. The U.S. is not that self-destructive. You think all the farming subsidies would dry up? Nonsense. 4 is actually a good argument for why the EC is such a bad idea. There should BE no swing states. Ohio is not more important than California. And that goes for the primary process, too. NH and ID are not a good representation of the modern US.
Report as
A lot of farming subsidies go to vast farms in California, the largest state.
Report as
True, flagger, but nobody is afraid CA would lose all influence if there was no electoral college. They DO feel that way about Idaho. I disagree on that.
Report as
I don't think Idaho is the state you are thinking of.
Report as
How so, James? I'm next to it. Are you saying it's more than potatoes? Of course.

I was just using that as an example of why people think that agricultural states are susceptible to being made obsolete by a popular vote.
Report as
Add a comment...

because you'll have to make another admendment for it to go away and people are just to lazy.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Some states, such as Maine if I remember right, are apportioning their electoral votes. For instance, assuming Maine has 3 electoral votes, if 2/3 of Maine voted Republican and 1/3 Democrat, they'd give 2 electoral votes to the Republicans and 1 to the Democrats, making the electoral process pretty well pointless in today's world of computers and communications.
Report as
Maine has 4 electoral votes. Each candidate winning an electoral vote gets one. The other two go to the statewide winner. They are not allocated on a proportional basis. If one candidate got 51% in every town in the state, that candidate would get all the electoral votes. Nebraska does it the same way.
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
That isn't why at all. Not even close. Look up Republic vs Democracy.
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
So far you have the only accurate or intelligent response here.
Report as
Computers can tally, but they are too easily sabotaged to be trusted. We need a voting method that leaves a tangible record and is relatively tamper-proof, like paper ballots.
Report as
Thanks, Tralbry. A little research goes a long way. And Flaggerpus, any and every system, whether it involves sticks, computers, or people, is corruptible, but for today's needs, computers are the most expedient. The best way I can think of using computers is to:

1) Have a double-check built in for the paper ballots. When the voter places his ballot into the scanner, the scanner will display his votes and he has to sign off on them. If there's a discrepancy, his ballot is physically rejected, he's given a new one, and the process begins again.

2) A receipt. Whether a paper ballot is used or a computer ballot, when the voter is finished, the machine issues the voter a receipt with his votes. If the voter sees a discrepancy, he can talk to the volunteers then and there and (hopefully) get things resolved.
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

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.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Small states are placed at a disadvantage when large states cast a monolithic bloc of votes in the Electoral College. A candidate can carry a large state by a small margin, yet take all its votes. If the popular vote was counted, every voter in every state would be equal.
Report as
I think the reasoning behind the number of Representatives (based on population) and the number of Senators (two per state) was, at the Founding Fathers' time, a "split the difference" idea, something that would give everyone what they wanted, which was a say in the political process. I don't know what the population demographics were back then, but I have my doubts they imagined what our current population stats would look like.

And the lesser-populated states do lose a say and suffer to a point. Look at the Cold War and where all of the missile fields are located: throughout the Great Plains states. Why not California or New York? Because they had the larger representation to keep those nuclear bulls-eyes out of their states, while smaller states, such as my home state of North Dakota, didn't.
Report as
The Founders were mimicking the British parliament. Our House and Senate is matched by their House of Commons and House of Lords. The Senate was meant to be the "upper house". It wasn't about demographics, It was about copying a model they already knew. We don't need any lords here and the elitism they spawn.

Lesser populated areas have some disadvantages in general, not just because of the EC. I just think the supposed dangers of using the popular vote instead are greatly exaggerated, if not paranoid. It's typically been the republicans who've been for the EC (they think it's an advantage to them) altho after tonight's vote where Obama won the EC and Romney the popular vote I hope they'll wise up. In fact, Obama's manipulation of the electoral dynamics was very smart and I'd say even more brilliant in 2008 when he used it to defeat the Clinton machine.

I think the reason nuclear sites make so much more sense in low-population states is a simple matter of causing fewer casualties and better security. You can't exactly sneak up on NORAD in the middle of the night like you can Grand Central.
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches