Why Doesn't Each State Have Just One Electoral Vote?

[Krazie]

Why doesn't each state count as 1 electoral vote for the presidential elections. Then their would not be pivotal states at all. It seems like the president would not get elected mainly by the most populated states this way.

 

[loseyourname]

As bad as the electoral system already is, that may be the worst idea I've ever heard. Why should the votes of 493,782 (the population of Wyoming) Americans have the same say as the votes of 35,116,033 (the population of California) Americans?

 

[ray b]

yes let's make a BAD system WORSE
so the rednecks and hayseeds in rural states
can pick our leaders

a better idea would be ONE MAN ONE VOTE
and actualy have the guy with the most votes WIN

 

[Krazie]

This was a question in my government class. I wanted to see what other people said. For some reason when the topic came up it sounded like a good idea to me. But you guys are right. How long do you guys think before the electoral college system comes to an end?

 

[selfAdjoint]

A loo-oo-ooong time. The present skew to counting nonvoting acres has so influenced the makeup of Congress that nobody has enough clout to get an amendment started. And the alternative method, legislation in two-thirds of the states, is also skewed to prevent it.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Plan B – (3 electoral votes for each State)

Break up the existing States into 100,000,000 new States.

Count the number of popular votes and assign each group of three votes one of the 100,000,000 States.

The majority of those votes in each State would win that State and the electoral votes assigned to that State. (In case of a three way tie the votes would go to the candidates pro rata.)

Those voters would then travel to their respective State Captols (usually one of their homes) to serve as the Electors under the Electoral College system – two votes for the number Senators and one for the Representative. The three voters would also fill the roles of Senators and Representative in their respective State -

 

[Adam]

How about... one person, one vote?

 

[member 5645]

yes let's make a BAD system WORSE
so the rednecks and hayseeds in rural states
can pick our leaders

real mature I see.

 

[member 5645]

The electoral college is in place as a buffer against tyrrany and external governments interfering with our election processes.
While it can be argued that this is not a perfect system, it would be foolhardy to think that "those days have come and gone" where the US will have to worry about a Tyrranical leader or external government influencing things outside the bounds of our election process.
We are still maturing as a country, and thus so is our process. I do however support the electoral college as we DO have a representative republic that is supposed to be designed with the upmost limitation on how much candidates can manipulate the process.

Besides, for all of you who don't like the EC - too bad. It's not goign anywhere. You'll never get the vote needed to amend the constitution.

 

[Tigers2B1]

How about... one person, one vote?

That would require the small States, in your ‘one person one vote’ utopia, to give up the guaranteed electoral votes representing their two Senators – which they’re not likely to do. 'One person one vote' makes small States even smaller, even less significant, than they are now. My plan – creating 100,000,000 States keeps the existing Electorial model and makes all States small ---- and by doing that makes none of them small. Creating 100,000,000 States also comes very close to the 'one person one vote' system favored by others and it doesn’t require an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Adam]

That would require the small States, in your ‘one person one vote’ utopia, to give up the guaranteed electoral votes representing their two Senators – which they’re not likely to do. 'One person one vote' makes small States even smaller, even less significant, than they are now. My plan – creating 100,000,000 States keeps the existing Electorial model and makes all States small ---- and by doing that makes none of them small. Creating 100,000,000 States also comes very close to the 'one person one vote' system favored by others and it doesn’t require an amendment to the Constitution.

Forget the states part. Ignore state boundaries entirely. You have options for the head job. Every person gets a vote. State is not even considered. The one thing considered is the number of votes.

 

[Njorl]

While I would prefer one-person-one-vote to the electoral college, it does have problems.

Candidates would pander to high population densities. If you can reach 20 million people in the greater NY area on one local TV spot, why campaign in Butte Montana at all?

If they did away with the +2 for each state due to senators, it would be an improvement. It will never happen. Most states benefit from this undue influence. Getting 3/4 of them to ratify a change in the Constitution is inconceivable.



Njorl

 

[loseyourname]

Plan B – (3 electoral votes for each State)

Break up the existing States into 100,000,000 new States.

105,586,274 Americans voted in the 2000 presidential election. How are you going to apportion their votes among 100,000,000 electors? Appoint all but 5,586,274 voting Americans as electors? Sorry, but this is an even worse idea than 1 vote per state.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The electoral college is in place as a buffer against tyrrany and external governments interfering with our election processes.
While it can be argued that this is not a perfect system, it would be foolhardy to think that "those days have come and gone" where the US will have to worry about a Tyrranical leader or external government influencing things outside the bounds of our election process.

All the arguments that I have read as to why the electoral college is good TODAY have been bunk. How exactly does it prevent Tyranny or external influence?

The winner-take-all per-state aspect of the electoral college practically dictates that politicians pay attention to certain key areas and ignore others.

As far as system keeping politicians campaigning in small areas, I think that it is quite clear that politicians today, with our electoral college, already mainly stick to population centers for appearances, except in the case of the event having the intended purpose of a media spectacle.

 

[Njorl]

Another thing I dislike about the electoral system is that I have never voted in a presidential election in which my state was "up for grabs". I feel more like I am "attending" the presidential election, rather than voting.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

All the arguments that I have read as to why the electoral college is good TODAY have been bunk. How exactly does it prevent Tyranny or external influence?

The winner-take-all per-state aspect of the electoral college practically dictates that politicians pay attention to certain key areas and ignore others.

As far as system keeping politicians campaigning in small areas, I think that it is quite clear that politicians today, with our electoral college, already mainly stick to population centers for appearances, except in the case of the event having the intended purpose of a media spectacle.

I'll find you a link doing a more eliquent job of eplaining it than I wish to type out right now.

Explain to me how a one person, one vote keeps politicians from focusing on one particular area (the north east and california).