Should the Electoral College be reformed or eliminated?

[JOEBIALEK]

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome.

If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

 

[Townsend]

This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

Not a bad idea at all...all the states get to keep their electoral points but now they do not all have to go to just one man.

Whenever I hear people talking about making the election process a popular vote only I get freaked out. If that ever happened then my state would end up a dumping ground for the waste of the rest of the country. After all why should the president care about a state with such a tiny population? Even now it is hard for my small state of South Dakota to have much of a voice but if was a strictly popular vote we would have no voice at all. By the way my state's population is all of about 635K. I think we have more deer than people here, lol.

Regards

 

[mattmns]

Whenever I hear people talking about making the election process a popular vote only I get freaked out. If that ever happened then my state would end up a dumping ground for the waste of the rest of the country. After all why should the president care about a state with such a tiny population? Even now it is hard for my small state of South Dakota to have much of a voice but if was a strictly popular vote we would have no voice at all. By the way my state's population is all of about 635K. I think we have more deer than people here, lol.

Regards

I personally have to disagree with this. Think about it like this, how many electoral votes do the top 11 populated states have?

California - 55
Texas - 34
New York - 31
Florida - 27
Illinois - 21
Pennsylvania - 21
Ohio - 20
Michigan - 17
Georgia - 15
New Jersey - 15
North Carolina - 15

271 right there. 270 needed to win. Pretty much every other state, all 39 of them, could be useless because of the current system. What is the population of these 11 highest states, I am too lazy to find out, so I will estimate it at roughly 55% of the total US population. So, if a presidential candidate were to win each of these 11 states by less than 1% he would have roughly 27% of the popular vote of the total US. Then if the other candidate were to win the other 39 states by a huge margin he would fall short, even though he could have had 73% of the popular vote of the total US. Will this ever happen? It is highly unlikely, but it has, of course, happened before, gore 2000, but by a considerably smaller margin. Because of this I do not think a popular vote would be any worse than the current electoral system. Also, we could get rid of those bums who vote for us. The electorates, why do we need these bums to vote for us?

edit.. hmm while I was looking to see how many votes were required to win, second guessing my 270 guess, I saw this on wikipedia.

"Squeezing a direct popular election out of the current system

A popular election could occur without amending the constitution. If a sufficient number of states chose their electors by national popular vote rather than state popular vote, then a national popular vote would occur in practice. For example, the eleven largest states, controlling over 270 electoral votes among them, could guarantee that the presidency always goes to the winner of the national popular vote, merely by changing state election law. Constitutional objections to a state choosing its electors by national popular vote include that doing so would create an interstate compact without the consent of Congress (which is unconstitutional) and that no state may allow other states to choose its electors."

source: wikipedia

also, same source btw... "a candidate could win the election by receiving only 23% of all popular votes, if these were distributed in an (for him/her) ideal way -- i.e. if he won enough small states by the narrowest possible margin and got no votes at all in the larger states."

 

[russ_watters]

If electoral votes were directly linked to the popular vote, what would be the purpose in having the electoral college? It would be redundant.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The EC could be fixed by removing the limitation on the number of Representatives, only for voting purposes. In other words let the number of electors be 3 plus a number proportional to population, which was approximately what it originally was. Wyoming would still get its three, but New York and California would get more than they do now. Thinly populated states can't really complain that it's unfair, since it approxiamates the situation that prevailed until Congress set a cap on the number of Representatives.

 

[russ_watters]

Ahh - I forgot that the number of electors wasn't exactly proportional to the population. Duh, thanks.

 

[Grogs]

Well, I dislike the EC. Living in a highly Red state, I know that who I vote on for President has *NO* effect whatsoever on the outcome. I find that to be very frustrating and I suspect it's one of the reasons we have low voter turn-out. I would also like to see a popular vote because it would force the politicians to 'spread the love around.' No longer could the Democrat ignore the South or the Republican ignore New England because they're 'lost already.'

That said, the EC does have some usefulness. Imagine a popular election where the margin was only a few thousand votes. You'd have the 2000 election debacle, except that instead of being limited to Florida, it would happen in every single state. I think we'd be lucky to get a President before Inauguration Day.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, I dislike the EC. Living in a highly Red state, I know that who I vote on for President has *NO* effect whatsoever on the outcome.

In a red (aka thinly populated) state you should be in favor of the EC; it amplifies whatever votes you have there. And you never know, your state could be the one, like Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 that it all comes down to.

 

[JOEBIALEK]

responses

some good points...the electoral points would make the red/blue states more up for grabs...

 

[Raven]

Personally I think if we have the ability to count individual votes accurately, then the electoral college should be dropped. This will increase value of a vote and should drive more people to the voting polls. As it stands more people voted for American Idol last summer than the election in November (yikes! -- okay maybe some duplication there).

Many states are usually assumed to be pre-determined as a Democratic or a Republican state. The voters within these state may feel that their vote is either unnecessary ( already a Democratic state so why vote if you're a democrat) or will feel their vote will be eliminated because they are Republican in a Democrat state.

I live in California and most people I spoke to who did not vote said one or the other. I was surprised that even in such a close election as this, voters didn't feel compelled to vote. Some Democrats in California felt they didn't need to because the electoral votes will go to the Democrats anyway and they were right. Imagine what the popular vote would have been if more voters felt the value of their vote actually counted for something than just winning the number of electoral votes for the state.

I think there would be very different election results in popular vote system, plus this allows for multiple parties to be recognize, although I feel it will be a long time before the US will accept a third, fourth or fifth party president.

 

[Grogs]

In a red (aka thinly populated) state you should be in favor of the EC; it amplifies whatever votes you have there. And you never know, your state could be the one, like Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 that it all comes down to.

But why should I care how much it's amplified if what *I* vote for doesn't count? Thanks to the magnificent polling data we have, I knew before I ever set foot in an election booth that my state favored GWBush 60-to-40. The difference between me voting for Bush or Kerry meant the state was 60.0001-to-39.9999 or 59.9999-to-40.0001. In either case, George W. got all 9 of my state's electoral votes. I don't see how math like that is going to inspire me to go vote.

 

[Curious3141]

Of course you should move to a popular vote ! You have the infrastructure to do it and it's a fair system. One person, one vote.

Please, no more of these "battleground state" recounting debacles televised throughout the world.

 

[Smurf]

obviously the rest of the world supports the popular vote, but it's almost impossible for changes like this to be made because the red states don't want it, and if the democrats have enough power to do it they'll be in power so the system will be favouring them and they won't want to change it.

 

[ray b]

ONE PERSON ONE VOTE
the electoral college is a bad system that needs to be added to the junk heap

 

[russ_watters]

ONE PERSON ONE VOTE
the electoral college is a bad system that needs to be added to the junk heap

As I asked in a previous thread: should we also disband the Senate?

 

[Smurf]

I don't see why you would need to disband the senate, what are you getting at? every "democracy" has a senate.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see why you would need to disband the senate, what are you getting at? every "democracy" has a senate.

The Senate has two representatives for every state. It is not proportional to population and is biased in the same way the electoral college is biased - just worse.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We are a federal republic of states. The Senate represents the states, each state getting an equal number; this is just. That is no reason for the president to be elected by a biased vote system. That was never a true part of federalism, but just an expedient compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

 

[russ_watters]

We are a federal republic of states. The Senate represents the states, each state getting an equal number; this is just. That is no reason for the president to be elected by a biased vote system. That was never a true part of federalism, but just an expedient compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

If the selection of the legislative branch is mixed in that way, why shouldn't the selection of the executive branch be? "Expedient compromise" -- it was The Great Compromise, and the Electoral College is based on that same principle that resulted in the creation of the Senate.

History: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

 

[Smurf]

The Senate has two representatives for every state. It is not proportional to population and is biased in the same way the electoral college is biased - just worse.

Is the congress proportional then? I didn't know this, the Canadian Senate is proportional to population I believe.
I don't fully comprehend how the legistative branch works but if the congress is proportional and the senate is equal for every state I don't see any reason to change it.

 

[GENIERE]

Is the congress proportional then? I didn't know this, the Canadian Senate is proportional to population I believe...

Wrong!

...

 

[ray b]

As I asked in a previous thread: should we also disband the Senate?

no BUT we did do away with their being apointed by the state reps
and they are voted in by the one person one vote system now

as should the comander in chief with a run off if needed

 

[russ_watters]

Is the congress proportional then? I didn't know this, the Canadian Senate is proportional to population I believe.
I don't fully comprehend how the legistative branch works but if the congress is proportional and the senate is equal for every state I don't see any reason to change it.

I am absolutely astonished that you don't know the structure of your own government.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

 

[russ_watters]

Pennsylvania has a house and a senate - both based on population proportion. Maybe we should re-district the federal senate to be proportional representation as well...? California would get 12 senators or so - North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, Delaware, Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Vermont would share one. Sound good to everyone?

 

[Smurf]

I am absolutely astonished that you don't know the structure of your own government.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada

details! details! I know the structure fine. I don't even want to look it up though, the Canadian Government is so corrupt it doesn't matter how it's run.

 

[ray b]

Pennsylvania has a house and a senate - both based on population proportion. Maybe we should re-district the federal senate to be proportional representation as well...? California would get 12 senators or so - North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, Delaware, Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Vermont would share one. Sound good to everyone?

sure less red state Fascists.
and more liberals
:!)

but it will not happen

states DONOT HAVE RIGHTS, PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS
and most states rights positions have been against peoples rights

 

[Grogs]

Pennsylvania has a house and a senate - both based on population proportion.

It just seems silly to have two houses like this. If they're both population based, why not combine them? Having a bicameral congress eats up more resources and slows the lawmaking process considerably. Unless the represent different things (like the federal congress) why split them?

As for US senators, I've never had a problem with the way they are selected. Having a body where the citizens of Delaware have an equal voice with the citizens of California seems a reasonable thing to me. Since most laws require the approval of both houses, the Senate prevents a few of the populous states from steam rolling the smaller states with a law. On the other hand, the House prevents the opposite (a large number of small states, representing less than a majority of the population) from happening.

I see where you're going with the comparison between the EC and Senators, but I think we're comparing apples and oranges here. A Senator serves 2 masters. On one hand, he is a federal officer responsible for making laws for our country. On the other hand, he is elected by the people of his state and is responsible for defending their interests. There's no such division of interest when it comes to the President. He serves the entire United States, and therefore a direct election, one vote per citizen, is the most fair way to do it.

 

[russ_watters]

It just seems silly to have two houses like this. If they're both population based, why not combine them? Having a bicameral congress eats up more resources and slows the lawmaking process considerably. Unless the represent different things (like the federal congress) why split them?

I agree (devil's advocate) - so let's combine them and likewise disband the federal senate. Whatdaya say?

As for US senators, I've never had a problem with the way they are selected. Having a body where the citizens of Delaware have an equal voice with the citizens of California seems a reasonable thing to me. Since most laws require the approval of both houses, the Senate prevents a few of the populous states from steam rolling the smaller states with a law. On the other hand, the House prevents the opposite (a large number of small states, representing less than a majority of the population) from happening.

I agree.

I see where you're going with the comparison between the EC and Senators, but I think we're comparing apples and oranges here. A Senator serves 2 masters. On one hand, he is a federal officer responsible for making laws for our country. On the other hand, he is elected by the people of his state and is responsible for defending their interests. There's no such division of interest when it comes to the President. He serves the entire United States, and therefore a direct election, one vote per citizen, is the most fair way to do it.

The president's responsibilities include serving the citizens and serving the states. For just a few examples, the National Guard is a state-run militia, but the president can nationalize it when necessary. When a natural disaster hits, the states as entities (as represented by the Governor) appeal to the President directly for aid.

Lemme try it this way: Bill Clinton was from Arkansas (population 2.7 million). Could he have ever even been nominated, running against a senator from California (population, 35 million)?

Regarding the winner-take-all system: its essential (if the electoral college is to exist at all) for this reason: Ohio has 20 electoral votes. Bush won 51% to 49%. The elctoral votes would split 50/50 and Ohio would be utterly irrelevant. Instead, 20 votes means a 40 vote swing, which could be enough to swing an election. New York went 58% to 40% for Kerry (surprisingly, California was much closer, Texas went 61% for Bush). The President would always be from a big state.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Pennsylvania has a house and a senate - both based on population proportion. Maybe we should re-district the federal senate to be proportional representation as well...? California would get 12 senators or so - North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, Delaware, Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Vermont would share one. Sound good to everyone?

Yes, but it would require a constitutional amendment- a very big step!

By the way, the history of that is interesting. The "bi-cameral" legislature is, of course, based on the House of Commons and House of Lords in the British parliament: the idea was that the House of Representatives would represent the people, the Snate would represent the states. Most states then set up bi-cameral legislatures copying the federal government- with one house based on population and the other on equal representation of counties.

But in the 1970's the supreme court ruled that, according to the 14th amendment (passed just after the Civil War to give federal guarentees of freedom to citizens of the individual states), states had to base representation entirely on population. Of course, the federal government, precisely the body that is telling the states they have to represent everyone equally, doesn't have to do that because its bicameral legislature is written into the federal constitution!

 

[Grogs]

The president's responsibilities include serving the citizens and serving the states. For just a few examples, the National Guard is a state-run militia, but the president can nationalize it when necessary. When a natural disaster hits, the states as entities (as represented by the Governor) appeal to the President directly for aid.

The key word in what you've said is states. A Senator represents a state. The President may deal with an individual state, but he shouldn't favor one over the other. Ideally, Bush would never send federal aid money to Texas just because it was his own state since he represents all 50 states. A senator on the other hand, would be expected to do just that.

Lemme try it this way: Bill Clinton was from Arkansas (population 2.7 million). Could he have ever even been nominated, running against a senator from California (population, 35 million)?

What's your math on this? My gut reaction is to say 'sure, why not,' but I have to make assumptions about what you're thinking.

Regarding the winner-take-all system: its essential (if the electoral college is to exist at all) for this reason: Ohio has 20 electoral votes. Bush won 51% to 49%. The elctoral votes would split 50/50 and Ohio would be utterly irrelevant. Instead, 20 votes means a 40 vote swing, which could be enough to swing an election. New York went 58% to 40% for Kerry (surprisingly, California was much closer, Texas went 61% for Bush). The President would always be from a big state.

IIRC, under the Colorado proposal, the winner of the popular vote got a majority of the votes, regardless of the margin. Under that system, if a candidate won Ohio by only 1 vote, he would still receive 11 electoral votes and his opponent only 9.

 

[Raven]

As I asked in a previous thread: should we also disband the Senate?

I don't really see the purpose in this question. The senate gives each state an equal say on federal laws and federal issues, which is necessary since each state has an independent right within the nation to approve or disapprove federal laws. The congress' members are representative of each state's populous. The combination of both Houses of course creates an equal balance in legislation. And last I checked all members of congress and the senate are voted in on a popular vote.

The executive branch represents the nation ("one state" so-to-speak). The executive branch does not function like the legislative branch where two houses are necessary to create balance within population and state representation. The executive branch represents the country (one population). Therefore a popular vote of the executive branch makes absolute sense to me.

 

[russ_watters]

The key word in what you've said is states. A Senator represents a state. The President may deal with an individual state, but he shouldn't favor one over the other. Ideally, Bush would never send federal aid money to Texas just because it was his own state since he represents all 50 states. A senator on the other hand, would be expected to do just that.

The President does not have direct control over spending bills. The President could, however, federalize the National Guard and send it to Alabama to force the Governor to allow a black student to attend college, or send federal aid money to California following an earthquake...

 

[Grogs]

The President does not have direct control over spending bills. The President could, however ... send federal aid money to California following an earthquake...

What the heck? You just used exactly the same four words I did 'send federal aid money.' I never mentioned spending bills. The point remains that the President should not be loyal to one particular state. If a hurricane struck Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, it would create quite a stir if President Bush sent disaster relief *only* to Texas, citing that the hurricane would hurt property values in Texas.

The President could, however, federalize the National Guard and send it to Alabama to force the Governor to allow a black student to attend college

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The governor of Alabama didn't want this. The senators from Alabama didn't want this. A majority of citizens from Alabama didn't want this (at least voting citizens.) The senators from Alabama could have been expected to fight this tooth and nail. LBJ on the other hand saw things from a national perspective. It was the rule of law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) that this happen and Alabama was the only state that failed to comply. Thus he (LBJ) used the national guard to protect the national interest within the state of Alabama. If it had happened in Mississippi, or Arkansas, or Georgia, that's where he would have federalized the National Guard.

 

[BobG]

Maybe you consider that the the US has had two distinct phases in its history.

Pre-Civil War:

We are a federal republic of states. The Senate represents the states, each state getting an equal number; this is just. That is no reason for the president to be elected by a biased vote system. That was never a true part of federalism, but just an expedient compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

Post-Civil War:

But in the 1970's the supreme court ruled that, according to the 14th amendment (passed just after the Civil War to give federal guarentees of freedom to citizens of the individual states), states had to base representation entirely on population. Of course, the federal government, precisely the body that is telling the states they have to represent everyone equally, doesn't have to do that because its bicameral legislature is written into the federal constitution!

If we truly were a federal republic of states as envisioned back in the 1780's the federal government wouldn't have the right to tell states whether they could secede from the country or not. Or then again, maybe it could. The federal government can get involved with issues which affect interstate trade, and secession definitely affects interstate trade. In practice, the federal government tends to dominate, either directly or through laying conditions to receive federal benefits (something every state has the right to turn down).

Allowing individual states to group all of their votes into a single block is a quaint tradition that's outlived its purpose. Capping the number of representatives in the House at 435 and apportioning one EC vote for each representative (including Senators) is more than enough ballast for the smaller states.

If not a direct popular vote, the EC vote should at least be distributed proportionally based how each candidate did in that state. As it stands now, if you're a Western New Yorker, with little in common with New York City residents, the Presidential election is meaningless. Buffalo and the rest of Western New York just gets dragged along with New York City. Likewise with the entire state of California being dragged behind Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The current system is at least as 'disenfranchising' as electing State Senators by county instead of by population. (By the way, the Constitution and Amendments don't make any reference as to how each state divvies up their Electoral College votes - it only talks about the total number each state has)

 

[Scientific Method]

First, it should be mentioned that the people at Physics Forums, who I speculate make up for the most part people with above average IQs, will be a minority voting block and will be overpowered in the elections by the stupid majority, so whatever "ideal" ideas we come up with will have no affect on national policy. That being said, I oppose the electorial college and only want the popular vote, like in the rest of the world. Also, I am opposed to representative democracy; I want direct democracy instead where we elect officials, but then these officials will only suggest policies, and then we the citizens will directly vote on them. So, if Bush suggests we invade a country, instead of Congress voting on it, we the people will directly vote on it. This way, the power stays in our hands, not the politicians. The argument though will come up that most people are too stupid to vote, which is true. So on one hand, if we let politicians decide everything, they will continue to lie to the public and push policies that serves them a lot more than the voters. On the other hand, if we let the citizens vote, they will support bad policies because they are too stupid. So, it's a double edged sword.