America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

regardless of who wins I think this needs to be abolished. Anyone see any value in keeping it around?

Actually, there is huge value to having it around. The electoral college makes is feasible for the president to campaign. By know what areas have the most pull, candidates can plan accordingly. Without the electoral college, candidates would be forced to campaign, well, everywhere. This is not physically nor economically possible.

Also, the ORIGINAL purpose of the EC was a safeguard to override the popular vote in the case that the public attempts to vote in someone that obviously should not be in office. No lie.

I flunked out of the electoral college and had to attend community college. I don't remember what their mascot was, but it was either Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich... (c:

An easy to understand explanation of the Electoral College

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpzyc014025400nov01,0,3308949.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

"the ORIGINAL purpose of the EC was a safeguard to override the popular vote in the case that the public attempts to vote in someone that obviously should not be in office."

According to WHO?!?!

My vague recollection is that the EC was to compensate for the western states being jealous of the eastern states, and the southern state being jealous of the northern states, which is so not an issue now (HAH!). Abolish this ridiculous piece of BS.

Screw you JonR...

Im going home! LOL

Without the EC, only the densly populated areas like NYC and LA would potentially decide the entire outcome.
I say keep it.
And this is coming from a Republican in Massachusetts! My "vote" never counts because the local unions and state workers support democrats regardless of the quality.

But I do say this: All 50 states should abolish the "all or nothing" distribution of the EC votes.
Why not use percentages to divide the votes from each state according to margin of victory?
Look no further than Ohio this year. 140,000 votes seperate the winner and loser, yet the winner gets ALL the EC votes.

Change it, but don't eliminate it. Middle America, our Heartland, should matter.

This is a very old debate. Usually begun by someone whose ox got gored (pun intended). Forget about it. It's a little state vs. big union thing and it's here to stay.

If you think "abolish the Electoral College" you should remember that the federal government represents the individual states.

The candidate must win a majority of the individual states to win the office, not a simple majority of voters from across the country. Winning a simple majority would be easy: simply promise people in large cities on the coasts exactly what they want and your victory is assured. Campaigning and trying to win 50 individual states is far harder and leaves the winning candidate with a majority of STATES, not a majority of VOTERS.

I always enjoy this debate and truly appreciate everyone's opinion. But, the fact of the matter is without this measure of equalizing the electorate, many states and folks would not be truly represented.

That and the fact that candidates would only stump in populated areas and national dollars would only go to local or state candidates in those areas.

I think the system could use some tweaking and I am a proponent of adopting some type of electoral system here in Oregon for state measures. Currently we have two counties that decide policy for the entire state. And frankly, that does not work. Especially if you have a state with diverse land use and resources. It is unfair for the corporate rich areas to dictate policy that adversely affects rural and farm areas.

DRJ

Keep the Electoral College as it is.

With out the system smaller or less populated states will get the shaft.

Give the founding father some credit.

I may be mistaken, but I do not recall any state that uses an electoral college system in gubernatorial elections, and the world hasn't ended for them. If democracy is supposed to be so great, hell, let's give it a try, you know.

I would think that, given the environment when the Constitution was developed, perhaps the electoral college was a safeguard against a popular vote reverting back to appointing a king.

Persons under stress tend to return to what is familiar since, despite how bad it is, there is comfort in the familiar.

I think the Communist Party in Russia has tried to draw on a similar sentiment.

As for electoral college, I actually thinked in worked here (and I did not vote for Bush). I think it worked because this mechanism gave Kerry the analysis to realize the point to concede, and alse allowed avoiding a nasty legal fight.

Cparker

Additionally, it states clearly in the constitution that anyone holding a title may not hold public office in America. If you want to know why democracy is proscribed in this republic, see Madison's Federal paper #10. He spells it out in detail. Of course he was firnly against the vice of 'paper money' too, but that hold for very long. Who knows, we could have a democracy in America someday, it works ok for the states in Governor's elections. California is supposedly the 5th or so largest economic state on the globe, and democratic voting seems to work ok there.

wow tailgater and rickamaven agree

I fail to see how the EC gives equal anything. It is basically based on population(with the exception of the minimum). The most equal way is as stated above one person one vote.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals
selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

Taken from http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

Without the electoral college the small states would have no say. We live in a Republic not a democracy. Demoracy is mob rule. I say leave it alone.

So why do we have the electoral college, instead of just a straight popular vote? Simple. This system allows EVERY state to have a say, no matter what.

First, let's quickly describe what the electoral vote method is.

In the electoral college process, each state receives the number of electoral votes equal to the number of its members of the House, which depends on the state's population, and the number of its senators, which is always two.

So, for example, Illinois has 22 electoral votes, because it has 20 members of the House and two senators. California has the most electoral votes, with 54.

No state gets any fewer than 3 electoral votes. The District of Columbia also has 3 electoral votes making 538 total electoral votes possible.

You need 50% plus one vote in order to win.

That means that currently, 270 electoral votes are need to win.

Let's run some examples with realistic numbers in a fictional race where 100% of the population votes between two candidates. (Impossible, I know, but it makes calculating the numbers easier for all of us.) These numbers are according to State Population Estimates, in 7/99 (latest figures I could find).

Now with a total population of 272,690,813 people in the USA, that means, theoretically, a 51% majority vote equals 139,072,315 people voting for the winner.

the most populous state is California with 33,145,121 people there. The lowest population belongs to Wyoming with a whopping 479,602 people living there.

In a popular vote election, if 51% of California vote for one candidate, that's 16,309,948 votes.

If the lowest population states vote 100% for the other candidate, California's votes nullify all the votes of:

West Virginia
New Mexico
Nebraska
Maine
Idaho
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Montana
Delaware
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alaska
Vermont
District of Columbia
and Wyoming.
(The lowest population states)

In the closest race possible, all these 15 states (and one district) COMBINED will never have their voice heard no matter what against just half of California.

If we increase the California vote to 55%, then we can also cut out Nevada from the elections since 18,229,817 of California has had their say.

If a candidate gets 65% of California, or 21,544,329 votes, then Utah is also thrown out of the race.

In fact, in order to get 51% of the votes or 139,072,315, a candidate needs the votes from ONLY:

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
and New Jersey.
(The highest population states)

This gives a candidate 139,883,334 votes and the win.

9 states have just spoken for the entire Union.

and that's in the CLOSEST election possible. At 55% and 65% it's even worse.

All hail the winner!!

In comparison:

In the same elections described above, a 51% vote in California wins all 54 electoral votes. To balance that, the other candidate must only win 51% (and thus all the electoral votes) of the 15 lowest population states instead of 100%. With that result being more plausible, candidates are more likely to visit and pay attention to the smaller states.

If 65% of California votes for a candidate, nothing changes. The other states, still have their say without needing to vote 100% for one candidate.

In fact in a really close race, where the electoral votes are split 267/268, it's possible that Wyoming's 3 electoral votes can tip the scale in someone's favor. The lowest population state has a say where, in a popular vote election, they probably won't even be considered.

So as we can see, as long as we want ALL the states to have a "fair" say as to who will lead the USA, we must keep the electoral college system intact.

We MUST remember that this system was created toward the beginning of this country's creation when only a handful of colonies/states existed. They wanted a system that kept one branch of the government from electing the office of another branch, and they also needed something that could allow smaller states to have a say. The electoral college was not an overnight decision. It was a well thought out planned portion of our government to keep itself well regulated.

I believe that impulse attempts to remove the system are very bad and short sighted actions. Please reconsider any thoughts you might have to ridding our country of this imperfect but useful voting system.

Now, I am sorry this is so long, but I wanted to be complete, and I understand how hard this all is to grasp, if from other places, as the US is unique in giving each seperate state equality, in our Representative Democracy, aka, Republic. These situations never come into play anywhere but the US, because what other Republics are there? And what is the realitive populations and land masses of the countries you seek to compare us with?

And finally, someone posted above about the Electoral College, it being unfair, etc. It is with us by virtue of our Constitution, therefore it is the Law of the Land as much as Congress is, and the banning of slaves. It can be admended, changed, at anytime. Two-thirds of all the states must agree....by vote of their individual State Legislatures. It has indeed been changed many times......27 times in fact.