# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  Electoral College (again!)

## karen

If you vote to do away with it, what do you suggest to take it's place?

----------


## Joann Raytar

> http://www.multied.com/elections/Ele...collgewhy.html
> 
> The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
> 
> The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
> _
> It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief._


Has the electoral  college done the job it was created to do?

----------


## Steve Machol

I voted for dumping it.  I'd be interested in knowing why the people who voted for keeping it do not want the majority of votes to count and instead want to keep an outdated system like this.  

One interesting compromise would be to allot electoral votes by congressional district and award the two other votes per State to the overall winner of the state vote.  This would be better than the current system.

----------


## For-Life

The one reason why I like the Electrol College is because it does give more power to the smaller regions.  Population representitive voting gives power only to the major cities.  Where the smaller States have no say.  For instance, Alaska, Idaho, and Iowa would basically have no say what so ever.  The problem with the Electrol College is the winner take all portion of it.  I would think that if they did it by region instead of State it would have more meaning.  For instance, if a State has 7 Electrol votes, give them 7 regions based on population, and each region would have a vote instead of the whole State having a vote.

----------


## Steve Machol

> The one reason why I like the Electrol College is because it does give more power to the smaller regions.


But why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Alaska count for more than someone's vote in California or Texas?  What possible rationale is there for allowing this to continue?

----------


## For-Life

> But why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Alaska count for more than someone's vote in California or Texas? What possible rationale is there for allowing this to continue?


Because you have to consider the whole country.  It is national unity.  I am not saying that Wyoming should have the same number of votes as California, but I am saying that they should have enough to have a say.  To give them lets say 4 electrol votes compared to none is not giving them a lot of power, but it at least gives them a vote.  Otherwise politicians can just beat down the smaller States and make policies that only consider the major urban centres.

----------


## Steve Machol

Well I'm still not convinced that one person's vote should count more than another one's. It's an antiquated idea that can no longer be justified. 

By the way under my compromise system Wyoming will still have a greater per capita say in national elections than Texas. I do think allowing Congresional districts their own electoral vote is a step in the right direction.

----------


## Spexvet

Even though I voted for the candidate who won the popular vote in 2000 (but lost the election), I voted to keep the electoral college. I can put myself in the shoes of someone from a small state. As I understand it, the college helps small states from being consistently overwhelmed by the big states. Even though I'm from a big state, I think it seems like a fair system.

----------


## Steve Machol

I still don't understand or necessarily agree with the assumption that small states need to be 'protected'.

Interestingly there was an effort in Californisa a few years back to split it into at least two, and possibly 3 or 4 states.  This can certainly be justified based on the fact that there are at least 5 or 6 distinct areas of the state with drastically different climates, industry and interests.  The feeling was that many areas of the state are not getting adequately represented because of the overwhelming influence of the major population centers.  Wouldn't that fit into the rationale for 'protecting' smaller states?

----------


## For-Life

> I still don't understand or necessarily agree with the assumption that small states need to be 'protected'.
> 
> Interestingly there was an effort in California a few years back to split it into at least two, and possibly 3 or 4 states. This can certainly be justified based on the fact that there are at least 5 or 6 distinct areas of the state with drastically different climates, industry and interests. The feeling was that many areas of the state are not getting adequately represented because of the overwhelming influence of the major population centers. Wouldn't that fit into the rationale for 'protecting' smaller states?


Yes, and that is why I feel that the Electrol votes should be split up into regions in each State instead of the winner take all approach. Of course the regions would be population based, not geographically.

----------


## Spexvet

> I still don't understand or necessarily agree with the assumption that small states need to be 'protected'.
> 
> Interestingly there was an effort in Californisa a few years back to split it into at least two, and possibly 3 or 4 states. This can certainly be justified based on the fact that there are at least 5 or 6 distinct areas of the state with drastically different climates, industry and interests. The feeling was that many areas of the state are not getting adequately represented because of the overwhelming influence of the major population centers. Wouldn't that fit into the rationale for 'protecting' smaller states?


What was the opposition to this?

----------


## coda

> I voted for dumping it. I'd be interested in knowing why the people who voted for keeping it do not want the majority of votes to count and instead want to keep an outdated system like this.


I voted for keeping it.  I think for many, and in particular myself, this issue revolves around one's opinion of the makeup of our country.  If you are a 'one republic' person abolishing or radically chaning the electoral college makes sense.  If you are, like me, a 'coalition of republics' person then the electoral college makes sense in that it ends up with a ballance of voting power based on population and voting power based on the existance of an individual state.

I'm a states right's guy and do believe that each state should have a say in the workings of the country's government regardless of the size of it's population.  I also believe that the country is made up of individuals who should have a more 'individualized' say.

All that said, I do agree that the electoral college is skewed towards the smaller states.  To fix this would require either a significant increase in the number of house seats or a rewriting of the constitution.  I'm not sure I'm happy with either option and seriously doubt that the smaller states would pass any amendment limiting their say so I guess we're stuck with what we've got.

----------


## hcjilson

I voted for dumping it. The president originally was elected by congress. In an effort to have a popular vote that insured that all states were recognized on a more or less equal playing field, the electoral college was instituted. It is archaic. If the premise of a democracy is the greatest good for the greatest number, all votes should count equally. Why should a true democracy allow a candidate the highest office in the nation without getting the most popular votes? It makes no sense. In the case of the current administration "The people have not spoken" and that is not right.

----------


## chip anderson

Change it to two votes per state reguardless of size or population.

----------


## rep

What is the big problem with the current system that has worked well for over 200 years. Only three times in he history of the country (1876,1888 and 2000) has a presidential candidate ever lost the national vote but been elected president by the electorial college. (1824 dosen't count)

If it were changed here are some unacknowledged perils:

1. The direct elect system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the electorial college system. Majority parties would be responsible for counting the votes for example. 

2. Many direct election proposals allow for a minority vote to be elected president. Would you want a president that only got 30 to 40 percent of the vote to be elected president?

3.You would be swamped with candidates. The electorial college system discourages third party candidates. In contrast the direct system encourages everyone to run. Would you really want to see a runoff between Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannan?

4.Very few democray's have direct system. Only France, Finland  and Russia all recently.France has some strict guidelines as to who can run. Russia had major problems with their direct election when Yeltsin was elected but 65% of the people voted against him. Findland has only had one election using this method.

5. The electorial college vote tends to be less in doubt than the popular vote. 
Under the direct system any of the 160,000 poling places could determine the outcome. Because of this challenge after challenge could be placed on every voting booth. (Steve you didnt like it when the previous election was challenged  over and over again. Can you imagine the carnage under a direct election system where every precinct was challenged?)

6. Under the Electorial college system only citizens who are residents of states may vote for presidential electors. Under the direct system how could the US not allow citizens living elsewhere or in US territories and Puerto Rico. 
Do you want the president selected by these individuals even though they are citizens. Puerto Rico has 3 million US citizens! Do you want the election determine by those living abroad?

It is not perfect but compared to this, I say keep it.

Rep

----------


## ziggy

To the best of my knowlage, you never heard very much conversation about doing away with the EC untill the 2000 election. I think that only two other time did the popular and the EC vote not match. With todays tech abilaty it should be every vote that counts but some states are still using punch cards. If we as a nation can not determain what is/is not a "hanging chad" who will come up with a viable new system?

----------


## ziggy

Rep as far as seeing a run off between Pat R./ Pat B.,,, if we had some deveation from the norm maybe then we would see some real changes.

----------


## coda

> If it were changed here are some unacknowledged perils:
> 
> 1. The direct elect system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the electorial college system. Majority parties would be responsible for counting the votes for example.


How do you come up with this?  The government would be responsible for counting votes, just as it is now.




> 2. Many direct election proposals allow for a minority vote to be elected president. Would you want a president that only got 30 to 40 percent of the vote to be elected president?


This is an excellent point and I think the answer would be a run off election between the two highest vote getters.  I agree that anything else would be questionable.




> 3.You would be swamped with candidates. The electorial college system discourages third party candidates. In contrast the direct system encourages everyone to run. Would you really want to see a runoff between Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannan?


I'd love to see a runnoff between Robertson and Buchannan if that was what the people mandated.  I think an increase in the number of options can only help the country, doesn't competition breed value (free market in politics yes?).





> 5. The electorial college vote tends to be less in doubt than the popular vote. Under the direct system any of the 160,000 poling places could determine the outcome. Because of this challenge after challenge could be placed on every voting booth. (Steve you didnt like it when the previous election was challenged over and over again. Can you imagine the carnage under a direct election system where every precinct was challenged?)


This is one of the best arguements against a true direct election.  We don't have a valid one person, one vote, no doubts system and until we do direct election of the president would be fraught with difficulties.




> 6. Under the Electorial college system only citizens who are residents of states may vote for presidential electors. Under the direct system how could the US not allow citizens living elsewhere or in US territories and Puerto Rico.  Do you want the president selected by these individuals even though they are citizens. Puerto Rico has 3 million US citizens! Do you want the election determine by those living abroad?


Those living abroad, who are citizens, can vote for president (think of the service men and women voting absentee).  Puerto Ricans are not citizens of the United States and as such can't vote for president now and couldn't vote under a direct election system either.

It's interesting to see that the people I consider to be likely Democrats or at least likely voters for Gore to be pro direct election and the people on the other side to be pro electoral college (or in Chips case even more extreem).  I wonder if this is because they believe that the system is biased against or for their party.  Any comments?

----------


## Steve Machol

Interesting and thoughtful post rep. I think that coda answered most of your points. 

For those worried about diluting the power of smaller States - why specifically do you think this is a problem? Why should Wyoming votes account for more than the votes in the San Joaquin Valley in California? How is this fair exactly?

Also don't forget that each State would continue to have equal representation in the Senate and they would still retain a power that is disproportionate to their population.

As for me, I was in favor of dropping or modifying the Electoral College long before 2000. I think a reasonable compromise is to assign Electoral votes by Congressional district and award the overall winner of the State the extra 2 votes.

----------


## rep

> How do you come up with this? The government would be responsible for counting votes, just as it is now.


Not quite accurate - Just what department of the federal government are working the polls now? The government is made up of people and people have party affiliations. Florida is a prime example. The electorial college system concedes some power to the party in power but it eliminates any reason to run up the vote. An excellent example was Illinois in 1960. It was a Republican electorial comission that eventually certified a highly suspect Cook county vote and gave the state to the Democrats. Also take a look at the election of 1888. In that election Cleveland had margins of 2/3's or more in six southern states. Harrison had the majority in only one state Vermont. Cleland tried to use low tariffs as a popular item for the southern states. It was not popular in the northern states the basis of his support in the previous election. It was a major political blunder. Cleveland's debacle in 1888 demonstrates how the Electoral College system forces candidates to make their appeals as broad as possible. Whipping up intense support in one region will not win the White House. It also shows the potential danger in any direct election system, for it shows how easy it is to achieve really huge vote margins with appeals directed at specific regions, ignoring the rest of the country. 





> This is an excellent point and I think the answer would be a run off election between the two highest vote getters. I agree that anything else would be questionable.


There was a serious attempt to legislate direct vote in 1977 and it had wording that said that if no candidate received less than 40% there would be a run off. Under the present system, the winning candidate has to win outright at least twice; first in the party convention, then in the Electoral College. Direct election makes minority rule even more likely than the present process.





> I'd love to see a runnoff between Robertson and Buchannan if that was what the people mandated. I think an increase in the number of options can only help the country, doesn't competition breed value (free market in politics yes?).


No I don't think so. If candidates in regions could make regional appeals to voters in the most populated states to the exclusion of the country - I think that would be bad. In addition as stated previously the current system forces someone to win outright in the primary and the general election. This keeps every kook on the planet from running for president just because he/she can. 





> This is one of the best arguements against a true direct election. We don't have a valid one person, one vote, no doubts system and until we do direct election of the president would be fraught with difficulties.?


I agree. It's going to be hard enough this election set up as it is. 





> Those living abroad, who are citizens, can vote for president (think of the service men and women voting absentee). Puerto Ricans are not citizens of the United States and as such can't vote for president now and couldn't vote under a direct election system either..?


The arguement is that under the direct elect system it would be a tough position that the bastion of democracy would not allow every US citizen the right to vote. As it is set up now, every US citizen does not have the right to vote. Only the electorial college can select a president. (If you don't believe this check out the constitution)

Service men and women are residents of states. There are thousands of US citizens living abroad who are not residents of states ( taxes and other reasons) that would probably be allowed to vote in a direct system because of the arguement above. 




> It's interesting to see that the people I consider to be likely Democrats or at least likely voters for Gore to be pro direct election and the people on the other side to be pro electoral college (or in Chips case even more extreem). I wonder if this is because they believe that the system is biased against or for their party. Any comments?


All I can say is that the 1977 attempt was introduced in the democratically controlled senate, but failed to obtain the 2/3's majority to pass. Being a constitutional amendment I would question weather it would be ratified by the majority of the states either. The amendment was supported by groups such as the American Bar Association, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and the AFL-CIO. 
My guess is that they may have looked at the republican base and determined that this might not be in their best interest. Conservatives even today tend to be united on the issues they feel are important. Liberals today are all over the map, in the name of diversity of course. 

The electorial college system forces candidates to have positions on issues that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in every state and not narrow positions on issues that appeal only to regions of the most populated states.

Rep

----------


## Steve Machol

> The electorial college system forces candidates to have positions on issues that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in every state and not narrow positions on issues that appeal only to regions of the most populated states.


I don't really have time to go through all of your post, but the Electoral system actually forces candidates to ignore large sections of the Country and electorate that are considered 'safe' for a particular party (California, Texas, New York, etc.) and focus their appeal on the few States that are in contention.  In my opinion this is the exact opposite of a 'broad appeal'.

----------


## rep

Since you have to have 270 electorial votes how can you not have a broad spectrum. You can't just appeal to one region or one group. Candidates have tried it in the past and it just does not work. 

Rep

----------


## shanbaum

> Since you have to have 270 electorial votes how can you not have a broad spectrum. You can't just appeal to one region or one group. Candidates have tried it in the past and it just does not work. 
> 
> Rep


Is this a trick question?  A candidate could win in the Electoral College by winning a plurality in 13 states, and getting zero votes in 37 others - not that that's realistic.  But the notion that "[y]ou can't just appeal to one region or one group" seems counterfactual in light of present circumstances.  It appears that this election will hinge on the candidates' appeals in a very small number of states.  My vote certainly will have no impact; Kerry will take Connecticut's seven electoral votes regardless.

It's also not clear how having primaries _broadens_ the selection process (nor, what they have to do with the Electoral College).   Imagine a simplified scenario:  two parties, each having two candidates vying for the nomination.  In each party, one candidate wins with just over 50% of the vote, and in the ensuing election, one candidate wins with just over 50% of _that_ vote. At best, the winner will have been the first choice of just over 25% of the voters.  And because most races are winner-take-all, and most primaries have more than two candidates, and the number of voters in primaries is quite small, the likely percentage of voters for whom the winner is their first choice is likely to be much lower than that.

I'd also like to know why you think the Electoral College discourages third party candidates.  I can see how it makes it harder for them to _win_ (a disincentive); but it makes it vastly easier for them to affect the outcome (a clear incentive).

The argument that the Electoral College introduces reliability depends on the not many of the races in the various states being very close.  The same 160,000 (or whatever the number is) polling places affect the outcome in the Electoral College, just as they would affect the outcome in a popular vote.  What you're really saying is, they wouldn't be scrutinized in states where the race wasn't close, which is to say _where errors wouldn't matter,_ which is to say, where incremental votes _don't count_.

In any case, that was _never_ a consideration in the Electoral College's establishment,  the purpose of which was, to create a certain balance of power amongst the several states in the federal government, particularly, giving more power to the less populous states than they would have based on their population (and less power to them than they would have according to Chip's senatorial formulation).  A reasonable discussion would focus on whether we think that continues to be appropriate.

By the way, I fail to see by what logic we say that there are U.S. citizens (such as the residents of Puerto Rico, who are indeed U.S. citizens) who should be denied the right to have a voice in electing the president by virtue of their location.  Except, of course, they'd probably vote Democrat...

----------


## 1968

> Since you have to have 270 electorial votes how can you not have a broad spectrum.


Althought I'm still undecided on whether we should stick with the Electoral College or change to the popular vote system (I think by and large the "will of the people" prevails either way), I think I have to agree with Steve on this particular point.  Tell me that those who are Republicans in California or New York and those who are Democrats in Texas (or even Wyoming!) don't feel just a bit disenfranchised right now.  This certainly affects the popular vote tallies through lower voter turnout.  Thus, the point that Gore won more of the popular vote in 2000 is relatively meaningless in any argument about who "really" won that election.

----------


## chm2023

I voted to keep it despite all its obvious flaws.  A direct system would switch one sort of disenfranchisment for another.  Big urban areas would become disproportionately important--the 20 million (or whatever #) south Californians are easier and less expensive to pander to and organize than the combined 20 million of 6 or 7 smaller states.  And contributors, corporate and individual tend to be located in the more heavily populated areas.

What will be interesting is the outcome of this election--I can easily see a scenario where W gets the popular vote and loses the electoral college.  (This is based on most recent polls which could be wildly inaccurate).  How would that be for poetic justice???

----------


## rep

> Is this a trick question? A candidate could win in the Electoral College by winning a plurality in 13 states, and getting zero votes in 37 others - not that that's realistic. But the notion that "[y]ou can't just appeal to one region or one group" seems counterfactual in light of present circumstances. It appears that this election will hinge on the candidates' appeals in a very small number of states. My vote certainly will have no impact; Kerry will take





> Connecticut's seven electoral votes regardless....




You answered your own question. It's not realistic to win all thirteen states with 13 or more electoral votes and lose all 37 others with 12 or less. If just one of the thirteen  loses  the other group wins. In 43 elections, only 3 times has the winner won the electoral vote and not the popular vote as well. 




> It's also not clear how having primaries _broadens_ the selection process (nor, what they have to do with the Electoral College). Imagine a simplified scenario: two parties, each having two candidates vying for the nomination. In each party, one candidate wins with just over 50% of the vote, and in the ensuing election, one candidate wins with just over 50% of _that_ vote. At best, the winner will have been the first choice of just over 25% of the voters. And because most races are winner-take-all, and most primaries have more than two candidates, and the number of voters in primaries is quite small, the likely percentage of voters for whom the winner is their first choice is likely to be much lower than that. .




I never said having primaries broadens the selection process. In fact I said just the opposite. The current system narrows the selection process because of the primaries. 




> I'd also like to know why you think the Electoral College discourages third party candidates. I can see how it makes it harder for them to _win_ (a disincentive); but it makes it vastly easier for them to affect the outcome (a clear incentive). .





The primary process is governed by the two major parties. This year the independents were not even given consideration to participate in the debates and they have been fighting tooth and nail to keep them off the ballot in a number of states. They can absolutely affect the outcome. Robertson and Periot were just as much a theat as Nader. Democrats seem to forget about that. 




> The argument that the Electoral College introduces reliability depends on the not many of the races in the various states being very close. The same 160,000 (or whatever the number is) polling places affect the outcome in the Electoral College, just as they would affect the outcome in a popular vote. What you're really saying is, they wouldn't be scrutinized in states where the race wasn't close, which is to say _where errors wouldn't matter,_ which is to say, where incremental votes _don't count_.





> In any case, that was _never_ a consideration in the Electoral College's establishment, the purpose of which was, to create a certain balance of power amongst the several states in the federal government, particularly, giving more power to the less populous states than they would have based on their population (and less power to them than they would have according to Chip's senatorial formulation). A reasonable discussion would focus on whether we think that continues to be appropriate. .






I agree with your analysis regarding reliability - In fact I think thats just what I said. 



I do not agree with your single purpose theory regarding the formation of the Electoral College. 



They only considered two paths. Direct election by the citizens; or election by congress. 



The framers of the constitution feared a direct election because at that time there were no political parties or organizational structures to limit the number of candidates. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole. 

On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both, accurately assess the desires of the people of their states, and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress, than the actual will of the people. 

As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system.

The framers of the constitution did not trust direct elections for the position of President or Senators. 

I think the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators) was one of the stupidest decisions we ever made. It was a huge step towards destroying the federalist character of the founder's government, which was what made it so great in the first place. The 17th removed a whole lot of the checks and balances between the state governments and the national government. No longer are they each equally supreme. The states can't do much at all do stop the federal government -- and that's why it has become so bloated and overpowering. The tension between the states and the feds was what protected our freedoms. And we wonder why those freedoms are slowly (or not so slowly) diminishing...






> By the way, I fail to see by what logic we say that there are U.S. citizens (such as the residents of Puerto Rico, who are indeed U.S. citizens) who should be denied the right to have a voice in electing the president by virtue of their location. Except, of course, they'd probably vote Democrat...






The Electoral College is an expression of the Federal system. Ultimately, the states elect the President of the United States. The highest popularly elected official in the United States is the state governor, not the president. Any change toward a popular voting system undermines the states, and the very basis for the Federal system. Since they are not part of the Federal system they cannot participate in the election of the President according to the constitution. 

Only the rich Hollywood movie set that are living outside the US to avoid taxes would vote Democrat, the other rich Republicans living outside the US to avoid taxes would vote Republican. It cost plenty to live abroad these days. 


Rep

----------


## chm2023

Actually the framers looked at 3 models, direct election, election by Congress, election by state legislatures.  The EC evolved out from these.  Interestingly, there is the model of Roman republic (many of the founders were learned in classicism) and the surviving model of the College of Cardinals that likely influenced the EC solution.

----------


## rep

You are correct. I left out the state legislature model. It was certainly more than one however.

----------

