Does anyone know why it is still around? It was originally created to keep rich people in charge of the country. We should go by the popular vote. When people talk about changing the constution, everone goes crazy. I think the only reason it is still around is that people are too scared to change it. But it has succeeded at keeping the rich incharge
For all its flaws, the electoral college ensures that a president has to appeal nationally, not just to a single region or an interest. Otherwise, we run the risk of a candidate campaigning to, say, just the north eastern states and be elected president without appealing to voters elsewhere in the country. Of course, the problem we have now is that a liberal vote in a overwhelmingly conservative state (and vice versa) doesn't count for squat, but it's better than the alternative.
It doesn't matter who the president is. His cabinet and others who he appoints are really incharge. The president is just a puppet. So, when it was created, only the rich got to be electors and vote. As a result, the presidents that were elected mostly looked after the rich. Thats why they were elected in the first place.
How does it ensure that a president appeals nationally? Also, whats the alternative? Correct regional representation?
I like it but I wish that if the winner of the popular election and the winner of the general election are two different people then the whole process should be repeated with only the two winners in contention. Sort of like a playoff. If the situation exists afterwards, then the House of Reps chooses.
I hate it. The whole thing is totally undemocratic. Why should Wyoming get three votes? They have a population about the size of Oakland and Berkeley combined. If Wyoming gets 3 votes, then to be fair, California should get something like 210. I believe the current system encourages more regional campaigning than it would otherwise. Why? Each state is winner-take-all. The campaign really only occurs in the toss-up states like Missouri and Ohio. There is no campaigning in places like California or Texas. Only stops at the bank. If the election were one person-one votes, then you might see Bush in Sacramento, San Diego and Orange County. Kerry could probably safely travel to places like El Paso, Austin and San Antone.
Not just no, HELL no. And don't give me this "wisdom of the Founding Fathers" crap, either. Yeah, they could turn a phrase, and they looked saucy in periwigs, but we had to repeal Prohibition, and they didn't specifically say that the gaieties can't get themselves hitched, so obviously the Founding Fathers didn't know EVERYTHING, now, did they?
Okay, pretend this is the late 1950s and I'm running on a Segregationist platform. What I could do is campagin heavily in the Deep South, then spend a couple of bucks making speeches elsewhere in the country to primarily white supremacist voters. I could theoretically rack up overwhelming majorities in the southern states, pick up enough votes elsewhere and win the election based on the popular vote. My opponent can have wide national appeal, but if I solidify my Southern base, then he's screwed whatever he does outside the South. Under the Electoral College system, my southern votes count the same whether I get 99.9% or 50.1% majority. Meanwhile, it's not enough for me to convince a few voters in Minnestoa to collect votes there - I have to win a state for it to count for me.
Opinions are irrelevant on this. It's written into the Constitution and none of the necessary 35-40 smallest states are going to give up electoral votes so that the biggest 10-15 get more. There will never be an amendment scrapping the College.
In the 1950s, the South was still largely rural and accounted for a much smaller portion of the nation's population.
Please don't come around here flaunting your "facts"! No, I realize that, but I was just giving a hypothetical situation.
Because that's the agreement the original 13 colonies made so that the lesser populated states would not be completely overwhelmed by the numbers majority of the heavier populated states. America is still made up of 50 differentiated states, and that's a good thing, imo.
Okay fair enough - but take any hypothetical. Any. The dude who gets 50% + 1 wins. Seems to work for every other office in the country.
Yes, that explains the House of Reps as a counterweight against the Senate. I don't have as much of a problem with this idea for the upper/lower houses. As for Wyoming, they should not count just for giving us creeps like the lying Dick Cheney. As for the electoral college, we did away with it for Senators (17th Amendment, I believe), but I'm not holding my breath for the Prez.
As "much" of a problem? You think two votes in the Senate for each state is a problem? I always get nervous when Californians start clamoring to extend their political influence. You'd think they actually believe that spreading power outtages, bankrupt state governments, and pissed-off Mexicans is a good thing.
But the President is the only nationally elected office in the United States. Every other office is elected by, at most, a state wide election. The vast majority of elected offices represent single districts. Presidential candidates need to have the national appeal required by the Electoral College.
FWIW, I grew up in New Jersey. Yes, I have a problem that Alaska and Wyoming each get two senators. Maybe we can get a ranking of worst governors of all time thread going. Not sure what Calfornia has to do with pissed-off Mexicans. Personally, I'd Blame Canada.
I'll split the difference. I think that going to a straight popular vote system will lead to campaigns focusing almost entirely on media buys in major population centers/states to the detriment of rural areas. However, I don't like the winner-take-all system that 48 or 49 states use either as it leads to the problem of being an unrepresented minority in a solidly red or blue state. I love the idea of using the Maine (and Nebraska?) system where a states electoral votes are awarded in the same way they were assigned: 2 statewide (Senators) and the rest based on vote in each Congressional District (Representatives). Under such a system almost no state should be completely written off as most have pockets that swing against their statewide totals, like the examples you give above. The downside is that it would be even more important to get redistricting out of the hands of politicians and into non-partisan commissions, but that's a seperate thread.
In theory, the electoral system is a way to ensure that every region of the country have a say in the election of the president. In practice, it is very rare that the results of a national plesbicite type vote comes out different than the electoral college. It only happens in a situation in which the election is unusually close, as it was in 2000. On the other hand, if we ever get into a situation in which the interests of the residents of the largest cities becomes very different from those of the majority of the nation, then suddenly the electoral college system will become very important. Without the electoral college, the people of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles can potentially decide the presidency almost on their own. These three cities combined have more people than almost every state in the Union.
It would be interesting, but I can't imagine why that would be in the interents of most states, particularly the bigger ones. Currently if a state has 25 electoral votes and a closely divided electorate, every candidate sees it as a big prize to get 25 votes and have the other guy get zero. If they are splitting the votes by congressional district, the closely divided states become almost irrelevant, as no matter what happens it will end up with a 13-12 or 14-11 split, a swing of 1 or 3 votes that is at best no more consequential than the votes of the smallest states.
Oh I agree it would be a near impossible sell. You are absolutely right that states wouldn't go for it because as you say it would diminish the influence they have with the current winner-take-all system. The only way I see it happening is if there is some sort of massive voting scandal and it becomes part of a grassroots democratic reform movement that demands more proportional representation. Maybe as a compromise to offset demands for a straight popular vote system that arise when a candidate somehow carries a bunch of large states by 50.1% but loses a bunch of small states 80-20 and ends up president despite a convincing loss in the popular vote. I;d give it a 0.000001% chance of happening. I did try to figure out how such a system would've calculated the 2000 election (mostly because Gore carried the 2nd CD here in NH but lost the state). Unfortunately it proved incredibly difficult to try to get the neccessary information (cities/wards in each district in each state, 2000 election results per city/ward) and I don't have any interns I can force to do the work so I don't get fired. It would be an interesting study though.