Should the electoral college be abandoned?

[pjf1958]

Many lawmakers wish to scrap the electoral college, and using just the popular vote only. Is this a good or bad idea?

[nightdrot]

The proposal to abolish the electoral college is the horrid, but depressingly predictable, symptom of a populist age.

Populism is not a schematic philosophy but is rather an attitude toward culture and politics characterized by the veritable worship of "the common man," a distrust of elites, a wariness toward complexity and - significantly - a deep dislike of established institutions. (Called these days, "the establishment" or "the swamp.") In this, then, the movement to abolish the electoral college is part of a larger current running through the society.

Indeed, at the same time that there have been calls to abolish the electoral college, there have also been calls to abolish the U. S. Senate, or abolish the filibuster, to pack the Supreme Court (or limit the terms of Justices or make other changes), to raise the voting age to 16 and in some cases to allow illegal immigrants to vote. What all of these have in common is that they take a torch to established institutions, particularly those institutions that put a break on the pure expression of the popular will.

Indeed, this is not just a phenomenon on the Democratic side of the aisle at the moment. The Republicans have been vocal in their attacks on the "media" - as if that were a single entity - and on Silicon Valley - which in the popular mode of the hour has discriminated and oppressed conservatives, it is alleged.

Most of all, Republican who are feigning outrage over Senator Warren's call to abolish the electoral college are forgetting that one Donald J. Trump has advocated its abolition as well - at least until it helped him win. Mr. Trump - like all good populists - is no slave to consistency, after all.

At any rate, abolition of the electoral college would be a horrid idea. It would effectively disenfranchise huge swaths of the country as both parties would camp out in California, New York, Texas, Florida and maybe Ohio, leaving the rest of the country to itself. This would also very likely set the stage for the rise of regional parties, with all that would entail for the balkanization of the nation's politics.

Moreover, if the nation enjoyed the spectacle of the 2000 election, it should be prepared. In that year, the fight was over Florida's electoral votes which confined the battle - as a legal and political matter - to the vote in one or two counties in that state. Turn the battle into a nationwide popular vote and instantly the fight would move to the count in every close vote in every closely fought district across the country.

There is irony in this. 2000 was effectively resolved by a ruling in the Supreme Court - that bastion of elitist judges and lawyers. Abolish the electoral college and close votes across the country will invariably end up in the courts as a routine matter.

The electoral college has served the nation well for over 200 years and such long established institutions deserve deference. Their endurance certainly suggesting that they have worked as well as anything works in an imperfect world.

Wise societies realize that. Which certainly suggests something about the state of American society.

[pjf1958]

Outstanding, these lawmakers that wish to implement these radical and fundamental changes to the constitution, have set up residence in an atmosphere that is only conducive to arbitrary decision making based on emotional chaos. A recipe for disaster.

[nightdrot]

Thanks for your kind comment. You obviously won't get much of an argument from me.

However, that is the state of play in a populist age. The established institutions of society are treated as an encumbrance on human liberty when, in fact, liberty absent such institutions is - as Burke pointed out - chaos. These institutions are built on the wisdom of experience and yet tossed aside or casually altered without deeper analysis. Predictable results to follow.

See not only institutions like the Electoral College and the Supreme Court. See also the de-fund the Police Movement - as the corpses pile up.

[pjf1958]

Thank you friend. I will definitely check that out

[FilmGuy93]

No. the Electoral College is a very important safeguard against populism.

[pjf1958]

The electoral college protects states rights. Once states rights are compromised, then the bill of rights is in danger.

[FilmGuy93]

Yup! The instant you compromise on rights and freedoms, you begin to slide down a slippery slope.

[goaded]

Trump disproved that.

[FilmGuy93]

@goaded More people voted for Hillary than Trump, actually. Trump won that election because he won in a greater number of states.

[FunkyMonkee]

More people voted for Hitlary just like more voted for Chairman Joe!

[OlderAndWiser]

No, the electoral college keeps a few large states from monopolizing power at the national level.

[cjmtherfcker]

Is it possible That may be better than a few large corporations?

[OlderAndWiser]

@cjmtherfcker You are asking if I would trust a large central government more than I would trust corporations> No, I would not.

[MrOracle]

The founding fathers were incredibly wise in creating a system with lots of checks and balances, to ensure that a few heavily-populated areas didn't control everything. It's the reason why each state has 2 senators, regardless of land size or population, but why representatives in the house are based on population size. The idea was to force people to work together, which forces people to have a dialog, and was designed to prevent the fracturing of society into 2 diametrically opposed camps. The electoral college is designed to ensure that less-populated states can't be simply ignored or bullied. Without it, NYC and LA would essentially rule the entire country - and if you see how they're running their own cities, you can see what an absolute disaster that would be.

Note that the people wanting to remove the EC are simply doing a power-grab - trying to ensure that they control everything forever, no matter how bad they do, no matter how many rights they trample, no matter how bad corruption gets. Why does anyone think this is a good idea? It's actually the kind of idea that starts revolutions - the kind where people who propose such ideas are dragged into the street and hung from lamp posts.

The US is precariously close to voting away all human rights - and the Marxists (also known as the Far Left, Radical Feminists, BLM, Antifa, Climate Change Activists, Critical Race Theory activists, and many other names) are pushing hard to make that happen. Too many either are completely ignorant of what a Marxist state means, or they foolishly believe that they'll be among the ruling class - in reality, the ruling class in a Marxist state is quite small. And everyone ELSE in a Marxist state is a wretchedly poor, powerless peasant, who can be hauled into prison, into "reeducation camps", or just shot in the back of the head, at any time if the state decides it's convenient.

Too many Americans who are pushing for these things don't comprehend the type of violence that revolution brings - and that's exactly what would happen. Half the country is fed up and smoldering now, and it wouldn't take much more to push people over the edge.

[Leavesbound]

When our constitution was ratified, our nation looked at the states as individual nations who had banded together. This is why we call them states and not provinces. Because of this there was a legitimate fear that some states would dominate others but at the time they wanted popular consent to factor in so we have a hybrid system. But after the Civil War we were far more centralized in our governmental control and we looked upon ourselves more as a nation. We were less Virginians and Pennsylvanians as we were Americans. Today, the electoral college is less and less relevant. We think not as citizens of individual states but of the United States though we do often stratify along party lines. That stratification has resulted in election campaigns that strategize based on wresting control of certain "key states" rather than attempting to simply appeal to the most voters. It's turned into a sort of chess game to see whose strategy to get control of the electoral college works best.

Also, the electoral college gives more power to smaller states. Your vote counts more if you live in Vermont than if you live in Florida under the current system. This is because all states have two senators regardless of population so a tiny state with a population of say 643 thousand like Vermont has one congressional representative but still has two senators and those numbers govern the electoral college so Vermont has 4.66 electoral votes per million but Florida has 1.34 electoral votes per million. I live in Florida so I used my state as an example.

By eliminating the electoral college we do away with a candidate's ability to become president without winning the popular vote. This is a good thing. I do think, however we should keep the senate and congressional configuration the same since small states do need a stronger vote in congress though another solution would be to simply have a designated "at large" congressional representatives so that minority groups get a voice. I'm not saying give them enough power to wrest control from the majority, just give them a voice so they may be heard.

[TheorionMage]

We are a 'democratic REPUBLIC' NOT presently a 'democracy' and those ingratiated LIKE it that way. A TRUE 'democracy is ONE eligible citizen = ONE EQUAL VOTE, PERIOD!

Where the 'waters get muddy' lies within a 'republic' your REGIONAL representative is (allegedly) democratically-elected by their 'Constituents'. Over decades of political shenanigans like 'gerrymandering' to determine exactly 'WHO' actually comprise these $$$$ 'constituents' skews these Representative's priorities & agendas. The Electoral College was founded when the general level of the AVERAGE citizen's education was about fourth grade. Sadly, in pursuit of the monied Elite's self-serving agendas... efforts to REVISE this institution have been repeatedly blocked. "WE, the People" do NOT elect our highest 'public SERVANTS' ... we indulge in disempowered overt voting of our preferences, intended to guide... but NOT COMPEL or OBLIGATE our Electoral College representatives to cast THEIR votes accordingly. THEY elect our highest officials.

Since the mean average education and hopefully 'sophistication' of today's citizens has evolved; those who presently ARE the Electoral College, have MUCH to fear (and lose) from migration to a 'popular' vote cutting their 'cash cow' surrogacy 'donations' ~

[Aether1]

It's a very bad idea. It would take away the voting power from the rural voters and the elections would solely be decided by large cities most of which are blue. It's like if it the elections were decided by Twitter likes.

The electoral college does factor in a popular vote because in the state by state preference primaries the candidate has to get the most votes in order to win and advance to the general election, and in the general election the candidate has to get the most votes in order to win the state.

[exitseven]

I used to think it would be a good idea since we had the technology. Now I understand why the framers of the Constitution devised the electoral college to prevent having a few populous states be able to decide the presidential elections and the less populous states will never have any representation in government.

[DaisyJones]

In my state, one side is blue and one side is red. The blue side ALWAYS wins, so it's pointless for people on my side to even vote.

Maybe there could be a compromise between the electoral college and the popular vote. A system where winner doesn't take all. My vote should count for something.

[FunkyMonkee]

You just have to vote more often, like they do!! Get all your dead relatives and friends to vote, too!! If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us!! Hell, get your dog, cat or hamster to vote a few times, too!! One tarantula, 12 votes!

[zzwergel]

Yes, It is a good idea to scrap the Electoral College. Anyone who knows about the history of U. S. elections should know that there have only ever been Republicans that have won the Electoral College, but not the Popular Vote. The Electoral College should be abolished because it over-represents rural states with highly Republican-leaning residents. It under-represents states with larger and more urban populations which tend to lean Democrat, therefore favoring Republicans. Basing the Presidential Election on the Popular Vote would be much fairer overall as it doesn't favor either party.

[007kingifrit]

there are only 2 democracies on earth that have no electoral college, mexico and ghana.

mexico has had 11 civil wars in 200 years and ghana has never stopped having one slow boiled civil war since it existed.

not every democracy calls it an electoral college but they all have some system to prevent the popular vote from overwhelming all areas. To remove it would be deadly I'll quote the founding fathers

"pure democracy is as violent in its death as it is short in its life"

without the electoral college the most populous regions would control everything and nobody else would get a say. so those other regions that don't get a say will leave and federal authortiy in those areas will dwindle which is EXACTLY what we see in mexico.

in many ways the mexican drug cartels are a direct result of no electoral college

[sage2021]

If it hadn't been for the electoral college Hillary would have been our president - because she did win the popular vote. However, considering the Looney tunes we have in the White House now, and how we have so many crazy thinkers that may run for the presidency, another crazy thinkers might win by the popular vote alone. There are just too many weirdo's in our country now. They will vote for the crazy person AGAIN! Keep the electoral college I say!

[pjf1958]

Amen my dear

[HelpingMcHelpington]

Extremely bad idea. Cause then the country would be one party rule where huge city states would always hold power. Meaning the "fly over states" would never get a say in the government again. No taxation without representation. Laws democrats try to pass for cities aren't laws that work or needed in smaller states, cities and towns.

[blank_expression]

The lawbreakers already abolished it with the last crooked election. However, the Electoral College is written into the Constitution proper and it really comes down to they want to abandon the entire Constitution in the process.

[AnthonyJ01]

The electoral college was created to over ride a corrupted popular vote. If elections were decided by the popular votes, then corrupt democrats would always win. They support voting by undocumented illegals who flock to higher populations so they can hide.

[goaded]

Yes. The President should represent the majority of the country's population.

I would, however, suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting so that you could choose from dozens of candidates, and the winner will have to consider where their votes came from.

[NaultD]

Where your vote is up to 5x more powerful that is determined by ypur zipcode? You don't see the problem of "one citizen, one vote" as a defining principal in a democracy?

Regardless there has been a pack for state laws to choose the popular vote. if 270 total electoral college signs the pack the national election will win by the electoral college as it is now. Supreme courts already voted it is within the law.

[007kingifrit]

that's not a problem. because people don't matter in a republic, regions do. its important to keep each region equal because regions can rebel. individual people can't rebel really, only regions

if the people in one region are vastly less powerful than another they will leave the union, and the union will die

[NaultD]

That's the idea with local, state government. And i fully support. Then there is federal government that is everyone.

One person, one vote has to have meaning on the federal level in the same way on state and local level.

[007kingifrit]

no that's not enough because local government is subservient to federal, if you don't have an electoral college the federal government will fall

like it has in literally every other pure popular vote democracy

[NaultD]

@007kingifrit let's be honest here. A republican president will never ever win a popular vote again. It's literal impossible unless 10,000 coal miners become 10,000,000 voting party.

So why should 10,000 coal miners have 5x more voting power then every other American accross the nation. It's nonsensical and more importantly nonsustainable.

[007kingifrit]

the greatest mistake of any generation is to assume the current trend of things will continue to be the trend of things.

so first off your premise is wrong

and 2nd. those regions that can no longer win deserve 5x the vote or violence is inevitable. REGIONS must be kept equal NOT PEOPLE

that's what you don't get, its not about keeping people happy, people don't matter. REGIONS matter. because REGIONS can rebel and destroy the nation, individuals cannot

[TadCurious]

Bad idea and the less populated states in the heartland would never ratify the Constitutional Amendment which would be necessary for this to happen. And for good reasons that the Framers themselves were very aware of.

[Dargil]

Absolutely not. It protects the rights of the minority. without it, a small number of states would elect every president.

[cjmtherfcker]

White people are the majority. The states the benefit from Electoral college are overwhelmingly white. I just don't buy the minority argument. At all

[Dargil]

@cjmtherfcker This is not about race. Get over it. It is about people who see a different path for the country.

[cjmtherfcker]

You said protecting the rights of the minority not me

[007kingifrit]

@cjmtherfcker he isn't talking about racial minorities

[BeMuse]

Nope. It's a violation of the contract that brought the states together. We are a constitutional federal republic, not a communist totalitarian shit hole. If that were to change, then the United States no longer exist. It’s a breach of contract.

[llcanon]

Bad idea, real bad idea. The electoral college is so that small states have Representation and so their votes count. It was put into use so that the largest states don't monopolize the election of a President

[888theGreat]

Never , cheating must be abolished. ID's must be presented. Voting age should raised to 21. There should be a strict deadline when voting is cut off and no votes excepted after that time and date.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

No, we are a Federation. We should continue to be a Federation.

[bamesjond0069]

Terrible idea. We need less democracy not more. Personally id like to see only net tax payers vote or have a required age of 30 to vote. This shit is getting ridiculous.

[nolabels]

Absolutely not.
The electoral college was instituted for reasons which are just as, or more valid today than when it was first conceived of.

[VanillaSalt]

Bad idea… you can’t run a whole country by just the population of cities… you can’t run urban areas by rural area laws…

[Dazed0N0Confused]

Its a great idea! The electoral college isn't needed now when we can count every vote!

[007kingifrit]

but that's not why we have an electoral college, the electoral college is designed to prevent war by keeping every region roughly equal. its not about counting votes (whoever told you this lied to you)

there are only 2 democracies that don't have an electoral college, mexico and ghana. they don't all cal it an electoral college, but it is

[Snakeyes7]

No, it is what prevents all of the major cities from having all of the voting power.

[Iwantsis]

It's a bad idea. It would allow California and New York to pick the president every election year.

[goaded]

What was the difference in popular vote in 2016?

[Iwantsis]

@goaded perfect example...
Hilary: 65,853,514
Trump: 62,501,018

If you take out California (8,753,788 for Hilary; 4,483,810 for Trump) the rest of the country's popular vote went to Trump.

Hilary: 57,099,726
Trump: 58,501,018

The electoral college weighs each state by their respective population which prevents one state from controlling who wins.

[goaded]

Like Florida did in 2000? At least Bush only lost the popular vote by half a million.

The 49-states argument is actually the best (not good, but the best) argument I ever saw for Trump's win in 2016, but he still lost the popular vote by millions, which seems unreasonable. Bush won nearly half the votes in California in 2004, shouldn't your president be trying to win everybody's vote?

How about replacing the electoral college with many candidates and instant runoff voting, so that every voter in every state gets an equal say in who their president is.

None of this would be such a problem if the Republican party were open to compromise in the Senate. What should happen is that 60 moderate senators should come to an agreement that maybe 20 senators on either extreme don't much like, but Republicans all vote with their extreme 20, and nothing serious gets done.

[Iwantsis]

@goaded this is a discussion about the electoral college, which is the fair way to determine a president.

You placing blame on the republicans when democrats are doing the same shit is whats wrong with this country. I would say the democrats are worse, you dont see a republican ripping up their copy of the state of the union address like Pelosi did. Nothing but cry babies.

[goaded]

"this is a discussion about the electoral college, which is the fair way to determine a president."
No, it's a way to repeatedly end up with a president who only represents a minority of the country's population.

Isn't the Senate enough of a drag on progress, with one "half" representing about 40,000,000 fewer Americans than the other "half"?

[jshm2]

It could make America a real democracy eventually, yes.

[FunkyMonkee]

No. Not that it matters when you have the election fixed, like last Nov..

[cjmtherfcker]

Yes. One group shouldn't have to produce 10 million more votes every time to have a chance at winning

[007kingifrit]

yes they should. in a democracy its not people that matter but regions. all regions must remain equal or they will rebel and destroy the union

mexico for example has no electoral college and uses a popular vote... mexico has had 11 civil wars in 200 years

[TheBigGuy9]

Nope. In fact, I think voting should be one day and one day only. And you can never have too many rules to make sure you are who you say you are.

[CreamySeed]

Its bad for a republic of states where you would want equal power in representing the vote. Larger population states would over power the smaller population states

[candleteabrunch]

No. But maybe it'll be replaced by left-wingers in a couple decades with another new system.

[Oppressed_Leecher]

either way democrats will get china to print the ballots likey did in 2020 so what's the point.

[OddBeMe]

Yes. Founders intentionally gave more power to rural communities without ever imagining the metropolises we have now.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes. Let the people of the nation by popular vote decide who they desire to be their leader.

[pjf1958]

Thanks for your opinion.

[007kingifrit]

popular vote democracies don't survive. there are none of them in the world that function

the last 2 left are mexico (11 civil wars in 200 years) and ghana (constant civil war)

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@007kingifrit: A lot of countries have elections by popular vote as it should be. The majority wins and rules.

[007kingifrit]

no, very few countries have popular vote, and it doesn't work well

the people are too short sighted and dumb to directly take their will and make it action

without an electoral college the country will fall apart. as they always do

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@007kingifrit: Lol.. what country has electoral collage except the U. S.

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_electoral_systems_by_country

[007kingifrit]

now keep in mind not all of them are called electoral college but are essentially the same thing but even your own map shows like... almost all

only 2 or 3 countries have popular vote. ALL THE OTHER COLORS BESIDES BRIGHT RED ON YOUR MAP are some type of electoral college.

also don't get distracted by head of state map. almost every country on your map uses electoral college for 1/3 houses at minimum

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@007kingifrit: You're in denial. Smh.

[007kingifrit]

no im not. your own graph shows very few countries in bright red... all those other ones have somehting other than popular vote

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@007kingifrit: That colors mean political parties colors, not electoral college system where if you win one state or region you take all the available points designated to that area.

[007kingifrit]

that's another form of an electoral college, its NOT a popular vote

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@007kingifrit: No its not. Click on their voting system and read it. It's not like the electoral college.

[007kingifrit]

its very similar. and either way its not a popular vote

and those countries that do use one system still use an electoral college for a lower house

pure democracies NEVER survive

[Gray-Wisp]

Just get rid of voting entirely. It favors low IQ individuals.

[007kingifrit]

at least restrict voting to taxpayers

[Gray-Wisp]

Yeah. If I had to live in a democratic republic I would put quite a lot of restrictions in voting if I was designing it.

[KrakenAttackin]

No. Simply stated, pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[Iron_Man]

No we need to keep that so Trump can be president in 2024

[Wasteland_Wanderer]

Direct Democracies are pure oppression and dysfunction. The U. S is not a damn democracy.

[QuietRunner]

No keep it.

States with larger population shouldn't be dominating the States with smaller populations. It is all about equity

[Rok4bakAR]

No!!! Then U. S would be one step closer to China!

[Zeldaismyqueen]

yes, it doesn't make any sense

[007kingifrit]

it makes perfect sense. the electoral college keeps all regions roughly equal so they don't lose heart in the democracy. it ensures all voices are heard and that no region becomes irrelevant.

its important to understand keeping people's voices heard isn't the important thing in a democracy, people cannot rebel and destroy a union, only REGIONS can do that.

so the electoral college keeps every region unified and thus allows us to have a democracy

only 2 countries don't have an electoral college , mexico and ghana. all other democracies have SOME SYSTEM (maybe named differently) to mitigate the popular vote

[Zeldaismyqueen]

@007kingifrit so you are ok with some people having more votes than others? That’s democracy to you? I don’t think you know what democracy means. It means each person gets 1 vote and they are all counted equally.

[Iwantsis]

The US is a democratic republic, not a democracy.

[007kingifrit]

i know what democracy means better than you do girl, but i also understand human nature and the thousand year history of democracies

to quote the founding fathers "pure democracy is as violent in its death as it is short in its life"

we don't want a pure democracy. votes are not supposed to be equal and if they become equal the under heard regions will leave the nation

[Zeldaismyqueen]

@007kingifrit you are condescending, and no you don't know what democracy means. Democracy is where everyone gets to vote. A good democracy is where everyone's vote counts equally. A terrible democracy is where some privileged people get more votes than others. This is the electoral college and it has to go if you care about democacy.

[007kingifrit]

where is your evidence that a good democracy counts all votes equally? history shows us the opposite

there are only 2 countries in the world that use a popular vote the way you describe, mexico and ghana

mexico has had 11 civil wars in 200 years and ghana has never stopped having 1 civil war

the system of voting you describe is NOT USED ANYWHERE ELSE

[jeremy_09]

@Iwantsis It's a federal republic, not a democratic republic. The word democracy does not appear one time in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

[007kingifrit]

@jeremy_09 i only know of one founding father mentioning democracy directly and this is what he said " democracy is as short in its life as it is violent in its death"

[NightHawk99]

Nah. It keeps things interesting.

[anylolone]

If you want secession, yes.

[tripptt9]

Yes it's stupid.. estimates instead of counts

[pjf1958]

Thanks for your input

[007kingifrit]

@tripptt9 that's not in any way what the electoral college does. it wasn't even designed to do that, who is lying to you people?

the electoral college is designed to keep each region roughly equal so they all feel included in the republic and thus nobody rebels

[tripptt9]

Each state is not equal. More people equals more electoral votes per state. .. so it's estimated... are you an American or a ( virginian or Minnesotan etc )

Besides two party system is not a choice.. like skull and bones w bush and Kerry.

[007kingifrit]

i said roughly equal, not equal. a popular vote system would be worse as every election would be dominated by the same places

[J9inva]

Bad idea.

[Pterodon]

Nope

[Agape93]

Yeap we should.

[michael1469]

No, dumb question.