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.