[Discussion] U.S. Electoral College - Good or Bad?

So the U.S. elections are coming up soon, so I figured we could have an interesting conversation over the electoral college that is responsible for how our president is elected.

I personally think the electoral college needs to go. I think it made sense at first, when it would have taken weeks and months to tally the popular vote of the entire country. But today, we can find out the popular vote the night it happens basically, so why should we still be using the electoral college?

Not only that, but the electoral college doesn't give people fair representation per-state. As an example, let's have a hypothetical election in Nebraska. (We'll ignore that Nebraska split its electoral vote last election though, since that isn't standard to my knowledge)

Nebraska has three districts. One is over a half of the state, and is completely rural - the Third Congressional District. The Second Congressional District is Omaha, Nebraska basically. The First Congressional District is the rest of the state, and is heavily urban but with some rural areas. Cities and small towns, really.

So if we assume that one of these districts votes for Candidate A, and the other two vote for Candidate B, then the entire state goes to Candidate B. Increase this to multiple states with differing numbers, and we can actually see the popular vote and electoral vote have two different victorious presidents - but the electoral vote is what the government goes by. And thus in 2000 that happened between Al Gore and George Bush.

I think that's really unfair. Yeah, it doesn't happen often. But I just think it's unfair that it's set up the way it is, and I think that popular vote is more sensible now.

I also think that the electoral college voters can actually vote against what the people they're voting for want is ridiculous. We vote in a guy who says "I will vote in Candidate A, I promise" and if he wins, that's great. But what if he votes for Candidate B instead? Bam, the majority no longer matters. (to my knowledge this has never happened)

I think that we allow for that to even happen is ridiculous.

So, thoughts?

There have been three elections where one candidate won the popular vote but did not win the presidency, which is around a 5% failure rate. That is unacceptable.

This explains everything much better than I ever could. ^_^;

I say other wise it allows us to be safe from massive electoral fraud (which knowing some of our politicans, would happen) it is also there to prevent a pationally dangerous person from winning the election.

I could go on longer, but I'll just give my basic view. I believe that the Electoral College is severely outdated and should be removed from our political system. It no longer serves the purpose that it used to be good for. When it was first started at the time of the founding of our country, it was very useful. Back then: travel was difficult, news spread very slowly if at all, many people were uneducated, and many didn't vote. This is why the EC used to be useful. They figured out the basic wants of each region based on what knowledge they had and used it to make an efficient election system. But nowadays, technology is more advanced, news spreads very quickly, travel is much quicker, and we are more tied together. In this day and age, the EC should be gotten rid of and the popular vote should be the only vote.

Originally Posted by Hylian Kaiser

I say other wise it allows us to be safe from massive electoral fraud (which knowing some of our politicans, would happen) it is also there to prevent a pationally dangerous person from winning the election.

If they can do mass election fraud without anyone noticing, I'm sure they could bribe a few electoral voters, which would be bounds easier.

Been a while since I've studied this, but doesn't the EC keep, say, California and New York from completely dominating presidential elections? Majority rules with minority rights, that sort of thing?

Originally Posted by Janus

Been a while since I've studied this, but doesn't the EC keep, say, California and New York from completely dominating presidential elections? Majority rules with minority rights, that sort of thing?

Well, those states already carry A LOT of weight in the electoral college, because they are worth many, many electoral points. CA and NY are a given to a Democratic candidate while states like TX and the rest of the Deep South (except Florida) serve the same purpose for a Republican, because the majorities in those states overwhelmingly vote either Democratic or Republican.

The electoral college makes many voters in those states completely irrelevant. Are you a Republican in New York? A Democrat in Texas? Then don't even bother voting, because your state will ultimately vote the other way and the electoral college will essentially turn your vote and the rest of the minority in that state into a vote for the other guy.

Originally Posted by Janus

Been a while since I've studied this, but doesn't the EC keep, say, California and New York from completely dominating presidential elections? Majority rules with minority rights, that sort of thing?

To expand off what Vagina of the Galaxy said, the inherent problem is the Electoral College treats individual states as persons which must be treated fairly. Instead, it fundamentally demeans or increases the value of a person's vote based on their geography. A person in Wyoming has a more important vote than someone in New York, and this is based entirely on population. This is undemocratic. The whole point of democracy is to have one vote for every individual, but under the electoral college there is a huge inflation of the abilities of voters in small rural states simply because they live within a small rural state.

This system is broken. It is also unfair. A person's vote only matters if they live in a swing state like Florida. If you live in a blue or red state, if you vote the opposite, it won't matter. Going by popular vote will be fairer to the people, and avoid disputes like the 2000 election from happening.

I hope it's not to late to respond to this... It may nearly be a month old, but it's still on the first page of SD.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

This explains everything much better than I ever could. ^_^;

While a good position to have if one prefers the idea of democracy/a direct democracy, it doesn't really provide us any solutions to the ails of electing a president. Really, the United States would then just be one big "winner takes all" state -- which is what is being advocated against.

Originally Posted by Sailor Moon

To expand off what Vagina of the Galaxy said, the inherent problem is the Electoral College treats individual states as persons which must be treated fairly. Instead, it fundamentally demeans or increases the value of a person's vote based on their geography. A person in Wyoming has a more important vote than someone in New York, and this is based entirely on population. This is undemocratic. The whole point of democracy is to have one vote for every individual, but under the electoral college there is a huge inflation of the abilities of voters in small rural states simply because they live within a small rural state.

If the United States were a democracy, that would be quite true. But, remember, smaller states are inflated because each state, is, well, a state. It's not just a small town, but an area with it's own government and autonomy (albeit somewhat limited). Really, it's a compromise between the influence of states as semi-autonomous bodies, and people in general -- and in falls in line with the Federalism inherent in the underpinnings of the nation.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

While a good position to have if one prefers the idea of democracy/a direct democracy, it doesn't really provide us any solutions to the ails of electing a president. Really, the United States would then just be one big "winner takes all" state -- which is what is being advocated against.

I'm not sure - with only one Oval Office - how the position of the U.S. presidency could be anything else but a "winner take all" (assuming that Congress will still exist), nor am I sure how the current Electoral College system solves this issue. Could you please elaborate? I might not be on the same page right now. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

If the United States were a democracy, that would be quite true. But, remember, smaller states are inflated because each state, is, well, a state. It's not just a small town, but an area with it's own government and autonomy (albeit somewhat limited). Really, it's a compromise between the influence of states as semi-autonomous bodies, and people in general -- and in falls in line with the Federalism inherent in the underpinnings of the nation.

I think an issue here may be just how federalist the United States is. On one end of the spectrum, you have the European Union, which can be considered a unified body, but is otherwise comprised of independent, sovereign states that has its own individual international representation, military forces, and the right to opt out of the European Union. U.S. states do not have any; collectively, the U.S. is considered a single country. So I wonder how much we should be emphasizing the idea that a compromise should be struck between when states and the people when the states themselves have highly limited autonomous power that is ultimately subservient to D.C. ^_^;

Of course, that's everything the "Small Government" debate is about, isn't it? ^_^;

Originally Posted by Ysionris

I'm not sure - with only one Oval Office - how the position of the U.S. presidency could be anything else but a "winner take all" (assuming that Congress will still exist), nor am I sure how the current Electoral College system solves this issue. Could you please elaborate? I might not be on the same page right now. ^_^;

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was just stating that using a more directly democratic approach would basically turn the US into one giant state where a 50% +1 majority would win, or, get all of the electoral votes as it were. It'd be one giant majority vs. a bunch of different tiny majorities. I don't see how it solves anything vs. the Electoral College under the current system since the creator of the video seemed to presuppose a democratic system.

I think an issue here may be just how federalist the United States is. On one end of the spectrum, you have the European Union, which can be considered a unified body, but is otherwise comprised of independent, sovereign states that has its own individual international representation, military forces, and the right to opt out of the European Union. U.S. states do not have any; collectively, the U.S. is considered a single country. So I wonder how much we should be emphasizing the idea that a compromise should be struck between when states and the people when the states themselves have highly limited autonomous power that is ultimately subservient to D.C. ^_^;

Of course, that's everything the "Small Government" debate is about, isn't it? ^_^;

It certainly is. Well, we ought to be emphasizing it a lot, according to what is expressed the Constitution, where, reasonably, powers not implicitly or explicitly put in the hands of the fed are in the hands of the states instead. I'm not necessarily saying we ought to support everything about the document, but that we are governed by it, and that is definitely in there.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was just stating that using a more directly democratic approach would basically turn the US into one giant state where a 50% +1 majority would win, or, get all of the electoral votes as it were. It'd be one giant majority vs. a bunch of different tiny majorities. I don't see how it solves anything vs. the Electoral College under the current system since the creator of the video seemed to presuppose a democratic system.

This is very much true. There is, sadly, no real solution to the idea of 50%+1 when it comes to an office that only has one vacant seat. That said, if this is an unavoidable situation, then I think some people would rather have a candidate elected in an election system that makes sure all their votes count the same - a people's vote - as opposed to what they probably consider to be a convoluted Electoral College system that lets their politicians cheat for a year out of every four. ^_^;

Meanwhile, C.G.P. Grey, the person who created the above YouTube video I explained earlier, explains the problem of first-past-the-post voting, and an alternative system that may be preferred, posted below for your viewing leisure. ^_^

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It certainly is. Well, we ought to be emphasizing it a lot, according to what is expressed the Constitution, where, reasonably, powers not implicitly or explicitly put in the hands of the fed are in the hands of the states instead. I'm not necessarily saying we ought to support everything about the document, but that we are governed by it, and that is definitely in there.

I am admittedly not entirely sure how we could distribute power amongst the states to work as a functional union. Trying to impose a standard onto everyone on a country as large as the United States sounds silly, and I have often entertained the idea that Americans might just be better off if they broke off into several different countries (although I suspect they'll begrudgingly stick together if only so they can remain the most powerful country in the world thus far). But it's not as if loose federations - such as the EU - does not suffer from a massive imbalance of political power from each of the countries (such as France and Germany making all the decisions) or financial discrepancies, so I'm admittedly not a great fan of a less centralized government, especially if individual U.S. states are not going to get their own representation in the international community (as the current setup causes all sorts of problems for Washington and - subsequently - the international community). ^_^;

I admit I think there should be a strong sense of centralization and standardization in terms of U.S. politics (with the understanding that some decisions should best be left to the states), but if we must talk about emphasizing more power to the states, then I think there should be a greater emphasis on key states holding more power and - thus - more responsibilities, several measures higher than larger states simply getting more representation in the House of Representatives. It rings a little like the EU, but - then again - you can't exactly expect Belgium or the Netherlands to shoulder the same kind of responsibilities France and Germany can. ^_^;

Mondale won over 40% of the popular vote but Reagan who had a little less than 60% won with over 40 times as many electoral votes. Either way Reagan would have won, but it shows how it'd rarely very representative of the popular vote.

I do see Flames Of Valor's complaint that it promotes Federalism, which is already too much of a problem. I still think that the president should be decided by a majority vote but I don't think that the Federal government should have all the power it does.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was just stating that using a more directly democratic approach would basically turn the US into one giant state where a 50% +1 majority would win, or, get all of the electoral votes as it were. It'd be one giant majority vs. a bunch of different tiny majorities. I don't see how it solves anything vs. the Electoral College under the current system since the creator of the video seemed to presuppose a democratic system.

As I recall, in the first few presidential elections the VP position was simply awarded to the runner up. Do you feel that to be a more fair approach? Of course, now that I think about it, this was before the formation of the two-party system, so perhaps it's no longer feasible in this day and age.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

This is very much true. There is, sadly, no real solution to the idea of 50%+1 when it comes to an office that only has one vacant seat. That said, if this is an unavoidable situation, then I think some people would rather have a candidate elected in an election system that makes sure all their votes count the same - a people's vote - as opposed to what they probably consider to be a convoluted Electoral College system that lets their politicians cheat for a year out of every four. ^_^;

Meanwhile, C.G.P. Grey, the person who created the above YouTube video I explained earlier, explains the problem of first-past-the-post voting, and an alternative system that may be preferred, posted below for your viewing leisure. ^_^

Well, as I mentioned earlier, as the electoral college is a compromise of sorts between the people and the semi-autonomous unites of the state, it accounts the states themselves in the vote through a majority of their respective native populaces. A majority of majorities, really -- be that the popular vote or not. Really, though, everyone's votes do count the same, but only on a state level, not on a national level. Further, the people aren't directly electing the president, nor is it a "national" election (rather , so, it would seem that it is only necessary that their votes be counted equally in their respective states -- which they are. Were it a more directly democratic system, and we did all vote in a national election (not in individual state elections) then I, too, would want every vote to count equally on a national level.

I am admittedly not entirely sure how we could distribute power amongst the states to work as a functional union. Trying to impose a standard onto everyone on a country as large as the United States sounds silly, and I have often entertained the idea that Americans might just be better off if they broke off into several different countries (although I suspect they'll begrudgingly stick together if only so they can remain the most powerful country in the world thus far). But it's not as if loose federations - such as the EU - does not suffer from a massive imbalance of political power from each of the countries (such as France and Germany making all the decisions) or financial discrepancies, so I'm admittedly not a great fan of a less centralized government, especially if individual U.S. states are not going to get their own representation in the international community (as the current setup causes all sorts of problems for Washington and - subsequently - the international community). ^_^;

Well, as it stands now, the Fed will impose standards on things which, general, need to be nationally enforced. A good example of this would be educational standards, and, of course, Constitutional Law. The individual states allow geographically different people -- that is, people who developed a different culture or value set living separated from those of another culture, to integrate some semblance of their own local cultural structure into their government, thought policy, elected officials, and influence. However, in doing this, being a state within the United States they adhere to what could be called a general standard -- a baseline if you will. A good example of this would be the changing in the nature of State Constitutions when newer states came into their own as people paved the way westward.

I admit I think there should be a strong sense of centralization and standardization in terms of U.S. politics (with the understanding that some decisions should best be left to the states), but if we must talk about emphasizing more power to the states, then I think there should be a greater emphasis on key states holding more power and - thus - more responsibilities, several measures higher than larger states simply getting more representation in the House of Representatives. It rings a little like the EU, but - then again - you can't exactly expect Belgium or the Netherlands to shoulder the same kind of responsibilities France and Germany can. ^_^;

Why should a state's population decide how much influence it has as a state? Certainly it afford it more seats in Congress and more electoral votes due to population, which is only fair. As a state, how does it really differ from a smaller state?

What influence would you be interested in seeing from states with more influence, beyond what they have currently?

Originally Posted by Nite and Deigh

Mondale won over 40% of the popular vote but Reagan who had a little less than 60% won with over 40 times as many electoral votes. Either way Reagan would have won, but it shows how it'd rarely very representative of the popular vote.

Well, if he won a majority of most states, then it is representative -- not of the popular vote, but of the popular votes of the individual states.

I do see Flames Of Valor's complaint that it promotes Federalism, which is already too much of a problem. I still think that the president should be decided by a majority vote but I don't think that the Federal government should have all the power it does.

Oh, I wasn't complaining about Federalism. Although my knowledge of it is limited, it seems like an effective way to run a government in a large nation.

The president is decided by majority vote -- just not on the national level. It is a majority of majorities which wins the Whitehouse.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Oh, I wasn't complaining about Federalism. Although my knowledge of it is limited, it seems like an effective way to run a government in a large nation.

The president is decided by majority vote -- just not on the national level. It is a majority of majorities which wins the Whitehouse.

I think that it leads to states being stuck with laws they don't want. The federal ban on marijuana despite California's legalization of medical marijuana.

Either the the Electoral College is still is more complicated and less equal than direct vote.

Originally Posted by Nite and Deigh

I think that it leads to states being stuck with laws they don't want. The federal ban on marijuana despite California's legalization of medical marijuana.

Either the the Electoral College is still is more complicated and less equal than direct vote.

States being stuck with laws they don't want is what comes with being a state in a federation.

It's less equal if you don't consider the states themselves as part of the equation and look only at the people voting -- which you cannot do, as the states are incorporated. If that were not the case, I might agree with you.