Talk about the electoral college is popping up again as it does every election year. I support the idea of direct popular vote for president. I believe that I should be allowed to vote, and reject the idea that I’m too ignorant to do so.
But, people (mostly in little states) argue that larger states would have an unfair advantage in electing the president. I don’t buy that. For one thing, large states are more regional inside their borders than are smaller ones.
All that aside, though, what’s the real advantage to any state to have “their” candidate elected? The president doesn’t make policy that affects single states. What good has it done Texas to have all those native sons as president?
I guess my question is, how does the outcome of an election for president effect a voter in Vermont any more than it does a voter in California? Wouldn’t it be simpler (and more constitutional) to count up the votes, and the candidate with the most wins?
Peace,
mangeorge
But since each state’s electoral college votes are determined by popular vote in that state, I guess we’ve got the best of both worlds. 
What if all states apportioned their EC votes according to population? For example, take a state with ten EC votes. Every ten percent of the state’s popular vote gives one EC vote. Would that change your objection to the EC? (I believe how a state apportions its EC votes is a state thing, not a federal.)
Or will you not be satisfied until there are simply direct elections?
There are a lot of other threads concering this. But to answer some of your concerns. It would be totally unconsitutional not more constituional to add up the votes and the one with the most wins because the Constitution says that we elect the president with the Electoral College. The states care in part because we live in a federal republic. The name of the country is the United States of America. States are a very important part of our system. Why not get rid of the Senate while we are at it. What do states matter anyway?
Not only is the name “United States of America”, the original intent was more one of separate states loosely organized. This makes sense when you think of how homogeneous each colony was in the late 1700’s relative to how different they were from each other. It was a negotiated solution.
And it wasn’t until the end of the Civil War that people stopped saying “the United States are…” and started saying “the United States is…”. The federal government was still much less important just 100 years ago than it is today in American life (one of the things many people credit FDR with, for good or ill).
The European Union is perhaps the closest thing today to what the USA was conceived as.
Not to hijack but is there someone telling you that you can’t vote, and is their reason for not allowing you to vote your alleged ignorance?
Well, look at the original 13 states. That’s probably a good place to start, since the government under the Constitution was designed for them.
New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts together were very close to a majority population-wise. Throw in Virginia (assume the Big 3 Northern States engage in a bit of logrolling with the Old Dominion regarding policy decisions) and you have a setting where four states dominate the other nine.
The Senate and the Electoral College were means whereby the smaller states could offset this sort of arrogance-of-power situation. And there’s use for them to the present day.
People in New York or California do not take into account the problems of people in Montana or Oklahoma, as a general rule – and then only when their noses are rubbed in the situation. Gun control is a cool idea when you’re in NYC or Philadelphia or L.A., and the citizens with guns are mostly gang members. But what about if you’re living 50 miles from the nearest police station? When what comes onto your porch is somewhat more likely to be a grizzly bear than a Jehovah’s Witness?
Taxation on the basis of land owned and developed is cool – except that a farmer makes a relatively small income for what he has title to, and a man with a commercial forest tract even less.
Somebody needs to make these sorts of arguments when decisions about laws are being made. The influence of the small, underpopulated states produces that effect. The guy in Redfield, NY, or Deerlick Knob, VA, is unlikely to get his voice heard as opposed to the folks in NYC or Syracuse, or Fairfax County or Hampton Roads – but the guy in Gopher Prairie, ND, will.
I’ve always heard that the problem with a direct popular vote is that you’ll end up with candidates campaigning heavily in NYC, Chicago, LA, and various other big cities, and who cares about Treestump, Kansas with its population of 3,000?
In other words, when the race is for a majority of KANSAS’s (or any other state’s) voters, suddenly 3,000 people becomes a much greater percentage, and more important for the President to consider.
/one reason why I partially wish Illinois would distribute some of its electoral votes based on Chicago, and the rest based on Downstate.
That’s not a hijack, actually. The Constitution, as it stands, says I can’t vote for (elect) the president. And the president is a federal office, is it not? The president of the United States, inclusive. Not the president of CA, and of VT, and of TX, etc.
I know these issues are being addressed elsewhere on the SDMB. I wonder why voters are willing to relinquish their right to vote (also in Connie) so that they can feel that their state, not themselves, had a role in electing the president of the US.
Statistically, the outcome (who wins) is likely to be the same. But we have no way of knowing what effect direct popular vote would have on turnout at the polls. Tribal knowledge has it that quite a few more people would vote in national elections if they felt that their vote actually counted in the election.
One of the reasons for the electoral college at the time was that the leaders felt, correctly or not, that a large part of the populace wasn’t educated or sophisticated enough to actually elect the president of the US. They didn’t want to risk another rebellion, so they slipped the electoral college in on them. They were not fools.
Does anyone believe that the voters would now vote to establish it if it were not there already? Or that the polititians would be able to sneak it in like they did back in the day? Not likely.
So, how does the EC truly benefit any state in any practical way?
The president, polycarp. The senate’s cool, and is one reason we don’t need the EC.
There was an article in a Magazine, I think it was Discover, that showed that the EC is “more fair” than a direct election. IIRC they defined it that a single vote is more likely to flip the winner. (I don’t remeber the details).
Funny you mentioned the senate. Some folks think we should repeal the Nth ammendment, and get rid of direct Senate elections and go back to state legistlatures deciding. (it would reduce ads…)
Brian
I want each of those 3.000 voters’ vote to count as much as my own, which is why I don’t like the EC. As it is now, the candidates throw away entire states because they have so few electoral votes.
But I don’t like term limits either. 
You’re not relinquishing anything. You never had the right in the first place.
You semanticised me, garfield.
Now I see why the old guys didn’t trust me to vote.
So is this strictly a gripe about the Electoral College? Because I’m not seeing anything in the Constitution that says you can’t vote for your choice for president, in accordance with the terms set forth by your state. If your state wants to enact proportional electoral voting it is free to do so. I’ve been interested in the idea of changing the system from winner take all to winner of each congressional district takes that vote and the overall winner of the state takes the two “Senate” votes but after the gerrymandering of Texas I’ve been less sanguine about such a scheme.
I’m also not seeing anything in either the Constitution or the materials extant about the adoption of the Electoral College indicating that it was done for fear of the ignorance of the people.
Cite that the reason people don’t vote is the Electoral College?
Cite?
I don’t find “people today wouldn’t vote for it” a persuasive argument in the face of poll results that half of the country thinks the First Amendment “ges too far” in protecting people’s rights. But if there is some populist outcry against the EC, then let some enterprising Congressperson introduce an amendment to repeal the relevant sections of the Constitution and replace it with direct election.
Once again: It’s the baggage, not the baggage handler that is important here. The president selects his cabinet members, who carry out his policies, foreign and domestic.
If I’m an oil millionaire in Texas, I’m going to want a white house sympathetic to big oil and unsympathetic to the environment. If I live in a farming state, I want someone who is going to be sympathetic to farmers and funnel money in my direction.
I was careful, Otto, to put this here in IMHO so that I wouldn’t need to cite anything. I get to just throw opinions and ideas out there willy-nilly as I please.
What was your question?
Oh, yeah. Gripe about the EC. The constituition doesn’t exactly say I can’t vote for the president, only that I can’t elect one. My question simply wonders why people, in maller states especially, seem to feel that the EC protects them from something. I wonder what that might be. Does who the president is really have much effect on our states as individual entities? Do the mean ol’ big states really enlist the help of the president in picking on the little guys, and there ain’t nothing the senate can do about it?
My gripe about the EC is that my X in that box does not decide who’s going to be president of the US. Neither does that of a voter in Vermont (a beautiful place, BTW).
Would more people vote? I dunno. Many say they would. There’s no way to actually know, is there. What’s that (the EC) got to do with the 1st?
If someone wants to know more about how and why the EC was established, they should read up on it. There were many reasons, not the least of which were the ones I spoke of above. I’ve never heard anyone (in the know) deny it. There are still people, some on these boards even, who feel that “dumb” people really shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Does the term “slack-jawed trailer trash” sound familiar?
I’m no historian. I just remember stuff like that.
Now that’s what I’m asking. But don’t your senators help protect your environmentally sensitive resources, or ease the way for exploitation, whichever is the voters wish? Bush hasn’t gotten his way (yet) in CA. He’s a rich Texan.
Ahh, but this cuts both ways. People in Montana generally do not take into account the problems of the people in say, NYC. You have a situation of mutual indifference, wouldn’t you agree?
That said, let’s take two very simplified hypothetical situations:
#1. The good people of Verypopulous State, USA, (pop. 20 million) by popular vote, force nationwide gun control, much to the consternation of the good people of Notpopulous State, USA (pop. 1 million).
#2. The good people of Notpopulous State, USA, by representative vote, force the end of national mass transit funding, much to the consternation of the good people of Verypopulous State, USA.
Now people always drag out situation #1 and shout, “Look at those poor souls of Notpopulous State. Their voices will never get heard.”
Well, that may seem like a reasonable argument until you look at situation #2.
Situation #2 is far more unfair than case #1 can ever be. Both cases involve one party imposing its will over a another (resistant) party. At least situation #1, unpleasant though it may be for the folks of Notpopulous State, can be justified as the triumph of the majority. Situation #2 is little short of tyranny.
Sure they do, but the extent of influence is largely dependent on seniority and position on key committees. If your state senators are junior members, the likelihood of being appointed to important committees is slim, thus the chance of funneling money to your state is smaller.
A cabinet member has the president’s ear, can influence senators and congressmen, and certainly can make life difficult for states that voted for the opposition.
When the current president selected Christine Todd Whitman as the environmental czar, he didn’t exactly have the best interests of the greenies in mind (she being from New Jersey, one of the more heavily industrialized states in the nation). Could NJ have benefited from her appointment? Most likely. Did they? Doubtful.
Let me give you an example. Here we are in sunny CA. CA did not vote for GWB- nor is it likely to. GWB knows this. Now, the corn-belt states did vote for him, and some of the big corn growers there put lots of bucks into GWB’s chest. So GWB is fucking the State of CA over by forcing us to buy corn-alcohol to add to our gas- even though it is very likely no help at all to the environment, and raises the cost of our gas by scads and lots.
So- yeah, it makes a difference. Here in CA we are paying the cost of voting for Gore by about 20cents per gallon, and meanwhile GWB is able to make his buddies in Iowa rich. :mad: