# Another "Would you abolish the Electoral College" thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2008, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670 "2008-10-26T19:53:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/21 "2008-10-26T23:33:58Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > They’d want to push that number _higher_, to help ensure that they got a larger percentage of the vote from each individual state. Why would they necessarily want to push that number higher? There’s no motivation for them to shoot for any arbitrary number, just “as high as possible.” However, assuming candidate A has a strong lead elsewhere, they may presume that they can afford to let candidate B take a lead in Wyoming if it would be a tough battleground. I say this as someone who generally disagrees with the nature of the EC and supports a more direct democracy, but I can’t convince myself that foregoing the regional aspects of the EC is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/22 "2008-10-26T23:39:07Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > Why would they necessarily want to push that number higher? There’s no motivation for them to shoot for any arbitrary number, just “as high as possible.” However, assuming candidate A has a strong lead elsewhere, they may presume that they can afford to let candidate B take a lead in Wyoming if it would be a tough battleground. In an election where there’s a wide divide in the popular vote, the candidate in the lead wouldn’t necessarily have an interest in Wyoming’s spread, but when the popular vote is _close_ (as it often is), then places like Wyoming _are_ going to be of interest, because while a Republican might not be able to shake a few thousand votes loose in California, but they almost certainly could in a place like Wyoming. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2008, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/23 "2008-10-26T23:53:41Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Wyoming has **three** electorial votes, so the odds of it _ever_ being a factor in an election are pretty slim. Given that WY is going for McCain so heavily, folks voting for Obama might as well be voting for a third party for as much as their vote counts in the final election. If you want to “weight” the votes so that the small states are important, then there’s better ways of doing it. [http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre\_2004\_tot\_ele\_vot\_percap-total-electoral-votes-per-capita](http://www.statemaster.com/graph/pre_2004_tot_ele_vot_percap-total-electoral-votes-per-capita) Per capita, Wyoming get’s nearly four times as much representation in the elecoral collete as California, Florida, New York or Texas (About .6 votes per 100,000 people vs. about 0.15). ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/24 "2008-10-27T00:03:32Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > What’s good for Wyoming isn’t necessarily good for the country (and the reverse is also true, to some extent). Also, as I think should be well demonstrated by now, just because a slim majority in a given area happens to hold a particular belief, doesn’t mean that they’re _right._ No, but they are a majority. Your point is a curious one for someone arguing against the EC. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/25 "2008-10-27T00:03:50Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Keep the EC. It’s a nice compromise, one that acknowledges the very real state-specific interests, interests that would be ignored utterly with a straight popular vote. This is not so. If every vote matters, no matter where it is cast, then there is an incentive for candidates to seek votes everywhere. You use Wyoming as an example but there is no competition for the votes of Wyomingites because everyone knows the state’s electoral votes will go Republican. This was known long before candidates set their agenda or parties adopted their platforms. Because they don’t live in a swing state, Wyomingites are ignored. THAT is the effect of the EC. Now, certainly there are state issues that do get highlighted by the EC. but only if they concern swing states. (Steel tariffs in 2000 come to mind: Ohio-West Virginia-Pennsylvania.) What is the benefit to promoting the interests of those states over those of the rest of the nation? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/26 "2008-10-27T00:15:18Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > This is not so. If every vote matters, no matter where it is cast, then there is an incentive for candidates to seek votes everywhere. You use Wyoming as an example but there is no competition for the votes of Wyomingites because everyone knows the state’s electoral votes will go Republican. This was known long before candidates set their agenda or parties adopted their platforms. Because they don’t live in a swing state, Wyomingites are ignored. THAT is the effect of the EC. Without the EC, WY can rely on the Feds accommodating their wishes only if they coincidentally happen to match the large population centers, where most of the votes are. If Wyoming’s wishes contrast with California and New York, tough shit for them. No one will care, and ain’t no one going to spend any time or money worrying about them. The EC at least minimizes this. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/27 "2008-10-27T00:17:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No, but they are a majority. Your point is a curious one for someone arguing against the EC. Remember 2000? Gore won the popular vote, but lost the EC vote. The “majority” can be broken down in a number of different ways. Nor is the EC any protection against an “idiot majority.” _However_, by eliminating the EC, you rid yourself of the divisive arguments which crop up in such situations, thus better enabling folks to focus on the _real_ issues. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/28 "2008-10-27T00:23:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Without the EC, WY can rely on the Feds accommodating their wishes only if they coincidentally happen to match the large population centers, where most of the votes are. If Wyoming’s wishes contrast with California and New York, tough shit for them. No one will care, and ain’t no one going to spend any time or money worrying about them. The EC at least minimizes this. Not with only three electorial votes, they don’t. In 2004, Cheney became the _first_ candidate for national office to campaign in Hawaii, IIRC. Hawaii has only 1 more electorial vote than WY does. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/29 "2008-10-27T00:24:46Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Without the EC, WY can rely on the Feds accommodating their wishes only if they coincidentally happen to match the large population centers, where most of the votes are. If Wyoming’s wishes contrast with California and New York, tough shit for them. No one will care, and ain’t no one going to spend any time or money worrying about them. The EC at least minimizes this. No, it doesn’t. Nobody gives a shit about Wyoming anyway every four years. The only states that matter in presidential races are the ones that could go either way. New York and California are completely ignored by both people on each ticket, except for fundraising; nobody holds rallies there. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/30 "2008-10-27T00:25:32Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Without the EC, WY can rely on the Feds accommodating their wishes only if they coincidentally happen to match the large population centers, where most of the votes are. If Wyoming’s wishes contrast with California and New York, tough shit for them. No one will care, and ain’t no one going to spend any time or money worrying about them. The EC at least minimizes this. We are talking about local issues. Since they don’t affect the large population centers there is no reason people there need be opposed. On issues that affect everyone then everyone should have an equal say in who will handle them, right? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/31 "2008-10-27T00:30:13Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Remember Florida in 2000? Imagine if the entire country was within 0.1% and we had to do a nationwide recount. Florida was a problem in 2000 because their electoral laws were a mess. That’s hardly unusual with the current hodgepodge of often obscure and vague state and local election laws the US has. If we had efficient nationwide standards there would be no reason to fear a nationwide recount. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/32 "2008-10-27T00:50:41Z")
> [@hobscrk777](#): > > This goes back to the writing of the Constitution. Small states did not want to be shut out of the political process by the larger states, as would happen in a method of apportionment that considered solely population. That is why we have a bicameral legislature - the Senate gives all states an equal voice, while the House gives states a voice in proportion to their population. Its off topic but this is incorrect. Individual states were bicameral before 1787 and indeed the [Virginia Plan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan) called for bicameralism with proportional representation in both houses. This had been agreed to in the constitutional convention before being overriden by the Connecticut Compromise. Though they are not pertinent here, there are other reasons why Congress is bicameral. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/33 "2008-10-27T01:02:47Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Its off topic but this is incorrect. Individual states were bicameral before 1787 and indeed the [Virginia Plan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan) called for bicameralism with proportional representation in both houses. This had been agreed to in the constitutional convention before being overriden by the Connecticut Compromise. Though they are not pertinent here, there are other reasons why Congress is bicameral. As a fan of U.S. history, I’d be interested in hearing the other reasons. It seems to me, though, that my original point stands. As the Connecticut Compromise was inducted into the Constitution, doesn’t this show that the bicameral, dual-equal-representation and proportional-representation system we have was a result of the fears of the small states of being inconsequential and the desire of the large states to have a representative voice? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/34 "2008-10-27T01:35:00Z")
If you started a thread on bicameralism I would be willing to offer details as well as argue against that arrangement. Or for a book recommendation, I would suggest _The Upper House in Revolutionary America_ by Jackson Turner Main. I would say that your point is correct. However, it doesn’t answer **Grumman** ’s questions. He is asking why states should matter and not why they do. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/35 "2008-10-27T01:43:18Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Anyway, what say you: keep or get rid of the Electoral College? Keep ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/36 "2008-10-27T01:55:50Z")
So what you are saying is, with the electoral college, some people get to vote for their candidate twice while other people only get to vote once? ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/37 "2008-10-27T02:52:55Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Remember Florida in 2000? Imagine if the entire country was within 0.1% and we had to do a nationwide recount. I am not a fan of the idea that people who happen to live in smaller States deserve to be over-represented, but I think this is the question that advocates of abolition have to answer. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/38 "2008-10-27T02:59:52Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Keep the Electoral College as is, but require every state use proportional representation to award votes rather than winner-take-all. This can be done without amending the Constitution. If I’m reading it correctly, then you’re saying that if Ohio (which has 20 electoral votes) was split 60/40 in an election then the majority candidate would get 12 votes and the minority 8 votes. I think this is the best suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/39 "2008-10-27T03:00:57Z")
With the exception of the 2000 election the EC has worked OK, not well but OK. If you want to change the poltical landscape you’d need to change the Senate to proportional representation. It’s simply ludicrous that California and Wyoming have two senators each. But the equal representation does explain the undue influence of agriculture and mining influence in the Senate. Because states were not really carved to any future political boundary, at minimum we should start to divide the huge land states with huge populations, like Texas and California into more states, to give them more senators and make their sizes similar to eastern states ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670/40 "2008-10-27T03:01:23Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Remember Florida in 2000? Imagine if the entire country was within 0.1% and we had to do a nationwide recount. Since they didn’t even do a real recount in Florida, I can’t imagine it making much difference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-would-you-abolish-the-electoral-college-thread/469670.md?page=3)