# Electoral College Outlived its Time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788 "2011-04-26T17:56:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/21 "2011-04-26T20:23:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **ads95** :That’s actually an argument _against_ the Electoral College, not for it. There will always be some votes that are in dispute; what you want to avoid is having the election hinge on those disputed votes. What we saw in 2000 _was_ effectively that multiplied to all 50 states, since the relatively small number of disputed votes in Florida was enough to swing the entire election. That would be much, much rarer in a system based on the national vote total. Bingo. The closest election we’ve ever had with respect to popular vote was Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, with a difference of about 112,000 votes. In Florida, one of our largest states, in 2000, the final difference was 537 votes, and at most a few thousand votes were being debated. Extrapolate that to the entire country, at the same ratio of votes in question to total population, and you’d get maybe 50K votes in question nationwide. That wouldn’t have been enough to reverse the popular vote outcome in Kennedy-Nixon, let alone Gore-Bush where the difference was over a half-million votes. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/22 "2011-04-26T20:25:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No reason? I am a strong federalist, and prefer states to retain more autonomy. That’s a perfectly valid reason. I’m a strong federalist too, but I don’t see where the EV compact affects the distribution of power between the federal government and the states. Changing (or abolishing) the EV changes the mode of election of one officer of the federal government, not the powers of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/23 "2011-04-26T20:30:21Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I think I need more words. I know what a faithless elector is, but not what point your making. In the run-up to the 2000 voting, the Bush people were concerned about the reverse of what actually happened - that they would win the popular vote, but lose in the EC. They were planning to argue to electors that they should change their votes to give the election to Bush who really deserved it, since he won the popular vote. You don’t want a system that can be gamed that way. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/24 "2011-04-26T20:33:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > In the run-up to the 2000 voting, the Bush people were concerned about the reverse of what actually happened - that they would win the popular vote, but lose in the EC. They were planning to argue to electors that they should change their votes to give the election to Bush who really deserved it, since he won the popular vote. > > You don’t want a system that can be gamed that way. I agree that thats a flaw with the electoral college. I don’t see what it has to do with the post Frank quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/25 "2011-04-26T20:35:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not sure there are any left where you could get a faithless elector. Certainly there are. There are 50 of them, plus D.C. This whole compact thing is based on the idea that a state law can control a Presidential elector’s vote. That is not so. > [@](#): > > Even if places still allow it the electors are chosen by their party for their faithfulness to the party. > [@Simplicio](#): > > I think I need more words. I know what a faithless elector is, but not what point your making. Right. One does not vote for a Presidential candidate, one votes for a slate of electors, currently (as **Whack-a-Mole** mentions) chosen for their faithfulness to the party. In a compact situation, one would be voting for a slate of electors not tied to either party, but instead one that is supposed to vote for whoever won the national popular vote. Since states cannot order their electors to vote a certain way, and the element of party faithfullness is gone, there’s a great opportunity for craziness. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/26 "2011-04-26T20:48:37Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > In a compact situation, one would be voting for a slate of electors not tied to either party, but instead one that is supposed to vote for whoever won the national popular vote. Since states cannot order their electors to vote a certain way, and the element of party faithfullness is gone, there’s a great opportunity for craziness. The electors will still be those nominated by the party who won the popular vote. So they won’t be any more or less likely to be faithless then is currently the case, they’ll be the same “party faithful” as always. Plus if someone wins the popular vote, then they probably won a few states outside the compact as well, so chances are there will be a sizable “buffer” of electors voting for the popular vote winner should a few go rouge. And the number of electoral votes in the Compact are unlikely to be exactly 270, so there to there will be a buffer against faithless electors. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/27 "2011-04-26T20:57:59Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Plus if someone wins the popular vote, then they probably won a few states outside the compact as well, so chances are there will be a sizable “buffer” of electors voting for the popular vote winner should a few go rouge. And the number of electoral votes in the Compact are unlikely to be exactly 270, so there to there will be a buffer against faithless electors. And that’s most likely true, and that’s what we’d have to hope for. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/28 "2011-04-26T21:05:24Z")
For all the talk of the horrific nature of having a President not be directly elected by the entire country, how many Western democracies actually elect their Head of Government that way? Any Westminster system does not, and those systems often have men in power who would not win a straight up and down popular vote (David Cameron, for example.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/29 "2011-04-26T21:06:26Z")
As for that Interstate Compact, I think it’d work right up until the day it would result in New York or California being forced to give their ECs to a Republican (which it would have done in 2004, for example.) ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/30 "2011-04-26T21:23:24Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > And that’s most likely true, and that’s what we’d have to hope for. You still make it sound like there would be more of a risk under the compact. There wouldn’t be. The electors would be hyper-partisan hacks the same as always. Close elections requiring electors to be faithful are possible under the current system. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > As for that Interstate Compact, I think it’d work right up until the day it would result in New York or California being forced to give their ECs to a Republican (which it would have done in 2004, for example.) Once the compact is in place, nobody will care about electoral votes any more. The campaign and the election night coverage will be all popular vote, all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/31 "2011-04-26T21:28:14Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Once the compact is in place, nobody will care about electoral votes any more. The campaign and the election night coverage will be all popular vote, all the time. With such a powerful crystal ball I suggest you make yourself a fortune in the futures market. The moment the first election came about where it looked like liberal states would be forced into voting for George Bush of the 2050s they’ll break out of the compact. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/32 "2011-04-26T21:31:19Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > As for that Interstate Compact, I think it’d work right up until the day it would result in New York or California being forced to give their ECs to a Republican (which it would have done in 2004, for example.) Why wouldn’t it work then? As **Freddy** says, no ones really going to care about the distribution of EVs if the Compact passes. Plus state legislatures suck up and deal with having to assign Electors to the opposite party all the time under the current system. Florida’s GOP dominated legislature sent Obama electors to the College in 2008 while New Mexicos Dem controlled state legislator did the same for Bush in '04. Technically, the State legislature could change the rules at the last minute to favor their guy regardless of what system is in place, but as a practical measure, they never do. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/33 "2011-04-26T21:32:12Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > With such a powerful crystal ball I suggest you make yourself a fortune in the futures market. > > The moment the first election came about where it looked like liberal states would be forced into voting for George Bush of the 2050s they’ll break out of the compact. You’re the one who thinks he has a crystal ball. We should implement the compact, then, and when we abandon it four years later you can point and laugh and say, “I told you so.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/34 "2011-04-26T21:45:47Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Why wouldn’t it work then? As **Freddy** says, no ones really going to care about the distribution of EVs if the Compact passes. Plus state legislatures suck up and deal with having to assign Electors to the opposite party all the time under the current system. Florida’s GOP dominated legislature sent Obama electors to the College in 2008 while New Mexicos Dem controlled state legislator did the same for Bush in '04. > > Technically, the State legislature could change the rules at the last minute to favor their guy regardless of what system is in place, but as a practical measure, they never do. I said it wouldn’t work because big states would rebel the moment they clearly favored one candidate but the compact forced them to vote against that candidate. Saying people will not care about distribution of EVs is absolutely incorrect. This will be an immense change to how we pick the President. It will be covered by the news 24/7/365 probably for two years running up to the election. Every station from Fox News to PBS will cover what the break down _would have been_ under the old system. State legislatures now certainly do not have to “suck up giving their EVs to the other guy.” Firstly, they have by and large given up any control over EVs, and instead gave it to _state popular vote_. That is fundamentally different from the state legislatures giving up that power to _national popular vote_. The reason being is simple. One way or the other State legislatures had better respect the overwhelming popular vote of their State. Even if the legislatures just select electors directly, if they selected individuals who were supremely unpopular, the State legislature would lose its job. With giving the vote over to State electoral vote, the legislatures were basically removing something that had the potential to make them unpopular at the State level (the only level that matters for State legislators.) By giving the vote over to national electoral vote, you would have say, the California democratic party going fucking ape shit the moment all of California’s EVs went to a Republican. California is a majority Democrat state, they would probably have a majority Democrat legislature. Backed by mass popular support the legislature would remove itself from the compact and that would be the end of it. As for technically being able to change things at the last minute, that isn’t really the case. Every State I’m aware of elections have to be sorted out well in advance and there are timelines as to when statutory changes can apply to upcoming elections. These are sometimes hard coded into State constitutions are are precedent set in State Supreme Courts. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/35 "2011-04-26T21:47:24Z")
Of course no one has a very compelling reason for _why_ we need to change at all. As I said earlier I can’t even think of any major Western countries that directly elects their Head of Government, our system is probably the most direct of any. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/36 "2011-04-26T21:55:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **ads95** :That’s actually an argument _against_ the Electoral College, not for it. There will always be some votes that are in dispute; what you want to avoid is having the election hinge on those disputed votes. What we saw in 2000 _was_ effectively that multiplied to all 50 states, since the relatively small number of disputed votes in Florida was enough to swing the entire election. That would be much, much rarer in a system based on the national vote total. I’m not so sure. [Since 1900](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin), it’s true that only three elections have been decided by a difference of less than 1% of the popular vote. But, and this is a big thing, there have been \*five other \*elections where the winner got less than 50% of the popular vote. That’s more than one-third of elections where a small swing in the national vote would have changed the result. With a state-based electoral vote, manipulating the vote in even a large electoral state like Texas would only have a limited effect on the national trend. And, at least in theory, using human electors instead of a strictly mathematical calculation, cuts both ways. While they could be influenced by the powers that be to cast a crooked vote, they could also be the last stand against widespread vote-stealing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/37 "2011-04-26T21:55:53Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Certainly there are. There are 50 of them, plus D.C. This whole compact thing is based on the idea that a state law can control a Presidential elector’s vote. That is not so. Apparently states can compel electors. > [@](#): > > Twenty-four states have laws to punish faithless electors.[1] While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of the state’s right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, as well as to remove electors who refuse to pledge. Once the elector has voted, their vote can only be changed in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, where votes other than those pledged are rendered invalid. However, in all twenty-four states, a faithless elector may only be punished after he or she votes. The Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. > > To date, there has been only one occasion when faithless electors prevented an expected winner from winning the electoral college vote: in December 1836, twenty-three faithless electors prevented the expected candidate from winning the Vice-Presidency; however, this candidate was promptly elected Vice-President by the Senate in February 1837. Therefore, faithless electors have never changed the expected final outcome of the entire election process. > > SOURCE: [Faithless elector - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) As that page notes faithless electors have never overturned an election and clearly in recent times (last 60 years) they are so rare as to not amount to any concern. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/38 "2011-04-26T22:10:08Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Of course no one has a very compelling reason for _why_ we need to change at all. Because we have an election in which a candidate with fewer votes can defeat a candidate with more votes. That’s wrong. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > As I said earlier I can’t even think of any major Western countries that directly elects their Head of Government, our system is probably the most direct of any. Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Korea, taiwan. The important thing is, of those countries that **do** elect their President, _none except the United States_ structures the election such that a candidate with fewer votes can defeat a candidate with more votes. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/39 "2011-04-26T22:23:45Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Because we have an election in which a candidate with fewer votes can defeat a candidate with more votes. That’s wrong. Well, as wrongs go, is it that big a deal? So the 49.6% candidate loses to the 49.1% candidate. The number of annoyed, disappointed people is about the same. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788/40 "2011-04-26T22:36:22Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > I’m a strong federalist too, but I don’t see where the EV compact affects the distribution of power between the federal government and the states. Changing (or abolishing) the EV changes the mode of election of one officer of the federal government, not the powers of the federal government. Yeah, I forgot. The president is just one guy. No big deal. :dubious: And it’s not only about the powers per se, but how they are used operationally. Smaller states would get much less say in how those powers are used to affect public policy. > [@](#): > > Because we have an election in which a candidate with fewer votes can defeat a candidate with more votes. That’s wrong. No, it’s not. The team with the most games wins the World Series, not the team with the most home runs over the series. There is nothing inherently wrong about an electoral system that is weighted in favor of states instead of voters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-outlived-its-time/579788.md?page=3)