Why does it still exist?
The Electoral College was created because the leaders at the time assumed that the general populace was not educated enough to vote for the president.
Well, we’re educated enough now, so why do we still have it?
I think the time has come for online voting AND direct popular voting.
Peace,
mangeorge
“If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything” Mark Twain 1894
Hmmm… call me cynical, but I don’t think the majority of the population is educated enough to vote for the next color in a bag of M&Ms, much less the leader of United States of America. Besides, it does make for a nice easy way to track who’s popular in what states. Online voting? I hope you’re kidding. The White House and CIA can’t keep their own websites from getting hacked, and you want to let online votes count?
“I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
Well, here’s one good reason as to why it still exists…
To change it would require a constitutional amendment, and thus it would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Since electoral votes are matched to the number of representatives/senators a state has, changing to a purely popular vote would reduce the election power of small states. There are enough small states to block the 3/4 requirement.
Not necessarily. The assumption you make in your statement, Undead Dude, is that each state has about the same voter turnout and the same percent of registered voters, which is not always the case. That is why a larger state like California, with its electoral votes, might reduce in voter turnout after it finds out one of the candidates will inevitably win, giving that state a stronger electoral power even though it had less turnout.
“[He] beat his fist down upon the table and hurt his hand and became so
further enraged… that he beat his fist down upon the table even harder and
hurt his hand some more.” – Joseph Heller’s Catch-22
Are you kidding? When was the last time you went to a fast food restaurant? I went to McDonald’s the other day and ordered some french fries. The kid behind the counter said “You want some fries with that?” (-Jay Leno)
A general vote looks to see which candidate is supported by more Americans. The Electoral College has a different function; it looks to see which candidate has a broader base of support.
The weakness of the Electoral College is that it allows a candidate to with with less than half of the popular votes. The strength of the Electoral College is that although the winning candidate has less than half the votes, he will have more than half the states (weighted by population).
He is an example I had wondered about for years. Under the Electoral College system, candidate A can win with just 51% of the electoral votes. That can happen by getting 51& of the popular vote in those specific states, and no votes at all in the other states. In other words, by getting 26% of the popular vote, a candidate can theoretically capture most of the electoral votes.
Even the smallest states have at leat 3 electoral votes, giving the voters of those states a disprportionately strong voice in the Electoral College. Going over the figures from the 1996 election, I found that if a candidate would concentrate on the smallest states, and would be satisfied with getting 51% of the votes in them, he could become President with only 23.5% of the popular vote.
In actual practice, however, this is not going to happen.
“If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything” Mark Twain 1894
I’ve heard proposals to increase voter turnout by making election day a national holiday. It’s not a bad idea, I think. Aside from eliminating the excuse of having to work, it would infuse the act of voting with even greater symbolic value (although it’s sad that the symbolic value of voting needs shoring up). If nothing else, it might shame people into going to the polls, since that would be the ostensible reason for their holiday. Hell, it makes more sense than Columbus Day.
While it is possible for the person without the most popular votes to be elected president (and has happened 3 times), it is unlikely to happen now.
The last time it occurred was in 1888, when Harrison beat Cleveland. However, that was still close enough to Civil War times and few , if any Southerners, were going to vote Republican. However, the industrial north, which had more electoral votes, went for Harrison, but not as overwhelmingly.
Unless a political issue comes up that divides the country into regional disputes, the 1888 scenario is unlikely.
The other two times a second-place candidate won was in 1824, when Adams beat out Jackson. No candidate got a majority in the electoral vote and Jackson won the popular vote, although not every state had regular voting procedures.
In 1876, Tilden had more popular votes than Hayes, but there was so much fraud in that election that the totals were quite suspect.
My first thought on this was: How often does an electoral college vote not mirror the popular vote in a state?
I can’t remember it being in the news anytime recently, so I’m thinking it happens very infrequently. I’ve read/heard that at least some states have specific laws that say that the electoral college votes are decided by the popular vote.
If this is the case, it sounds more like the issue is one of big/small states and power, not one of an educated populace. However educated or uneducated you say the population is, I think they are already deciding the election by popular vote.
I think it might really be useful to either have completely synchronized voting across the country or have a press blackout on the election until it was over.
That last bit would be tricky, given the first amendment and all. Maybe it could be wrapped into an amendment with the changing the electoral college into simple popular vote. Normally I don’t like rewriting the constitution (“Oh I’m an amendment to be, yes an amendment to be. And I’m hoping that they’ll ratify me.”), but I think this was one area where the forefathers had no way of predicting the shape of things to come.
I think you missed my point. My point was more about perception than specific statistics. Rhode Island gets 3 electoral votes. California gets 54. The population of Rhode Island is certainly less than 3/54ths of the population of California. So, how likely is it that Rhode Island is going to ratify an abolosihment of the electoral college? Not very. Also, by your example, a purely popular vote would tend to level out voter turnout, since a candidate would no longer “carry a state”.
<The Electoral College was created because the leaders at the time assumed that the general populace was not educated enough to vote for the president.> But when you think about it, don’t we have a president because the founding fathers believed that the populace wouldn’t know how to act without a king?
I would say if we’re looking for electoral reform, the place that needs work is the difficulty of getting on the ballot not the electoral college. I live in New York (admittedly one of the most difficult states for a candidate to get on the ballot) and the rules for becoming a candidate are so arcane and arbitrary that generally half the possible Presidential candidates aren’t on the ballot I see. This is true of both primaries and general elections.
>>I’ve heard proposals to increase voter turnout by making election day a national holiday. It’s not a bad idea, I think. Aside from eliminating the excuse of having to work, it would infuse the act of voting with even greater symbolic value (although it’s sad that the symbolic value of voting needs shoring up). If nothing else, it might shame people into going to the polls, since that would be the ostensible reason for their holiday. Hell, it makes more sense than Columbus Day.<< Mikael
My roommate told me that she always got school off for election day. She lives in New Jersey. Is this an east coast thing? I never got school off for elections, even since I’ve been old enough to vote. (I live in CA.)
I haven’t gotten Columbus Day since I was 7. People don’t really observe it anymore, do they?
The national holiday thing sure works in Israel. Wow, is this country insane when it comes to politics (other things too, but I won’t go there now). 80% of the general populace votes, and probably a large portion of the other 20% doesn’t vote because of reasons of principlel, not because they aren’t educated. Or it might just be cause politics is Israel’s national pasttime.
~Kyla
Manny states give kids the day off school on election day because they use schools as polling places and they don’t want a lot of unsupervised adults in the school at the same time the kiddies are.
PUN
Keeves, what you posted above about the Electoral College process was absolutely incorrect. For the love of the Union, please, oh please, read the Constitution.
If that’s too much for you, then you can at least check the Electoral College’s own web site: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/ec-hmpge.html .
The current system does allow someone, such as Mr. clinton, to be elected President although he received LESS than 51% of the so-called popular vote in one election.
So what’s the consensus here? Should we change the system, or leave it as it is?
Personally, I think a carfully considered reform would be good.
A few points to think about;
Any other ideas?
Peace,
mangeorge
I have a question along the “my vote doesn’t count” lines:
While a U.S. citizen living overseas can vote by absentee ballot, if s/he doesn’t have a permanent residence in the U.S., how does the absentee vote count toward an electoral college vote?
Since they still have to pay income tax, wouldn’t this qualify as taxation without representation?
History major. Heed at your own risk.
It’s been a long time since the Electoral vote didn’t match the same result in the popular vote, and it’s unlikely it would ever happen again. The electoral vote only exaggerates the strength of the winning candidate; you may get 51% of the vote, but 68% of the electoral vote, for instance.
What the electoral vote does do is make it important for the candidate to visit states where the election is close, and to heed their concerns. If you lose, say, Pennsylvania, by a thousand popular vote, you can make it up easily elsewhere. If you lose all of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes in a close race, you’re in a hole. So the candidate spends more time in Pennsylvania to make sure he gets that extra thousand votes.
It’s been a long time since the Electoral vote didn’t match the same result in the popular vote, and it’s unlikely it would ever happen again. The electoral vote only exaggerates the strength of the winning candidate; you may get 51% of the vote, but 68% of the electoral vote, for instance.
What the electoral vote does do is make it important for the candidate to visit states where the election is close, and to heed their concerns. If you lose, say, Pennsylvania, by a thousand popular vote, you can make it up easily elsewhere. If you lose all of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes in a close race, you’re in a hole. So the candidate spends more time in Pennsylvania to make sure he gets that extra thousand votes.