# Electoral college **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2010, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435 "2010-03-14T10:24:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/21 "2010-03-14T18:27:59Z")
Quoth **wedgehed** : > [@](#): > > A pure majority vote would allow candidates to campaign exclusively towards the most populous cities or states to the detriment of everyone else. The Electoral College levels the playing field a bit so that the rest of the country can’t be ignored. So politicians would be catering to the majority, while neglecting the minority. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be all about? By contrast, in our current position, they cater to those states that happen to have a close-to-even mix of the two parties, and neglect everyone else. Quoth **RealityChuck** : > [@](#): > > They do if the states are in play. Three electoral votes of Montana are out of proportion to their population, so it’s worthwhile to campaign there. However all of the smaller states favor one party strongly (four are strongly Republican and one is strongly Democratic), so campaigning there is not important (if you’re going to win or lose a state, you don’t visit). I’m not sure if you were including Montana in the “small states” (there are seven single-Representative states, not five, and six smaller than Montana), but we’re not as solidly red as many folks think (both of our Senators and our Governor are Democrats), and Obama did in fact campaign a little here. Not nearly as much as Iowa or Florida, of course (both of which were more plausible wins and which have more electoral votes), but some. In fact, commentators say that Obama’s “50 state strategy” was one of the key factors in his victory: By making at least some effort to appeal to all 50 states, he forced the Republicans to spread out resources to defend everywhere, too (of course this strategy was dependent on Obama and the Democrats having more money available than McCain and the Republicans). ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/22 "2010-03-14T20:48:24Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **wedgehed** :So politicians would be catering to the majority, while neglecting the minority. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be all about? By contrast, in our current position, they cater to those states that happen to have a close-to-even mix of the two parties, and neglect everyone else. You can switch terminology quite accurately to make the opposing case. The U.S. isn’t a democracy in any true form and isn’t set up as one. It is a constitutional republic and the electoral college reflects that. I think that is a good thing but that is really more for Great Debates. I am not sure why the OP thinks few people are aware of the Electoral College either unless he or she is extremely young or foreign. Bad journalism based around it wasted a significant chunk of all our time in 2000. There were some legitimate academic studies done after that fiasco that determined that a system like an electoral college increases individual voter power rather than decreasing it. I could give cites but this thread seems to basic for that level of detail so far. ---
**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:** [March 14, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/23 "2010-03-14T22:28:53Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I am not sure why the OP thinks few people are aware of the Electoral College either unless he or she is extremely young or foreign. I think that there is a sizeable chunk of the electorate who, although they might be aware that the EC exists, couldn’t explain exactly what it is. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/24 "2010-03-14T23:17:45Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > You can switch terminology quite accurately to make the opposing case. The U.S. isn’t a democracy in any true form and isn’t set up as one. It is a constitutional republic and the electoral college reflects that. The United States quite certainly is a democracy. It also happens to be a constitutional republic in which representatives are voted on by the people - one of the many ways you can set up a democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/25 "2010-03-14T23:53:45Z")
> [@Sigene](#): > > This sentence confuses me. I’ve never voted for an elector to the electoral college. Could you clarify what you mean by that sentence. Well then you have never voted in a presidential election. All votes in presidential elections are for one or another slate of electors. True, this is usually hidden from the voters, but it is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/26 "2010-03-15T00:25:20Z")
> [@](#): > > There were some legitimate academic studies done after that fiasco that determined that a system like an electoral college increases individual voter power rather than decreasing it. I could give cites but this thread seems to basic for that level of detail so far. …For some definitions of “power”, at least. When they say that the Electoral College increases the power of voters, what they mean is that it increases the chance that the election will be decided by a single vote, or a very small number of them. We’ve seen what happens when an election is decided by a small number of votes (Florida Bush vs. Gore, Minnesota Franken vs. Coleman), and it’s not pretty. Now picture the chaos that would have ensued if the margin were literally a single vote: That’s what you get when an individual voter “exercises power”. ---
**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:** [March 15, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/27 "2010-03-15T02:37:20Z")
In 16 elections since 1844 (including three of the last five) no presidential candidate won a majority of the popular vote. Without the EC or some other system that wasn’t pure vote count, we’d wind up with a lot more elections winding up decided by the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court (Bush/Gore), a highly suspect electoral commission (Hayes/Tilden) or something even more nefarious. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/28 "2010-03-15T03:41:09Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > The main argument to get rid of it, is that it would force the candidates to campaign in EVERY state. As it stands, I live in Illinois which went overwhelmingly for Mr Obama. So he didn’t do any campaigning here. > > As a result my take on him was much less, 'cause I never got to hear any of his campaign. I don’t entirely understand this. It’s not as though “hearing any of his campaign” required his coming to your state. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/29 "2010-03-15T03:45:44Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > I don’t entirely understand this. It’s not as though “hearing any of his campaign” required his coming to your state. Right, there are specials, debates, the candidates websites, national TV (cable shows) and even YouTube. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/30 "2010-03-15T04:21:44Z")
And of course Illinoisians were at least partly familiar with him already from his campaign for Senator just a few years before, though that wouldn’t apply to the other solid-color states. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/31 "2010-03-15T04:36:28Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > The main argument to get rid of it, is that it would force the candidates to campaign in EVERY state. As it stands, I live in Illinois which went overwhelmingly for Mr Obama. So he didn’t do any campaigning here. As a matter of fact, if the Electoral College were abolished it would lead to less campaigning, not more. Slightly more than 50% of the population of the United States is concentrated in 6 states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois) ([Cite](http://www.gdi-solutions.com/analysis/us_states.htm)). Why would a politician care about the paltry .32% of the population in Montana in light of that? They need only focus on the big states and depend on the general political leanings in the small ones to win. As it stands now politicians need to campaign in some of the smaller states, particularly the Republican candidate who typically faces the need to overcome the expected loss of California. A general popular vote will negate that particular situation to a large degree, which means that they won’t have any reason to care about smaller states at all. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/32 "2010-03-15T04:44:45Z")
> [@Uncertain](#): > > I don’t entirely understand this. It’s not as though “hearing any of his campaign” required his coming to your state. It’s not necessarily about the message. People get the impression that a candidate cares about them if the candidate visits their state. Your assertion is correct in every case, so why do candidates even bother campaigning? It’s because of the impression that a visit can make on the voters. By devoting some of their limited time to a state they appear to care about that state. Since people usually vote based upon their own interests, a candidate demonstrating an interest in their interests can garner more support by campaigning there. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/33 "2010-03-15T04:54:21Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > It’s not necessarily about the message. People get the impression that a candidate cares about them if the candidate visits their state. Your assertion is correct in every case, so why do candidates even bother campaigning? It’s because of the impression that a visit can make on the voters. > > By devoting some of their limited time to a state they appear to care about that state. Since people usually vote based upon their own interests, a candidate demonstrating an interest in their interests can garner more support by campaigning there. Sure, but the question wasn’t why candidates campaign the way they do. The question was about an argument for keeping the current system. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/34 "2010-03-15T04:55:49Z")
I responded to the question asked in my first post, in a oblique manner. The second post was a response to the specific objection that I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Uncertain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Uncertain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncertain)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/35 "2010-03-15T04:57:16Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Why would a politician care about the paltry .32% of the population in Montana in light of that? They need only focus on the big states and depend on the general political leanings in the small ones to win. If we went to a national majority vote, why would state boundaries matter at all? It seems to me that the size of your state wouldn’t matter. Other factors, like the population density, might matter. ---
**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:** [March 15, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/36 "2010-03-15T05:05:17Z")
Everyone hates the Electoral College because it seems intuitively “unfair”. Turns out our founding fathers were pretty smart guys. Before anyone weighs in on the evils of the EC I encourage them to read this article on [Math Against Tyranny](http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny) (a bit of mathematical rigor applied to the question). After reading it you may still decide you hate the EC but at least you will have a more informed take on it. Not to mention it is hard to keep holding the opinion the EC is awful after reading that. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/37 "2010-03-15T05:08:00Z")
State boundaries would still matter because the interests of New York, let’s say, are different than those of Pennsylvania. Funding is not based on popular vote. If states in general were ignored in favor of population concentration, the people of those states might be inclined to go for a candidate that specifically represents their interests as a whole rather than those of the biggest city. The political divisions matter. If a politician pandered to Philadelphia and not Pittsburgh, do you think that the voters in Pittsburgh would get excited about the possibility of getting the shaft? However, if a politician visits Pennsylvania, no matter where he goes, people across the state are more likely to appreciate his message and vote for him. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/38 "2010-03-15T15:40:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > …For some definitions of “power”, at least. When they say that the Electoral College increases the power of voters, what they mean is that it increases the chance that the election will be decided by a single vote, or a very small number of them. We’ve seen what happens when an election is decided by a small number of votes (Florida Bush vs. Gore, Minnesota Franken vs. Coleman), and it’s not pretty. Now picture the chaos that would have ensued if the margin were literally a single vote: That’s what you get when an individual voter “exercises power”. I’m not sure this is true. Given the closeness of the overall popular vote in 1960 and 2000, had there been no EC, then there likely would have been serious pressure for nationwide recounting. There would have been Florida-style procedures all over the country, wherever local returns suggested that one side or the other might be vulnerable. ---
**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:** [March 15, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/39 "2010-03-15T15:45:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Everyone hates the Electoral College because it seems intuitively “unfair”. I don’t hate the EC. I can’t be the only one. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435/40 "2010-03-15T15:52:57Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I’m not sure this is true. Given the closeness of the overall popular vote in 1960 and 2000, had there been no EC, then there likely would have been serious pressure for nationwide recounting. There would have been Florida-style procedures all over the country, wherever local returns suggested that one side or the other might be vulnerable. This would seem to be exactly the problem that Chronos was referring to. A full-country recount would take until the next election. It would paralyze and tear apart the country for months, as the Minnesota recount did. Even an imaginary magic perfect ballot system wouldn’t help, because then the qualifications of each voter would be torn apart. Less is more. Electors are known, discrete, and small scale. A proper count is always easy and quick. Faithlessness is the only issue, and that is comparatively trivial. Nothing scares me more than a nationwide recount. Why would anyone advocate that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college/532435.md?page=3)