That is a very good and compelling arguement!
We exist, and we were set up as a “federation” of individual soverign states with a “federal” government, not a national government.
If we did not have an electoral college, no one would campaign in half of the states, the big cities would get all the attention, and we would end up being another Canada. Those that dont like the electoral college, should just go to Canada.
I’ve often heard it said that the Electoral College is working just the way it was supposed to work, whether the person expressing that opinion feels it’s worth keeping or not. But the fact is that the Electoral College does not work the way it was supposed to work, and never really has.
The idea was that people couldn’t be trusted to vote for wise, competent men, so they would instead vote for wise, competent men from each state who would then elect the president. Right from the start, the states started toying with the system. Virginia, concerned that James Madison’s campaign might be hampered by fractious support in his home state, decided to become the first winner-take-all state, with the majority winner of that state getting to select all the electors. In effect, the dreaded “mob” was getting to choose the men who chose the president, despite President Jefferson’s fear of that happening. Worse, there was no room left for the minority voice in Virginia. Worse still, we were still stuck with the disproportionate representation aspect, in which smaller states got more heavily weighted electoral votes than the larger states.
Over the years, more states shifted over to the winner-take-all policy until, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, Maine and Nebraska are the only two remaining states that could split their electors (even though I don’t think this has happened in either state this century.)
Time was, in many states you’d vote not for a presidential candidate but for the electors themselves, which urged the splitting of states’ votes. I know they still did this in Mississippi as recently as 1948; I don’t know of any cases where this was done any later.
I have to disagree with President Jefferson’s distrust of the American voters. While we’re not on the whole the best-informed bunch, I do feel we can be trusted to elect a president by majority vote, instead of our current, archaic system built on distrust of human judgement.
But candidates already ignore more than half the states. Very populous states like New York, California, Texas, Massachusetts, New Jersey—all are habitually ignored during presidential campaigns, just like not-so-populous states like Rhode Island, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii and Kansas. Do you remember Bush or Gore stopping anywhere in the Dakotas during the 2000 election? They might have, once or twice, but those states were pretty much passed over for neighboring Iowa and Minnesota, which aren’t exactly packed with electoral votes, but were on the fence.
With no Electoral College, candidates would concentrate on winning voters over, not just on covering their margins in certain key states. Without the Electoral College, candidates would most likely not spend their time in the rural areas or the urban areas, but in the suburbs—like they do now—because that’s where most swing votes are found. But with no Electoral College, candidates would have to hit more suburbs, and thus get more exposure to voters.
As to moving to Canada: no, thanks. I care about my country too much to let it go downhill without any intervention. However, if you don’t like the concept of the loyal opposition, you’re free to leave. Please shred your passport upon expatriation. Thank you.
Chance:
“The idea was that people couldn’t be trusted to vote for wise, competent men”
This was certainly part of it, but there was also a strong distrust of a centralized governement. The states wanted to be considered co-equal partners, and not get railroaded by the “tyrany of the majority”. For that reason, I can still buy into the EC even today. I’m for just about anything that will limit the authority of the Federal Gov’t over states (except in areas of national defense and the strict interpretation of the constitution).
The number of fraudulent votes is unlimited, so it can swing a state’s popular vote from one candidate’s column to the other’s. But with an Electoral College, that swing can affect only that state’s electoral votes, no matter how many fraudulent votes are in play; it can affect the national outcome only if the contest in the Electoral College is already close. Without an Electoral College, any state can theoretically manufacture enough fraudulent votes to swing the whole election at the national level, whether the vote is close or not.
I don’t quite understand the argument that the votes of the residents of small states deserve to count more simply because their state is less populous. Does living in a less populous state really put one at such a disadvantage that one’s vote should count more? If we are going to give certain groups extra representation because of disadvantages, wouldn’t it be more just to give the extra representation to groups that are genuinely disadvantaged?
Chris:
This analogy isn’t perfect, but think about it in relation to your question. Do countries in the UN get votes proportional to their population? No. Because each Nation is an entity that joins the UN voluntarily as some sort of cohesive unit. That’s how the US was formed. Admittedly a tighter union than the UN, but not just a country that got carved up into states so that map makers had something to do.
That’s true for the original states, but it doesn’t seem that it would apply to all the additional states that were just carved out of territories.
Susanann:
Even assuming that these fears came true, I don’t really see the problem. First of all, it seems to me that small states would still maintain a voice in the selection of candidates. Presumably the abolition of the electoral college would not also lead the parties to have one giant nationwide primary. Second, the election of the president by popular vote would not mean that less-populated areas would go unrepresented in the federal government. Congress would continue to exist. The purpose of the executive branch is not to be representative of the country as a whole. That is the job of the legislative branch.
Chris:
Not sure why you assume that the newer states are all that different. They all joined, one at a time. Think about it this way: would a relatively new and small state like Wyoming ratify an amendment to the constitution to eliminate the EC? If not now, why would they have thought differently when they joined the Uniion?
“The purpose of the executive branch is not to be representative of the country as a whole. That is the job of the legislative branch.” You lost me there. What do you mean by “represtnative of the country as a whole”? Why is it OK for the Senate to exit for the states equally, but not the presidency?
Isn’t it the other way around? Congress collectively represents the whole nation, but each individual member represents a single state or local constituency. The President represents the whole nation, hopefully transcending the local and regional interests that play out in Congress.
I’ve just pulled the Census 2000 numbers to get a better idea of the impact of a straight popular vote for president. The following ten, yes TEN states would be the recipient of the presidential aspirant’s time, money and energy:
California
Texax
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
New Jersey
A candidate concentrating his campaign promises in these states could then disregard the legitimate interests of the 40 other states. Granted, this is an extreme-case hypothetical, but the point is that the Founding Fathers did not want government (or tyranny) by majority vote. The distribution of powers in our representative republic have actually stood the test of time quite well. Bear in mind that Clinton was elected twice despite a majority voting for other candidates.
I just want to mention a term that nobody else seems to want to use. That term is State Rights.
[sup]Sorry for not giving more details, but it is time for bed.[/sup]
NaSultianne—Ehm… well, with the Electoral College, during the 2000 presidential campaign, the states of California, Texas, New York, Georgia and New Jersey were effectively ignored. Both campaigns didn’t figure they were worth the effort, since the sentiments within those states were already leaning toward one candidate or the other, and in vast majorities. All five of those states, though, did have significant populations that would have liked to have received some attention from the candidates, but didn’t get it, since the Electoral College rendered campaigning in their states pointless.
On the other hand, the states of Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan were viewed as on the fence, and thus got attention. However, many states that were not in the top ten of the U.S. population got attention, since they were also viewed as on the fence: New Hampshire, Tennessee, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, West Virginia…
Face it: the Electoral College discourages a candidate’s visiting the populations of potential voters located in states that that candidate couldn’t possibly win. Electoral College or no, candidates would still ignore places where they were either the presumed winner or where they had no chance.
And as to the fact that Clinton was elected with less than 50% of the vote: so what? Roughly half the presidential elections in American history were decided this way. What difference does this make?
John Mace—I don’t actually see this as a matter of the federal government’s control, though. We have elections to determine who’s going to be the governor of a state, based on standards determined by that state. Why not have the president of the country determined by a national standard? I agree that states should maintain more control over states’ affairs, but this is a presidential election, which is a national affair.
One of the main selling points of the Electoral College was to give smaller states a larger voice, so that there’d be some diminishing of states’ perception of individual sovereignty. It’s considerably less likely that states will want to break away these days, particularly since the United States has turned into more of a unified political culture. The Electoral College does nothing to help minority voices, since it squelches the efficacity of third-party campaigns.
I would agree that states should have the power vested in them by the Electoral College if it were mandatory for state governments to pass every decision concerning national policy. But since national laws are passed by the federal government, consigning the power to elect the federal government to party-appointed state electors doesn’t really make much sense.
Further: if popular election of the president is a “tyrrany of the majority,” why is it that the election of most governors and congresspeople by majority vote not a tyrrany of the majority?
Chance:
You made some very good points. And I agree that any electoral system will end up with some populatin centers being ignored because the condidates know they don’t have much chance. Unless you went to a parliamentary system or a system of proportional representation.
And one does have to wonder why you would have governors of states elected in a different way than the president. The EC was a product of it’s times, and an integral part of the constitution. I’m VERY hesitant to change the constitution and I think it was a great idea to make it VERY hard to do so. Having said that, I’d probably not lose too much sleep if we canned the EC. I see it, as much as anything, more symbolic of “states rights” than substantive these days.
And as several of us have poste earlier, the EC has, for all practical purposes, zero probability of being eliminated. Too many small states out there that would lose.
Anyway, this was a nice intellectual exercise. Now, let’s see who can kick some ass today in San Diego!!!
**John Mace—**Well, if a symbol has no practical purpose, and if it does more harm than good, I don’t see much point in keeping it around. I don’t agree with its being a symbol of states’ rights, though; I see it more as a symbol of the compromises that were necessary to get this country off the ground in the early days. Elimination of the Electoral College isn’t an elimination of states’ rights, though. It’s just the elimination of the Electoral College.
Every time the Electoral College is brought up, invariably there are many people who argue that because it would be difficult to get rid of it, we shouldn’t get rid of it. This is defeatist thinking, and it’s not even logical. Cancer is going to be difficult to get rid of, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
My money’s on Oakland. Literally. Not a lot, but there it is. I’m really pleased with the all-pirate Super Bowl, too. I was hoping for an all-Pennsylvania Super Bowl, but this current setup is much cooler.
If you want to argue for the EC, how about using the fact that it makes everyone’s vote more relevant, or so says Alan Natapoff in Discover Magazine:
**Look up “Math Against Tyranny” in Discover’s archive if you’re inclined to read it. It shows how the EC clearly is a superior system to a simple plurality.
If you require more convincing, try looking up “May the Best Man Lose,” from the Discover “recent issues” archive (November 2000), which shows how a simple plurality, which is generally the recommended replacement of the EC, is an extremely flawed system for selecting candidates:
**Stick with the EC because it is far superior to the generally recommended alternatives.
Chance:
I never meant to imply that we shouldn’t get rid of something just because it would be hard to do. Talk to me about taxes sometime if you want to see me tilting at windmills. If you believe passionately in getting rid of it I say GO gor it! For me, it’s just much lower on the priority list of things I would fight for (figuratively speaking). And it’s one of those things that I can see plusses and minusses, with the plusses just slightly outweighing the minusses.
I’d be interested in seeing a poll on this issue. I’m not really sure how it would come out. It might be more interesting to see how many people even know that we DON’T elect the president by popular vote.
As for today, I think your money is safe. Mine, too. Good luck!
Recently on Book TV, there was an author who had written a book on the EC. Her explaination for the EC had nothing to do with giving the small states an extra advantage. According to her the problem back then was that there were only two persons that were well known in all of the colonies. The two were: George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. It was impracticable, under the prevailing conditions, to think that anyone could campaign in all the colonies. The answer to the problem was to set up the EC. Delegates that were well known in their respective colonies would be elected. They then would attend the EC and listen to and get to know the candidates. Then they could make an “educated” vote (at least that was the reasoning).
I don’t believe there was any intent to make the process democratic, since only male property owners could vote. In determining the number of delegates there was an advantage given to the slave states since they were able to count slaves (each slave counted as something like 1/2), but of course the slaves couldn’t vote.
Sitting out here overlooking several acres of cotton fields, I do not like the idea of replacing the EC with a straight popular vote. That would favor the large urban areas, plus I believe there is such a thing as the “Tyranny of the Masses”.
Those from larger states may think it is unfair, but from this vantage point it is something worth holding onto. It may be hard to get rid of the EC, but it would be impossible to get it back. So, it would seem that a compromise is the best answer and I haven’t heard any, just “Let’s do away with the EC.” 
I’ve never understood why people defend the EC on the grounds that without it, candidates wouldn’t campaign in the small states. As Chance pointed out, this isn’t actually the case. But even if it were, I’d have to say, so what? Does anyone actually care where the candidates go to make speeches, announcements, etc? No matter where they are, whatever they say or do is reported all who care to pay attention by the media.
When deciding which candidate to support, why would anyone give any consideration to where he did or didn’t campaign? Seems to me you decide on the basis of his stands on the issues.
If the position is that the EC insures that candidates will pay attention to the needs of the small states, I don’t think that’s the case either. This makes the presumption that there are things wanted by the small states that are not wanted by the big states, and vice versa. I don’t think this is the case. I can’t think of anything – unless you believe that the small states are all conservative and the large states liberal. I don’t think that’s the case.
I think the important confict isn’t large state vs. small state, it’s two other things: rural vs. urban vs. suburban, and right wing vs. left wing.
I think we should scrap the EC. But we probably won’t, because the small states will never give up the advantage it confirs on them. If we can’t get rid of it, perhaps we can get the states to ditch its “winner take all” aspect, and apportion the electors according to the breakdown of the voting.
I agree that it’s a mistake to award victory to a candidate who only won by a plurality of votes. Anytime the candidate with the most votes gets less then 51% of the votes, a runoff should be held. Alternative: IRV (Instant Runoff Voting).
P.S. If we did scrap the EC, I’d say we should still count the votes state by state, then add up the totals. If one state has a Florida-style mess, that one state can be re-counted. We don’t want to have to have a nationwide recount.
I would make these changes to Section One of your suggested amendment:
Section One. The President and the Vice President shall be chosen by the popular vote of all American citizens who are legally allowed to vote in their home state under their respective state’s eligibility laws. The Secretary of State shall certify the election of the President, and of the Vice President, on a showing that he received a plurality of valid votes constituting at least fifty per centum plus one of the valid votes cast and that he was the candidate receiving the most votes in at least twenty-six states.
To specify age 18 woould prevent any state from enacting their own legislation of lowering the voting age in that state. The 26th Amendment currently does not prohibit any state for lowering the voting age but it does prohibit all states from raising the voting age.
(Personally, I would prefer raising the voting age back to 21, but that’s for another thread.)
As for the pluality issue, I think we need the 50 percent plus one votes and at least 26 states. Anything less would change the time honored concept of a majority vote.