# The U.S. Electoral College - What Should Be Done? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 22, 2018, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357 "2018-10-22T22:11:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/101 "2018-10-24T18:57:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > eschereal, if I understand your post correctly, you’re complaining that our government changes things up periodically. Personally, I think that’s one of it’s greatest strengths: the ability for the people, through elected officials, to steer it in a new direction. I don’t _want_ a government that’s locked into its way of doing things and totally ignores what the citizenry wants. No, I am irritated by what seem like near 180° turns. It makes no sense. I do not object to change _per se_, but the manner of it seems unhealthy. Frankly, I fail to see the value of a head-of-state. I think we could have a functional executive branch without a powerful chief executive. Cabinet officers can just manage their departments, and maybe have a person whose job it is to mediate disputes where departmental scopes overlap, but has no real power over the secretaries. The media reports elections like they are sporting events. Elections, media notwithstanding, look like big fucking games. Is that the way to run a stable country? ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/102 "2018-10-24T19:05:54Z")
I am in favor of abolishing it - after all, with every state voting on the same day, and the ability to count the votes quickly, you don’t have a lot of the problems the system would have had in the 1800s - but there needs to be a check on how the votes are counted. For example (and I bring this up whenever someone mentions the National Popular Vote Compact), what stops a state from passing a law saying that, between election day and the day after the elected president is inaugurated, the only “official” Presidential election results the state can issue are a count of the total number of votes cast and the name of the candidate receiving the most votes? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/103 "2018-10-24T19:08:52Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > . Nor was it that each Congressional district would get one electoral vote (with a couple left over in each state). Yes it was. You think it’s a coincidence that a state’s Electoral College votes is the same number as its Congressmen + Senators? The 3/5ths compromise was about slave states v free, senate and house representation was about small states v large. The Electoral College was mapped from the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/104 "2018-10-24T19:10:52Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > No, I am irritated by what seem like near 180° turns. It makes no sense. I do not object to change _per se_, but the manner of it seems unhealthy. > > Frankly, I fail to see the value of a head-of-state. I think we could have a functional executive branch without a powerful chief executive. Cabinet officers can just manage their departments, and maybe have a person whose job it is to mediate disputes where departmental scopes overlap, but has no real power over the secretaries. > > The media reports elections like they are sporting events. Elections, media notwithstanding, look like big fucking games. Is that the way to run a stable country? I agree that the executive branch has too much power, but that’s been wrested along the way; it hasn’t always been that way. The legistature could take some of that back, but probably won’t. That is more likely than abolishing the EC. You can reduce executive power through laws that don’t involved constitutional amendments. It’s hard to not take “I don’t like the EC”, and “Yeah, I don’t like there’s a President either!” and not take it as reactionary hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/105 "2018-10-24T19:17:58Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > I am in favor of abolishing it - after all, with every state voting on the same day, and the ability to count the votes quickly, you don’t have a lot of the problems the system would have had in the 1800s - but there needs to be a check on how the votes are counted. For example (and I bring this up whenever someone mentions the National Popular Vote Compact), what stops a state from passing a law saying that, between election day and the day after the elected president is inaugurated, the only “official” Presidential election results the state can issue are a count of the total number of votes cast and the name of the candidate receiving the most votes? I have trouble believing even a very partisan court upholding a law that keeps vote tallies secret. Knowing the vote count is at the heart of democracy. How could anyone ask for a recount with such a law? ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/106 "2018-10-24T19:46:43Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yes it was. You think it’s a coincidence that a state’s Electoral College votes is the same number as its Congressmen + Senators? The 3/5ths compromise was about slave states v free, senate and house representation was about small states v large. The Electoral College was mapped from the latter. I realize this. My point is that the 3/5 notion also needed to be embedded into the election of the President and not just the Congress. It couldn’t be embedded into a straight popular vote. The fact that they used Senators + Representatives was a presumably a convenience that has already been agreed upon in another context as well as a sop to the small states. But they needed some system like the Electoral College to make sure that the Northern States could not popularly outvote the Southern states. My contention is that the Electoral College was essentially racist in origin regardless of the exact details. Around the time of the Constitution, the seven Northern states had a white population of 1.24 million and a white + 3/5 Negro population of 1.27 million.\* The six slave states had a white population of 0.82 million and a white + 3/5 Negro population of 1.13 million. The Electoral College gave them roughly equal representation. Under the drafted constitution the seven Northern States got 33 Representatives and 47 Electoral votes to 30 and 42 for the South. Assuming age and gender distribution was the same, the North outvoted the south by about 50%, but it only had a 12% advantage in the Electoral College. (And oly a 10% advantage in the House.) - I think the Negro population was free at the time so would have counted as 1, but would have to check state-by-state. In any case the difference in numbers is small ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/107 "2018-10-24T19:58:48Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > But they needed some system like the Electoral College to make sure that the Northern States could not popularly outvote the Southern states. My contention is that the Electoral College was essentially racist in origin regardless of the exact details. I’m confused. Obama beat Romney by 5M votes and 126 electoral votes. If the EC is “essentially racist in origin”, as if that meant something today, then shouldn’t Obama have lost the EC regardless of of winning the popular vote, or at least won it by a _much_ smaller margin? If it was designed to be racist, it didn’t do a very good job, did it? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/108 "2018-10-24T20:05:07Z")
The 3/5ths, relative power of the states and the idea that ordinary people are bozos were all baked into the Electoral College. The EC has no more a racist heritage than any other part of the U.S. government. Which is a lot but no reason to single out the EC for abolishing. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/109 "2018-10-24T20:47:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The 3/5ths, relative power of the states and the idea that ordinary people are bozos were all baked into the Electoral College. The EC has no more a racist heritage than any other part of the U.S. government. Which is a lot but no reason to single out the EC for abolishing. Ordinary voters _are_ bozos. We see it over and over again. I would prefer to see the EC actually function the way the name implies. Convene and deliberate. Choose a president or retain the incumbent (if not term-limited). Even have the option of convening by petition, so that a seriously bad president could be ousted and replaced at any time. Then, impose a super-majority requirement, so, if they deadlock, it could go to a popular vote. Just, something other than what we are doing. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/110 "2018-10-24T23:07:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > What’s the alternative? Let the Speaker of the House run all those things? There would still be a massive shift in appointed officials and political direction of the government when control switched from one party to the other. that’s more or less what parliamentary systems do. One of the reasons that that works more effectively is because they don’t end up having a first past the post system. That means you can have more than two parties. I do think that one of the big problems we have is that we have only two parties, and that we have to choose one or the other. There are things of the republican platform that I agree with, but I have to weigh the concerns, and on the whole, I prefer the democratic platform. There may even be a thing or two that you like about what the democrats are proposing, but you cannot support that, because you have to support your party for your reasons. Having more parties creates more of a stability, as people don’t have to make binary choices. They don’t want to demonize their opponents, as they may find themselves being allies in the future against a different party’s platform. > [@Ashtura](#): > > LOL, almost my whole family’s from Utah. I’m pretty sure most Utahn’s aren’t fretting about the EC that much. The thing about the EC is, at least you need to pay _some_ lip service to Utah. Without it, you wouldn’t even need to do that. “Relevancy” is a point of view. When I vote in Delaware, and _know_ the State is going Democrat, I may feel “irrelevant” as an _individual_ when it comes to my presidential vote, but not as a _Delawarean_. If I really,\* really\* was upset about that, I, _as an individual_, would move 14 miles to Pennsylvania. That’s the nice thing about the U.S. You don’t like where you are, you can do like the Mormons did and move, with the nice modern convenience of not dying on the way. Just like I occasionally want to do when I can’t buy cool fireworks, or exotic reptiles without a permit. Will I do that? No, not likely. See, they have cool stuff here too, like no sales tax, which takes the edge off. You are okay with feeling irrelevant in the presidential election. Maybe not everyone feels that way. Personally, I feel like fleeing Ohio every 4 years, as you cannot turn on the TV or radio, or even use the internet anymore, without being bombarded by political ads, many of which are quite negative and vile. > [@eschereal](#): > > No, I am irritated by what seem like near 180° turns. It makes no sense. I do not object to change _per se_, but the manner of it seems unhealthy. > > Frankly, I fail to see the value of a head-of-state. I think we could have a functional executive branch without a powerful chief executive. Cabinet officers can just manage their departments, and maybe have a person whose job it is to mediate disputes where departmental scopes overlap, but has no real power over the secretaries. > > The media reports elections like they are sporting events. Elections, media notwithstanding, look like big fucking games. Is that the way to run a stable country? I like the idea that the head of state should be more of a figurehead than having actual authority. Kind of like the Queen of England. They are the person who represents us to the world, but has no actual power or authority. They can do all the pomp and circumstance, while the legislative bodies do the actual work of governing. ---
**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:** [October 24, 2018, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/111 "2018-10-24T23:35:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Ashtura** : > > I’m confused. Obama beat Romney by 5M votes and 126 electoral votes. If the EC is “essentially racist in origin”, as if that meant something today, then shouldn’t Obama have lost the EC regardless of of winning the popular vote, or at least won it by a much smaller margin? If it was designed to be racist, it didn’t do a very good job, did it? It did an excellent job of being racist… 200 years ago. You might have noticed that things are different now than they were then. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/112 "2018-10-24T23:41:35Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I’m confused. Obama beat Romney by 5M votes and 126 electoral votes. If the EC is “essentially racist in origin”, as if that meant something today, then shouldn’t Obama have lost the EC regardless of of winning the popular vote, or at least won it by a _much_ smaller margin? If it was designed to be racist, it didn’t do a very good job, did it? In the first place just because it was racist in origin doesn’t mean it necessarily continues to be. It doesn’t necessarily result in racists outcomes now. (Though I would argue it did do so in the most recent election) The 3/5 counting for representation because of that for the Electoral College came about because of our racist slave institution heritage as I’ve explained before. The fact that it was racist in origin is a reason to eliminate it even if you don’t think it is an inherently bad system. It is a relic of a racist past that we should put behind us. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/113 "2018-10-24T23:45:04Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The 3/5ths, relative power of the states and the idea that ordinary people are bozos were all baked into the Electoral College. The EC has no more a racist heritage than any other part of the U.S. government. Which is a lot but no reason to single out the EC for abolishing. Correct, but racism and sexism were corrected to some extent by allowing blacks and women to vote. The Electoral College has not been corrected. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2018, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/114 "2018-10-24T23:47:26Z")
But the 3/5ths compromise is no longer in effect. It is in no way integral to the Electorate College’s purpose or procedure. Your argument is equally applicable to the House of Representatives. Should that be abolished too? ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/115 "2018-10-25T00:08:47Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > But the 3/5ths compromise is no longer in effect. It is in no way integral to the Electorate College’s purpose or procedure. Your argument is equally applicable to the House of Representatives. Should that be abolished too? No it isn’t. The House was not set up for racists reasons. Eligibility to vote for the House was racist. That has been corrected (mostly) So there is no need to eliminate the House. One of the Primary the Electoral College the was set up was racist. Keeping it around is a reminder of a racist past. I’m saying that reason is an added reason to eliminate it. My primary reason it should be eliminated is it is not the right way to do things. Yes that’s my opinion and you may not agree, but it has been my position back to the 1970s so it has little to do with the 2000 or 2016 elections. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/116 "2018-10-25T00:32:11Z")
Well, its not so much I disagree as your position doesn’t really make any sense to me. The 3/5ths compromise was used in determining the number of House seats each state got. The EC merely mimicked that. I don’t understand how the HoR has had the racism expunged but the EC has not. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/117 "2018-10-25T17:27:36Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, its not so much I disagree as your position doesn’t really make any sense to me. The 3/5ths compromise was used in determining the number of House seats each state got. The EC merely mimicked that. I don’t understand how the HoR has had the racism expunged but the EC has not. I’ll try once more. We need some kind of legislature. There is nothing inherently racist about that need. Popular vote was used to elect Representatives. There’s nothing inherently racist about that method (whether or not you think first-past the post, etc. is the best way.) But the way they counted the population to determine the number of representatives for each state used the 3/5 rule. That was inherently racist. It has since been eliminated at least de jure. There is an inherent need for a President or some kind of head of state. There is nothing inherently racist about that need. He could have been elected by popular vote. There is nothing inherently racist about that method (though it would have been in practice by not letting Blacks vote). Why did they not use that method? One reason is that the North could then have easily outvoted the South. Using the Electoral College allowed the Southern states the best of both words. The slaves could not vote, but the white population got to cast their 3/5 votes. They needed some system like that to get sufficient votes for the slave states without letting the undesirables actually cast votes. One of the reasons (and I think the primary reason) the Electoral College was established was this double standard. Black slaves can’t vote, but we want them to count (for 3/5) in vote totals. I claim that is an inherently racist reason and keeping the Electoral College around serves as a reminder of that because it is not needed. Keeping the HoR around is not a reminder of a racist past as it is required. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/118 "2018-10-25T17:55:29Z")
Originally, slaves were counted 3/5 (and white women 5/5) _even though they couldn’t vote._ We do have something similar today. Non-citizens are not allowed to vote but, prior to the 2020 census, were counted for apportionments. You’d better believe this will be a major topic as the Trump Administration sets rules for the upcoming census. They will seek rules that count illegal aliens in Texas but not in California. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/119 "2018-10-25T18:02:36Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > We do have something similar today. Non-citizens are not allowed to vote but, prior to the 2020 census, were counted for apportionments. You’d better believe this will be a major topic as the Trump Administration sets rules for the upcoming census. They will seek rules that count illegal aliens in Texas but not in California. How do you imagine the wording of such new rules? I’m having trouble imagining how you could do that. ---
**Author:** ![HelenGawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@HelenGawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HelenGawn)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357/120 "2018-10-25T18:34:54Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > People focus on Wyoming getting more votes per capita than California, but the most distorting aspect is actually that a few thousand marginal voters in large and closely-divided states like Pennsylvania can throw around huge numbers of votes. Exactly. As a Texan, I’d like my vote to be non-meaningless. As would millions who don’t bother because what’s the point? > [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > basic problem is in 1700s they did not anticipate that now we have one state (CA) with 40 million people while a few other states have only 500k people. So it needs to be modified to make it more balanced out . The odds of that happening any time soon are basically zero. This may be an argument for the current configuration of the Senate, but makes little sense for President. Why should my vote for the most powerful position in the country, and the only national post, count less than a Wyomingan? Abolish [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-u-s-electoral-college-what-should-be-done/823357.md?page=7)