What's the point of the Electoral College

Great Debates
1

Is the Electoral College anything more than a curious anachronism?

As I recall from my history classes, the Electoral College was originally intended to insulate the process of choosing the President and Vice President from the people. The original concept was that the people would elect the electors, who would then consider the Presidential candidates and vote for them.

Since then we vote for electors not based on their judgement, but based on whom they’ve agreed to vote for. The electoral vote is usually consistent with the popular vote, but often exaggerated.

It seems to me to be simpler to just count the popular vote and declare the winner. If there’s not a majority for one candidate, we could hold a runoff. I would imagine that a runoff is less probably and easier than the political weirdness which would result from a tie in the EC.

If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.

2

Well, I don’t know why Electorates (I assume that’s what they’re called) aren’t required to vote for the candidate who’s vote they “represent.” But I believe the reason for the college (vs. popular vote) is because of the rights of the states. I.e. each state picks their electorates in the fashion they choose, then those reps choose the pres.

3

Wilson was a minority president. He had under 50% of the popular vote. Anyway, from what I understand of government, the electoral college does have a purpose. It is to insure state’s power even if the people don’t vote. Lets say 5 million people vote in California, but then in Texas 6 million people vote. Texas just made a stronger vote. Now we all know california has a much larger population. If we counted simply the popular vote the strength of California would be undercut. This is not something that the states wanted.

The other option would be to have the popular vote on a state speak for the entire population of the state. If this happened We’d need a census just before every single election in order to keep an accurate representation. The electoral college however is based on many thousands of people per electorate(?). This is obviously much more accurate.

~Bored2001

4

Oh, in a tie in the EC, doesn’t The VP decide?

5

Hi Bored2001:

No.
It gets thrown into the House.

But states still vote as blocs.
I imagine it would look much like the Impeachment Hearings.

A lot of bluster, with a fordained outcome.

_____________________Peace

Shift that fat ass,Harry. But slowly. Or you’ll swamp the damned boat.
What Washington REALLY said when crossing the Delaware.

6

Oh, in a tie in the EC,isn’t The VP a candidate?
:wink:

Sorry Bored 2001,

I couldn’t resist.

I missed this one too, the first time around.

:slight_smile:

Peace.

Why can’t we all get along?- Rodney King

7

Hello again SingleDad,

Good Topic.

I had allways agreed with you.

But Billehunt and Bored2001 bring up an interesting viewpoint.

Perhaps it was more from regional distrust, rather than elitism.
{1sense- Elitist! Elitist!}
{2sense- Stop it. We are preparing to discard a preconception.}
{1sense- Yeah…OK. OK.}
Another point.
{1sense- As pointy as ever.}

I have allways heard that the EC is a major obstacle for 3rd party growth.

I’m not sure about this one, though.
It seems to me that 3rd parties would first have to gain support in the Congress before a full blown Presidential bid.

But I could go either way.
Any ideas?

Oh, What do you think of the Corrupt Bargain of 1828.

Oh Andy! Oh Andy!
How many men have you hanged in your life?
How many weddings to make a wife?

1828 anti-Jackson campaign song.

8

Minor Nit:

True, but misleading in this thread. In 1912, there was a strong third-party push by Theodore Roosevelt. So, though Wilson won with only 42% of the popular vote, he had more votes than either of his rivals (Roosevelt and Taft). I.e. this wasn’t a case where someone lost by popular vote but won by electoral vote.

9

There’s been some discussion of this a few months ago:

Electoral College - General Questions

Electoral College - Great Debates

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe

10

Just to elaborate on billehunt’s point: the only two “runner-up Presidents” have been John Quincy Adams (who came in second of four major Democratic-Republican candidates) and Rutherford Birchard Hayes (who came in second to Samuel Tilden, with contested results in three Southern states).

Plurality Presidents, those with more than any single candidate but less than all their opponents combined, are a dime a dozen. They include Nixon, Wilson, Kennedy, and Clinton. Ronald Reagan wasn’t too far from minority hood in the 1980 election, though he was far ahead of Carter.

Note that in none of these cases are we talking about portions of the voting age population; we are talking about portions of the ballots cast.

As to my opinion of the Electoral College, I prefer SingleDad’s system. The same system has been used in France since the 1950s. It provides an overall majority for a single candidate; it eliminate conflicts over “virtual representation”; it is simple.

11

A bunch have heard my arguments before, so I’ll present them again in a novel way. The following are the purported benefits of the Electoral College, with my debunkings to follow.

The Electoral College ensures that a President will have a majority. Yeah, right. A majority of an artificial institution that serves no other function than to elect the President. Artificial, since it’s just derived from popular pluralities anyway. It would be much simpler and no less logical just to have a single Electoral College constituenies, and give all 538 votes to the nationwide plurality winner.
And a majority isn’t even assured. We haven’t had a “hung College” since 1824, but that’s mainly been serendipitous.
When nobody has a majority in the College, the pain really begins, in the House. Each State votes as a bloc, one vote per State. Furthermore, this isn’t the incoming House voting, it’s the lame ducks. So to solve a no-Electoral-majority situation in 2000, the Representatives from each state elected in 1998 will sit down and try to agree on a candidate, from among the top three vote-winners in the College. If none of these candidates gets a majority within a State (hard to do in small delegations, evenly split between parties), that State casts no vote.

The Electoral College filters out minor “fringe” candidates No, the Electoral College crushes minor national candidates. Minor regional candidates can do just fine. Take the cases of Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace in 1948. Thurmond got several electoral votes, Wallace got none; their popular totals were almost equal. In 1960, Harry Flood Byrd got several Electoral votes without even being on the ballots; he won slates of unpledged Electors in the deep South. Why discriminate against minor national candidates and in favor of minor regional candidates? What’s so great about sectionalism? Stephen Douglas came in second in popular vote in 1860, and fourth in Electoral vote. He would (and did) say that sectionalism was a dangerous tendency that might even spark a civil war. (I would have voted for Lincoln but that ain’t the point.)

The Electoral College forces candidates to ensure that they have national appeal I hope I’ve at least partly put this one to rest above. But let me add, nothing about focussing on states per se makes your campaign national. What if, instead of trying to win CaliforniaTexasIllinois, you tried to win, say, the middle class? Would this be a narrow, regional, divisive campaign? Only if the middle class is a narrow regional demographic. It isn’t. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that 51% of the popular vote is likely to be less “national” in character than 51% of the Electoral vote, or majorities 26 state delegations to the U.S. House.

The Electoral College helps to avoid run-offs, which are horrible traumatic events that would extend the campaign season by several weeks at least What’s another couple of weeks (three, IIRC, in the case of France) to a 12-month-plus election cycles? Schedule the run-off for the end of November. Big deal. If somebody wins at the first ballot then there’s no run-off. Big deal. If you think there are too many elections, cutting out one every four years for the President isn’t the place to start. Eliminate annual bond levies, run-off primaries (the ones between the initial primary and the general, to make sure the Democratic nominee has a majority in one-party Southern states); set Presidential primaries for the same day as the other primary, or hold caucuses not at public expense.

The Electoral College helps keep whackos from winning power Curtis “Bomb them Back to the Stone Age” LeMay won more Electoral votes for Vice President in 1968 than major-party nominees in 1944, 1972, and 1984.

The Electoral College simplifies the process You mean the very same process that no one understands? I’m recommending we change to the very same process we used to elect Class President back in High School.

12

You want a true democracy? Take a look at PURE communism.

Anyway, the electoral college was built to protect the states. We live in the UNITED STATES The electoral college protects states by giving them power based on population. Now, if you we could consolidate all the states into one huge nation, then i’d agree with you.

Btw, isn’t a tie thrown into the senate? And isn’t the Senate chair given to the VP? I can’t remember clearly. I take government next year at my school.

13

BorisB: I will repeat my comments from the earlier debate. The Electoral College helps protect the country from mob rule – that is the reason why Hamilton and others insisted on it.

People who worship democracy should remember that Hitler was legally elected to high office in 1932. He garnered only 32 percent and 44 percent, respectively, of the popular vote in the two elections.

Vox populi ain’t always vox dei.

That is why I think the electroal college serves a useful purpose.

14

Look, this subject has been covered.
Like someone said on another thread, if you don’t care don’t vote. I do care, so I’ll drag my tired old ass out to the polls on tuesday nights and vote. Anyway, there’s always the absentee option. Sometimes it is an effort, so I’d really like to think it counts. I don’t get that feeling with the EC.
What states rights? The number of electors is based on population anyway, so if a state can’t get it’s people to vote in a popular election, so be it.
I feel that if you choose not to vote, well then, you’re trusting people like me to make the decisions for you.
Bored2001;
I know you were kidding with this one:
“You want a true democracy? Take a look at PURE communism.” :confused:
I’d hardly call voting a hallmark of communism. I do have some “pinko” tendencies, but voting sure ain’t one of them.
Peace,
mangeorge

I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000

15

Bored2001 wrote

Hmmm. Not sure what your definition of “PURE communism” is, but if the former USSR was one, it wasn’t much of a democracy. Among other things:

  • There were rules that only allowed party members to vote, and party members were required to participate in training and regular party meetings.

  • Only a single party was allowed. Creation of a second party or outside-candidates wasn’t permitted.

Boris B wrote

Yeah, I agree. Although, I don’t think the current system is so bad that it requires changing. I can’t think of any real-world catastrophic (or even mildly unpleasant) results.

16

The Peyote Coyote wrote

Educate me, por favor. How would the existance of an electoral college have prevented Hitler’s election?

17

Voting? In PURE communism? Whats that? In fact in pure communism THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT. It is rule directly by the people is a peaceful utopiaesque world. This is why it doesn’t work. Pure communism is true democracy. Rule by the people.

Different states have different types of people who make their living different types of ways. Therefore the Individual states must retain some sort of power, otherwise all those “little” states can actually outvote the bigger states. The electoral college is a safegaurd against this, so that the majority population is always served and the minority never.

18

I can’t believe I screwed up the date of the Corrupt Bargain. :o

I got too excited about that Jackson song. That prick gets my blood boiling.

Anyways, anyone got a take on the Corrupt Bargain?
Is this how we want to solve “ties”?

As for the “mob rule” argument,
I tend not to agree with arguments which presume I need protection from myself.

But, I’m not sure that is what the OP is about.

Here’s my vote: Kill It.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.

  • Thomas Paine, fugitive slave catcher.
19

I can’t believe I screwed up the date of the Corrupt Bargain. :o

I got too excited about that Jackson song. That prick gets my blood boiling.

Anyways, anyone got a take on the Corrupt Bargain?
Is this how we want to solve “ties”?

As for the “mob rule” argument,
I tend not to agree with arguments which presume I need protection from myself.

But, I’m not sure that is what the OP is about.

Here’s my vote: Kill It.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.

  • Thomas Paine, fugitive slave catcher.
20

Bored2001, you said;
“Different states have different types of people who make their living different types of ways. Therefore the Individual states must retain some sort of power, otherwise all those “little” states can actually outvote the bigger states. The electoral college is a safegaurd against this, so that the majority population is always served and the minority never.”

I don’t understand the “therefore” part. What does the kind of work you do have to do with voting? I mean the numbers?
And the President doesn’t represent the states, does he?
Do those of you who support the Electrol College vote? (A real question, not a jab).
Peace,
mangeorge