Should the electoral college be abolished?

[antiimperialist]

Should we pick our president based on who wins the popular vote nationwide?

[Mojambo]

1. It needs to be one part of a much, MUCH larger reform. n/t

[I Have A Dream]

2. It'll never happen, but it would be what is best for the US, in my opinion. n/t

[Az]

3. Instant Runoff Voting

Thats what we need.

[Odin2005]

4. Yes, it should be abolished.

It might of made sense in 1787 but it has been obsolete at least since the time of the telegraph and railroad.

[mtnsnake]

5. Absolutely. It's tipped in favor of rural states & is the biggest advantage repukes have

[Jade Fox]

6. Yes. I'm bloody tired of the Red states benefiting....

from an archaic system.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Electoral votes should be awarded proportionally

Despite the elitist origins of the Electoral College, I still support it -- although the winner-take-all aspect (not proscribed by the Constitution, by the way) has definitely got to go.

The existence of the Electoral College is one of the few things that prevents presidential candidates from being marketed just like soap. Granted, we're already getting close.

As a Democrat, I would undoubtedly benefit from the abolition of the Electoral College. Candidates would only have to target high-density areas. And in general high-density areas are more diverse and bluer.

But I don't like the prospect that much of the country would be rendered irrelevant in a presidential campaign. There would be no need to campaign in smaller, sparsely populated states. To win the Presidency, all a candidate would have to do is capture the "major markets", namely New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Baltimore-Washington, and a handful of others.

I object to this because this is democracy we're talking about, not a marketing campaign.

I mention this even though I live in one of those densely populated areas and would undoubtedly benefit personally from the change.

However, if you know anything about the founding of this country, the smaller and sparsely populated states agreed to sign on to the Constitution when they were assured they wouldn't be overrun by the larger, more populous ones. This is why there are two Senators per state. And this is why -- at least in part -- we have the Electoral College.

Rather than abolishing the EC outright, we can improve it immensely by awarding electoral votes proportional to the popular vote instead of relying on an inequitable winner-take-all system. In most states, a candidate need only win a majority of the popular vote to win all of the electoral delegates. This is obviously very alienating for blue voters in red states and red voters in blue states as for all intents and purposes their votes don't count.

Had proportional awarding of electoral votes been used in Florida in 2000, for example, Al Gore would've received 13 electoral votes and Bush would've gotten 14. Instead, Bush received all 27 electoral votes, even though he allegedly "won" by only 537 popular votes.

[hedgehog]

8. How many voters actually see a candidate in person, and how many see

the candidates only on television? When Hillary Clinton appeared on all the morning talk shows the other week, was she campaigning only in New York? Don't they have television in the smaller, sparsely populated states? A lot of the campaigning has become nothing but empty ritual. I like to see candidates giving speeches, but enough of the business of kissing babies and eating local specialties!

[ShadowLiberal]

16. But Gore would have STILL lost under those electoral college rules

According to wikipedia, "In 2000, Al Gore would have received 269 electoral votes, George W. Bush 263, and Ralph Nader 6.", which would have thrown the election into congress's hands, where Bush would have been elected anyway by a republican controlled house, with Joe Lieberman as his vice president.

Changing the rules of the electoral college ignores the fact that the electoral college is greatly flawed and has problems that no rules of how to vote can fix. For example another proposal people make is to have districts award their electoral vote to the winner of the district, and the winner of a state getting 2 extra votes. But under those rules Bush would have won 3 more electoral votes in Michigan then John Kerry in 2004, despite losing the state to Kerry.

In my opinion the electoral college today is a disaster waiting to happen. What if on election day we hear that candidate A wins a very narrow and close vote of 270 electoral votes to 268, but candidate B won the popular vote. Then lets say that candidate B meets with some electors who are supposed to vote for candidate A and bribes two of them to vote for candidate B to win the election, and promises to pardon them when he's in office in case they get into trouble over changing their votes. What would happen then if 40 or 50 days later (however long it is until the electors actually vote officially for their state) it's suddenly announced that candidate B managed to win the election through electors not voting as they were supposed to, absolute chaos. You thought the fight in 2000 was bad, there would be people pissed off on both sides of the isle arguing that they should have won the election. It may unfortunately take some chaos like this happening for the electoral college to be abolished and the popular vote determine the next president.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

18. I'm in favor of the same kind of changes

[unkachuck]

9. the electoral college....

....never made much sense to me....and if something doesn't make much sense, it's usually masking some form of systemic bullshit designed to put us at a disadvatage....dump it!

[Progressive Friend]

10. YES it should, and I am from a rural state too!

The electoral college definitely does not help "represent" me in any way.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Which state do you live in?

I'm sure we could elect a new non-electoral President who would spearhead putting a toxic waste dump or spent Uranium storage site in your state. Congratulations! Just don't inhale. It'll be just fine!

The Founders wisely warned against "the tyranny of the majority." That's why the majority doesn't rule when it comes to important things like, say, the First Amendment.

If I live in a red town and want to stand in a public space espousing leftist ideas (it would be tempting if I lived in a red town, but I don't), my speech would be protected even if the majority of the town opposed me. Do you want urban centers to decide the fate of rural states? I'm sure the majority of us wouldn't mind seeing Utah or Idaho or Wyoming turned into a dump for the spoils of our conspicuous consumption. And please! Don't get me started on places like Mississippi! Yes, the allocation of electors is anti-majoritarian. But so are some other foundations of American democracy. How is it, for example, that 59 Senators can vote in favor of a bill and yet one person can veto it? Would you favor the abolition of the presidential veto as well?

The priorities and rationales may have changed, but the safeguards that the Founders built into the Constitution were wise indeed.

[Progressive Friend]

13. Actually, dumping toxic waste in rural states already happens (i.e. nuclear waste in Nevada)

Having the president elected by popular vote (and perhaps using IRV as well), is a reform that must occur. It makes votes everywhere important, unlike with the current system, which only favors "battleground" states. The same problem occurs with single member districts (the vast majority of which are already single party controlled, and have been forever).

But this is what I'd ideally do to the currently all powerful presidency: abolish it altogether. And then merge the US House and Senate into a single chamber, elected by proportional representation and party lists, and have a prime minister (head of government). The 'chief executive' (or head of state) could be the chairman of the leading party/coalition in the single house. At the present, that would be Howard Dean, for example. This would not allow so much power to be in the hands of one individual, as exists in the US currently.

And if 'rural issues' would become an problem for people living there, they could simply create their own party and run for parliament.

I'm from Nebraska, btw.

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Abolishing the EC and establishing a parliamentary system aren't the same ...

I trust you realize that.

As someone who has spent a significant time in Canada and who has also watched Parliament keep the British Prime Minister on his or her toes, I see many strengths in a parliamentary system. (You actually have to be articulate to be Prime Minister, for one.)

Sadly, most Americans don't understand that the head of state and the head of the ruling party don't necessarily have to be one and the same.

But that's a different matter entirely. As mentioned earlier, my concern is the tyranny of the majority. Imagine, for example, what a frightened, angry, and reactionery America might've done to Muslim Americans immediately after 9/11 without the safeguards (while they lasted) of the Bill of Rights?

As for Nebraska (six-tenths of one percent of the U.S. population), we in the non-flyover states are looking forward to exploiting your abundant wind and agricultural resources in much the same way that the U.S. is exploiting the resources of the Middle East. We'll throw you a few coins and then make a killing off the energy we extract from your state. Welcome to the Electoral Free America!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Yes, along with the Senate and any other non-representational gimmicks

You can more than double the mathematical weight of your presidential vote by moving from California to Wyoming.

But no such constitutional amendment is gonna get two thirds of the states to sign off on it.

[CK_John]

14. You don't have the votes for a constitutional change. Thank goodness. n/t

[hedgehog]

19. We can do it without a constitutional amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[CK_John]

21. Another BS scheme to get around the constitution. n/t

[midlife_mo_Jo]

22. Any citizen could challenge that scheme in federal court and win

And I don't even think you'd need a Bush court to do so.

[krispos42]

17. No, I would modify it

Electoral votes from a particular state are distributed to candidates based on the percentage of votes they got in that state.

Not based on how which candidate wins which congressional district, because those are jerrymandered too much.

This allows third-party candidates to rack up electoral votes, which at the same time close races would not require nationwide recounts.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

20. Of course.