Abolish the Electoral College (NYT editorial)

[Bill McBlueState]

On Dec. 15, the United States will endure a quadrennial ritual born in the economics and politics of slavery and the quill-pen era. Members of the Electoral College are scheduled to meet in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia to formally choose the next president.

There is no real doubt about how the electors will vote, but it is disturbing that they have any role at all in making this vital choice in the 21st century. The Electoral College is more than just an antiquated institution: it actively disenfranchises voters and occasionally (think 2000) makes the candidate with fewer popular votes president. American democracy would be far stronger without it.

There is no reason to feel sentimental about the Electoral College. One of the main reasons the founders created it was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted — as three-fifths of a white person — when Electoral College votes were apportioned.

The founders also were concerned, in the day of the wooden printing press, that voters would not have enough information to choose among presidential candidates. It was believed that it would be easier for them to vote for local officials, whom they knew more about, to be electors. It is hard to imagine that significant numbers of voters thought they did not know enough about Barack Obama and John McCain by Election Day this year.

Continued: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20thu1.html

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. I used to be against the Electoral College

Until Thom Hartman told me why it is a great idea and one we should continue to employ. In a nutshell, it keeps key "greatly populated" areas of the country from completely monopolizing the vote. If that were the case, you could kiss the 50 state strategy goodbye.

[desktop]

2. It ignores the millions of blue voters in red states

Millions of us live in states that always go red. I can speak from personal experience that many just don't vote because they know their vote is not of any value. I believe millions more people would vote if they knew their vote would always count. The more people vote, the more Democrats get elected, it has always been that way. Which is why Republicans always try to suppress the vote. Thom Hartman is just wrong on this one.

[reggie the dog]

16. red votes are lost in blue states too

that is why I support the popular vote system. First one past 50 percent wins the race. I think there would be higher vote participation. Really what point did Republicans in Chicago have in going to the polls? They knew their presidential vote would not count and may have just said to hell with the local elections too. What point does a Democrat in Oklahoma have to go to the polls with the electoral college system? Now I think the House and the Senate are fine. I do not prone proportional representation because the USA is a fedeartion and the states have a roll to play. 2 senators per state is fine by me and because the House is based on population there are many more districts than there are for senators, this brings democracy closer to the people in my opinion. In France we have no states and no idea that we are a federation, we are just a country, unlike our neighbors Spain, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium who are federations. I think that in a country like France our Senate should be determined by proportional representation.

[DUlover2909]

17. And some people don't vote because they assume their candidate will win.

It works both ways. I believe in eliminating the electoral college too.

[Skittles]

3. LOL

in reality, it enables redneck idiots to install into the White House the guy they'd rather have a beer with

[Bill McBlueState]

4. Why shouldn't population centers get more attention?

It's voters who matter, not patches of ground. If patch of ground 'A' happens to contain more 100 times as many voters as patch of ground 'B,' it's perfectly reasonable for the candidates to spend 100 times as many hours in patch of ground 'A.'

Under the current system, candidates spend the most time in states that by sheer accident of geography happen to contain just the right demographic mix. It's hardly fair that Ohioans get so much more attention than New Yorkers.

(edit/typo)

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Not to mention that it's the high-pop regions that vote for decent (okay, better) candidates

The can't-live-too-close-to-their-neighbors crowd elects the pukes.

[reggie the dog]

14. this is true but

that whole greatly populated advantage would mean large cities, which means places Democrats pretty much always win.

[Demeter]

5. In a Year When the Electoral College Worked for Democrats? I Don't Think So

[Bill McBlueState]

6. Obama won the popular vote, too, you know. n/t

[Demeter]

9. Yes, but the Mandate Shows Up Clearer in the College

and if the election fraud had been a little more effective, it could have been a life saver.

[reggie the dog]

15. Personally I am against the electoral college

It should be the popular vote that counts. Imagine a three or four way race, a person could win the popular vote without winning a single state were the in 2nd place in all the states with the other candidates bouncing from third to first. It would be a whole new ball game, perhaps with two rounds, a four or six way run off to 2, then a head to head election. That is what the French have. Now if only the French could elect their Senators as the Americans do....as opposed to their shitty system of being appointed for life.....

[jrockford]

8. 8 years too late. nt

[MindMatter]

10. Simply make it proportional

There are two problems with the EC:

1) It over-represents the least populated states.

2) It can completely disenfranchise 49.9% of the voters of a state.

But on the good side, it represents a firewall against fraud. If Florida has a corrupt system, the corruption is limited to Florida's delegates.

Keep the Electoral College, but simply make it proportional. That would address issue #2. It probably isn't possible to deal with #1.

[progressive_realist]

12. Firewall against fraud

I think you've hit upon the best reason to keep it -- each state effectively runs separate elections now, so fraud would have to be undertaken on a state by state basis, without necessarily knowing in advance which were the key states. If the aggregate popular vote decided elections, fraudsters (aka Republicans) could just target one big state (aka Texas) for systematic fraud to run up huge vote margins.

[struggle4progress]

13. A proportional split would also limit the incentive for fraud, because a few

votes one way or the other might affect allocation of a single elector but wouldn't swing a big block of electors

[mopinko]

11. if only it would do it's job. maybe i am wrong, but

it was my impression that the whole purpose was to prevent what happened in '04. to be a check on the validity of the elections run by the states. ?

[OwnedByFerrets]

18. We would be MUCH better off

pushing the Instant Run-off System. Infinitely more important to our voting rights.