What is the point of the Electoral College?

[kerrywins]

I mean, technically, they can vote however they want...although that rarely happens. Why not have 1 man, 1 vote?

I live in Texas...I mean, I'm gonna keep on voting Democrat, but my state will keep on voting Conservative....its like my voice doesn't get heard....its so damn fustrating.

[Dookus]

1. The electoral college

gives a little added weight to small, unpopulous states. It was a compromise set up to appease the smaller states who feared being made irrelevant by a handful of large states.

[kerrywins]

4. it seemed to have created some new problems

something I'll call the "Texas Problem".

[Poiuyt]

5. Why doesn't this apply to state elections also?

Rural counties should be given more voice than the counties where major cities reside. Why does it only happen in the most important election in the country? (I'm not questioning you, that was a rhetorical question)

[coloradodem2005]

13. I thought that it did.

Not quite in the same form but it does talk about governors and attorney generals etc. needing to win counties.

[sangh0]

14. Because, when the Constitution was ratified

the states were given the power to set the rules for elections within their own states, and they didn't mind that. However, since the states were not given the power to set the rules for national elections, some of the smaller states were concerned about their being dominated by larger, more populous, states. Without a compromise of some sort, they would not have ratified the Constitution.

Also, it's important to remember that the Constitution, as it was originally written, did not all people to vote directly for the President *OR* for the Electors. They voted for Senators and Representatives to the House, and those Congressmen (and they were all men back then) voted for the Electors IIRC.

The Framers were very concerned about the possibility of mob rule. They had watched the French Revolution, and were not to pleased by the mobs and the violence. The Framers preferred a more deliberative and sober form of govt. That's why they limited the vote to such a small portion of the population.

[Amarant]

22. The way the nation was founded

causes me not to be surprised where we are today on the brink of one party rule fascism.

A bunch of rich, white, males sitting together setting up a government.

What would the founders look like today if the constitution was written today? George Bush, Ken Lay, Dick Cheney, Halliburton executives, etc.

It took us over 200 years to reform this nation to give any semblence of a decent life to non-whites, women, non-christians (though atheists/agnostics/muslims are still screwed to an extent), the poor, children (child labor anyone?), slaves, etc. GLBT people are making some progress now.

It's truly pathetic all those had to suffer when only a few changes to the constitution would have prevented it. Maybe it minorities had been included... but of course no it had to be rich, white, males.

[lastliberalintexas]

35. Actually, originally not even

Senators were directly elected- the state legislatures chose them.

[TransitJohn]

46. Which is how it should be now

Originally, both citizens and States were represented, the States via the Senators. Now, the federal gov't can blackmail states into passing laws on the state level by withholding $$$, like raising the drinking age to 21, seatbelt laws, etc. It sucks.

[RoyGBiv]

37. Small point...

The French Revolution did not take place until after the Constitution was ratified. Actually, the more benign phase of it was just beginning as the Constitution was being put before the States for a vote.

As mentioned in my lengthy post, fears of "mob rule" are only collaterally related to the selection of the President.

[Yupster]

52. Corrections

The people did not vote for senatorsuntil the 1900's. Senators were chosen by state legislatures before then.

Electors are also not chosen by congressmen and senators. They are also chosen by state legislatures, or by whatever rules the state legislatures want to use.

The Constitution was ratified by the states, and therefore the states gave great power to themselves. That power has constantly eroded and been transferred to the federal government over ther years.

[SadEagle]

54. They didn't vote for senators.

Senators used to be appointed by legislatures. And of course the "people" for the purpose of election were land-owning (i.e. rich) white males

[forgethell]

21. I don't know about other states, but

it used to be that way in Alabama. the Federal courts decided that was unconstitutional and made them redistrict.

[DebJ]

7. also it was created at a time with no mass communications..

someone had to get on the horse and relay the message.

[TomNickell]

47. A remnant.

There are two issues--the winner-take-all electoral Votes system and the human electors.

The former is debatable--it makes the system more Federal, gives the State Gov'ts more real power, stuff like that. But it is not very democratic and can lead to bad results, like in 2000.

The human electors are a remnant of an 18th Century system that imagined Governors or state legislators would appoint electors who would then choose the President. There are elaborate measures to deal with the limited transporation and communication of the time.
Clearly the physical electors need to go. Think what mischief could happen if the two candidates started trying to buy electors after a close election.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Historically, the founding fathers did not trust the unwashed masses

to directly vote for the president. They voted for "electors" who were more qualified to vote appropriately.

Nowadays, with public education and mass media all citizens are completely and accurately informed on the candidates and the issues.

LMFAO

[freetobegay]

3. Hope this helps

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

[Cornus]

9. Lots of stuff there...

...but for me the bottom line is 1 person = 1 vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. Seems pretty simple. Isn't it time for the EC to be abolished? Just one fewer bureaucracy to deal with.

[Dookus]

12. It'll never go away....

3/4th of the state would have to approve it, and enough small states KNOW it benefits them, so they'd never amend the constitution to abolish it.

[Amarant]

25. Hmmm...

A lot of those small states are blue. I'm sure the fact is not lost on them that had we decided president by a popular vote Gore would be in office right now.

I'm sure it's also not lost on them that the repubs are getting more and more in to election fraud with each passing election. The electoral college makes election fraud MUCH easier. Why? Because all they have to do is focus their efforts to swing a handful (or even one - see florida) of key states.

If we had a national popular vote they would have to expand their efforts on a MUCH larger scale.

Rumor was in Florida that had the court not ruled as it did the legislature was simply going to declare the electors to be for bush. (which would have been perfectly legal under the constitution)

Who is to say the republicans in red states won't do this? Just declare the electors republican. They are getting more and more bold with their election fraud (even considering postponing the election). I would not at all put it past republican legislatures to do this.

Blue states should be smart enough to see the writing on the wall and that the republicans have manipulated the electoral college system to install their corrupt administrations in the past - and will do so again the future.

[lastliberalintexas]

38. Actually, a lot of them are red

A vote from Alaska/Wyoming/Kansas/Nebraska/the Dakotas, etc. is weighted more heavily than a vote from California or New York because of the EC system. And they do darn well know it, and they're NOT going to agree to any change. When Dookus is talking about "small" states here, s/he does not mean goegraphically, but rather based on population.

However, you are correct that the EC really doesn't prevent those states from being ignored by politicians. Even in the EC system, a candidate can cherry pick the states to get the magic number.

[freetobegay]

15. I'm not saying it's right

I just wanted to give a site that gives the pros & cons to the issue.

[One_Life_To_Give]

31. About as likely as eliminating the Senate

Both the Senate and the Electoral College are intended to give more weight to the smaller states. Seems if you eliminate one, you need to eliminate the other. And I don't think we want to turn government over to the Hous just yet.

[kiahzero]

42. Actually, the Senate gives equal weight to all states.

And no, you don't need to eliminate the Senate to eliminate the EC.

[Bridget Burke]

6. Let Tom Tomorrow explain it to you....

[JohnLocke]

36. LOL!

Excellent editorial cartoon. :D

[nickinSTL]

8. electoral college

one of the reasons for it, I believe, is that the founders worried that the uneducated, uninformed masses would elect utter fruitcakes (not a direct quote from any of the founders - my own words :D) if voting was left entirely to them.

It's outlived its usefulness in that regard, with public education, TV and the internet widely available.

[Worthless Teen]

10. not going anywhere

The EC is pointless nowadays, but it's probably here to stay since 38 of the 50 states would have to approve its removal.

[Democat]

11. It is to give the people in small states more power than big states

Those who live in small states get a lot more voting power than those who live in big states.

It's purpose is to undermine the idea of "one person, one vote."

[shraby]

16. Is that really true though?

Large states have more electoral votes than small states. Actually what is the difference between more electoral votes for large states than more people votes for large states?

[Dookus]

20. Because

each state gets a number of electors equal to its congressional representation. Since each state has two senators, regardless of size.

For instance, Wyoming, with a population of about half a million, has 3 electoral votes. California has 54 votes and a population of 35 million.

Therefore, Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 166,000 people.

California has one electoral vote for every 648,000 people.

[Democat]

26. That makes California votes worth far less - not one vote, one person

It's an outdated system that gives people in some states more than one vote and some in other less than one vote.

[RoyGBiv]

40. Yes and no...

It is true that the electoral college gives more weight to individual votes in less populous states.

It is only partly true that this was a reason for the electoral college's formation.

[Amarant]

17. Because

the founders did not have believe the common citizen should be able to vote for the president.

Believe it or not this country was NOT founded with true democracy in mind. If it was people other than white, male, (sometimes christian), land owners would have been guranteed the vote from the start.

[2Design]

18. if we did not have electoral college than a state like texax could

take over and force all to be conservative....at least now mass and others who are small can be liberal.....

the only problem with last election is they refused to count all the votes ...every where....and with that the system...looked broke when in fact the media....played a big role in forcing an early conclusion....and the rethugs rammed their aides down floridas throat..

no one asked who the thugs were out in the hallway...and did they live in florida...

it is like mass and the gay marriage...the rethug rw had bus loads of people come into mass to protest.....not mass people....they tried to influence a state and they did not live there.....

so the checks and balances can work if given due process and worked within the law....the supreme court did not allow for due process and allowed the media NOISE influence and did a hurry up....

there was no need to hurry up...we had from nov until jan to find out who truly was president.....

this fear and rush was ridiculous...we had a sitting president who was good until jan 20......so the fear mongers on tv egged everyone on...

they have nothing else to do but create fear.....they are protecting their jobs....if there is no news to report that is fear...they could go out and check on the environment or the good deeds in the world....but the media is based on hype....and they are the fourth rail of politics now...

I believe we should not allow ANY election reporting until after ALL polls in the usa are closed.l....that might help the election be fair.

I have watch the media influence how or whether people vote by what they say or poll....

[Amarant]

23. What are you talking about?

How could Texas do that?

"I believe we should not allow ANY election reporting until after ALL polls in the usa are closed.l....that might help the election be fair."

That would require an amendment altering the first amendment. And I seriously doubt this would do much at all to make elections "fair" when the electoral college throws millions of votes in to the trash. Are you aware if you are in a red state your vote can't for absolutely NOTHING as all your states electors will be going bush even if 3 million vote kerry and 4 million bush.

[2Design]

24. sleep

[Amarant]

19. The electoral college

allowed bush in to office. If it wasn't around we would have had Gore.

Remember - each state can decide how they want to chose electors. They have all decided the electors will be chosen for whichever candidate wins a popular state vote.

Any legislature, however, can alter that method. A republican legislature could simply declare all electors republican and that would be perfectly constitutional.

When you vote you are voting for ELECTORS - NOT the president directly. And unfortunately all but 2 or 3 states have an all or nothing system. (2 or 3 states - I forget which - divide the electors more evenly depending on the ratio of the vote)

This all or nothing system means that - say you are in texas - 1 million people vote for Kerry 2 million for bush. That means EVERY ONE of those 1 million votes means NOTHING. All the electors will go bush - they won't even be split by the ratio. Anyone here want to call that democracy?

People talk about how many votes were denied in florida - but remember if your state went red your vote meant not a damn thing either.

The electoral college should be abolished by amendment - and we should elect the president by a popular national vote, hell maybe even have a run off as well to bring in more partys.

[Blue Wally]

27. Thought that the founders had........

The founders never thought that the electoral college would elect the president. they thought the electors ofeach statewould choose a "native son" and the House of Representatives would decide the election on a one state, one vote basis. The development of political parties given a decsicive EC vote every time since Congress elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson..

[Amarant]

28. The constitution

says that each state shall have a set of electors the number of which will be the same as that states representation in congress. (that means a minimum of 3 electors)

The electors can NOT be a person that holds any public office. They will then cast a ballot for president on the same day for president. Whoever has the most votes is then president.

Don't know where you are getting this one state one vote stuff. The constitution certainly doesn't say that.

[Blue Wally]

32. If there is no majority in the electtoral college...........

Say a third party took a few states and neither of the twomajor parties got a majority of electoral votes, the Constitution says that the election then goes to the House (which is what the founders thought would happen). In the House, each state House delegation votes. The majority vote in the state delegation becomes the state vote. You need twenty-six states to be president (if the election goes to the House). The Senate chooses the Vice-President on a simple majority vote (the Pres and VP could be from separate parties).

[RoyGBiv]

41. He's quite correct, actually...

One of the questions here is the reason the electoral college was adopted, i.e. its purpose. That purpose was something debated mightly at the Constitutional Convention. One recognized consequence was the probability of the selection being taken up by the legislature.

We must remember the Constitution was written prior to the establishment of clearly defined political parties and well before the organization of party structure we have today that controls the election process at so many levels. What the Framers' envisioned the EC doing was similar to the process we go through now with the primary system.

It was, and is, an imperfect system, and it was seen as such at the time of its adoption.

[Yupster]

53. Whoever has the most electoral votes is president

tell that to Andrew Jackson.

In 1824, he had the most electoral and popular votes and still didn't win.

There's more to it than what you say.

[kiahzero]

44. No run-offs

The electoral college should be abolished by amendment - and we should elect the president by a popular national vote, hell maybe even have a run off as well to bring in more partys.

Condorcet elections: No strategic voting issues, mathmatically superior, and only requires one election day.

[West Coast Democrat]

29. It's there for the same reason every state gets 2 Senators...

no matter the size of its population....because our founding fathers weren't able to look into the future and see that it would be unfair to future generations.

[kiahzero]

45. The Senate is hardly "unfair"

The Senate was designed to ensure the equality of the states in the federal government.

[West Coast Democrat]

49. Doesn't the Electoral College make up for "inequality"

Why is it that residents of smaller states get to have more representation in government than those who live in populated states? That's not equality. Representation should be based on population.

[kiahzero]

50. The Senate represents States

All States are coequal members of the Union, and therefore have an equal amount of representation. The Constitution makes explicit reference to this in Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[RamboLiberal]

30. Anyone remember that the Bushie's were going to challenge

the electoral college in 2000 because they thought their man would win the popular vote and Gore the electoral college. Someone on the Bush campaign told that to a NY Daily News reporter. I believe they had the campaign using their RW talking heads ready to roll to try to turn electors.

If * had won the popular vote and Gore the electoral college vote I bet the Repugs would've already had that constitutional amendment out to the states to ratify to abolish it!

Also that we didn't elect Senators until the early 1900's.

Voters have elected their senators in the privacy of the voting booth since 1914. The framers of the Constitution, however, did not intend senators to be elected in this way, and included in Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention established the precedent for state selection. The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their tie with the national government, which would increase the chances for ratifying the Constitution. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

[killbotfactory]

33. To appease rural states

who don't have a lot of people in them.

[RoyGBiv]

34. There seems to be some confusion here...

No offense intended, but some of these answers miss the mark by a wide margin, and most are only partly correct.

Contrary to popular opinion, the method of electing the President did not come about merely because of the concerns of small states nor because the Founders did not trust the masses. To varying degrees depending on which Founder we're talking about, both issues were certainly a concern, but they were side-issues with regard to the executive.

To understand the purpose of the electoral college, it is necessary to fully wrap one's mind a couple concepts that are hard to conceive in the modern world.

First, we must realize we live in a democratic-republic. The Founders were acutely aware of history, particularly Greek and Roman history, and they modeled their form of government on what they saw as the best aspects of both, with a bit of the British parliamentary system thrown in for good measure. It would take too much space to explain exactly why they liked neither pure republics nor pure democracies. Suffice to say for our purposes, it was not merely because the masses could not be trusted. It would be more correct to say that the masses living in Maine could not be trusted to vote with the best interests of the masses who live in Florida at heart. That is as true today as it was then.

Second, and most importantly, the executive was never conceived to be the important political figure that he quickly became. In fact, a great deal of what went on at the convention was shaped specifically to prevent him from acquiring the kinds of powers and status that he holds. The Founders' idea was that the fundamental power of government would rest with the legislative branch of government and that the executive would merely act as one who would execute laws that Congress passed. He was given certain powers that served as a check on congressional authority, and he was given a few others that would serve his secondary function as head of state. Read the Constitution. The President's office is sparsely defined, and textually, he has very little power.

The point of understanding these concepts is to note that the election of the President was not originally conceived to be a matter of such great importance, nor one in which the people at large would hold a great interest except in his function as head of state, the latter being his function as the "face" of the country. In the Framers' minds, government began at home where democracy was given as free a reign as a majority of those free citizens who inhabited those homes were willing to give it. Everything on the national level was representative.

This is a simplistic analogy that would fail under close scrutiny, but it helps in understanding how the Framers' saw this. Ask yourself if you are particularly troubled by the fact that you get no direct vote on who is the leader of the United Nations. I seriously doubt even many political junkies like us have given it a second thought. Again, this comparison is not a direct one, but it comes close to how those who debated and formed the Constitution thought of the matter. Those who formed the Constitution wanted a greater centralization of power, but they wanted that power dispersed, the most important parts of it, the ability to make laws, resting in a body with many members representing their States', and presumably the people of those States', interests.

Many methods of electing the person or people (the exact make-up of the executive was also debated) who would hold the executive power were discussed, including popular election, a measure advanced by Madison of all people. But that method was discarded as both unwise and impractical, the latter for reasons obvious to anyone living in the 18th century. Other methods considered included election by the Senate, the House, and by a body of 25 electors appointed by the legislature and immediately disbanded after the selection of the executive body. Agreement was found in none of these measures because of disputes over to what roles the separate houses of the legislature would play.

The method finally adopted was a compromise more on the role of legislature in choosing the executive than it was over concerns about state influence or mass voting behavior. Because of how deeply people held their State identities, the electoral college was not expected actually to choose the President. What it was expected to do was whittle down the possible choices to a few, none of which would receive a clear majority, after which the question would be thrown into the representative body of the House for the final decision. In other words, the election of the President was conceived as a two-fold process, first the selection of "candidates" by the States, and then the selection of the President and Vice-President by the House.

The impracticality of a national referendum is no longer relevant in modern society, but the wisdom of it, keeping in mind our form of government and the way it was intended to be structured, is another matter. One could argue -- and I would -- that the President has acquire far too much power in the modern world, this being a function of both the political party system itself and its relationship to how Congress has diluted its own authority in favor of the President for partisan purposes.

I will suggest that making the election of the President a national, i.e. federally controlled, election, imbues the Presidency with even more authority by giving him control over the election process itself as executor of the laws. This would be the not-often-discussed aspect of removing state authority over its elections that, in my mind, has the most potentially chilling consequences. Currently, the executive branch has no authority under the Constitution, aside from declaring martial law and suspending it, to suspend, delay, or otherwise control the election process. Make the election national, and he does.

Sorry for the length and any typos...I've not proof-read this as fully as I should.

[drdigi420]

39. To screw the more populous states out of representation

It seems insane, given that the concentrations of innovation, intelligence, and social progress are in the cities.

In Georgia, the City of Atlanta has been held back for years because of the rednecks in rural Georgia that control the state government.

It's an unfair system and needs to be abolished.

[David Zephyr]

43. To Protect The Propertied and Ruling Class

from that nasty little thing that they privately refer to as mobocracy and publicly as democracy.

[goclark]

48. Seems like they had a crystal ball

I find do well with the electoral college system. It gives more fair and equal treatment to the smaller STATES. What about giving more fair and equal treatment to those who have been disenfranchised for so long?

[EndElectoral]

51. There is no point to it anymore - Read link

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm