A frank discussion on the Electoral College

[BigDaddy44]

I think it's no great surprise that the majority of DU'ers oppose the Electoral College in its current form, and many support the various efforts to modify / change it.

I have a very "gut check" type question for those of you feeling that way:

Lets assume the 2000 election had ended a bit differently. In other words, Gore had lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College (there were many who anticipated that outcome). We would now be finishing up year 8 of a Gore presidency. Would you still be fighting this hard for the change?

Lets assume Obama loses the popular vote, but wins the Electoral College (again, within the distinct realm of possibility). Are you still going to be pushing hard for abolishing the EC?

My point is, to push for a change like this just because it hurt your guy one time is a dangerous thing that could come back and bite you. I'm interested in a rational discourse on the topic.

[bryant69]

1. That's an interesting Gut Check

That said I think the arguments against the Electoral College, in many cases, are somewhat more sophisticated than "I don't like that it made Bush President."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[housewolf]

2. We are a "representational democracy", not a "direct democracy"

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the role of voting when it comes to presidential elections, but primary elections and the general election.

At all levels, the votes that we place in our local precincts are actually votes inform our state representatives as to how we would like them to vote for us.

At the primary level, each state has been allocated a certain number of representatives (called "delegates") by the National Parties (DNC/RNC). It's up to the state parties to determine what method they would like to use to allocate their delegates to their candidates who are running. Some states parties use a caucus system, some use a primary election, some (like Texas use a combination, and Michigan, for example, chose an entirely different method this year with the split between Clinton & Obama. States are in charge of their primary system and can choose the system they want and whether they want to allocate delegates proportionally or "winner-take-all".

When we vote at the primary level, we are telling our local party who we would most like to see as our party's nominee to the general election. Local delegates are allocated to candidates depending on the proportion of votes each receives. Local delegates then attend District Conventions where District delegates are selected for the candidates. These delegates go to Country elections where County delegates are selected for the candidates. Country delegates go to State conventions where the State delegates are selected for the candidates. These are the delegates who will go to the National convention and cast their vote for their candidate.

At each level, it's a representational system. The States' delegates are those who elect the nominee, not the popular vote. A popular vote is informational or instructional only - it does not directly elect a nominee.


At the General level, each state has been allocated a certain number of representatives called "Electors." When we go to the polls in November, our local votes are rolled up into a State total. For the General, all states have a "winner-take-all" system and each states' electors are all mandated to vote for the individual who won the most popular votes in the state. This is why the candidate who wins the most popular votes is not always the person who wins the Presidency.

In December of each election year, the Electors all meet in Washington D.C. when the Electoral College is convened and they cast their votes for their state's candidate. This is where the president is actually elected... the candidate with the most Electoral votes is the person who will be the next President. Early in January, Congress meets to approve the results of the Electoral College vote. It is only after this point can the candidate actually be inaugurated on January 20th.


The Founders of our country did not design our system as a direct democracy; they designed a system of representation at all levels. That is the system under which we still operate. It may be time to debate the value of such a system at this time, now, when communications are so vastly different from what they were 200+ years ago. But such a debate requires an understanding of the system and how it works today and why, and what the intricacies would be in reforming the system.

"One person, one vote," "Every vote counts" and "Count every vote" and honorable sentiments and inspire participation and integrity in elections. When these sentiments are used as political slogans, as is inherent in political slogans, they are simplistic and information is missing. Some of the missing information is this: "who or what it is that your vote is actually electing." At no point in our history, to date, has our local votes ever directly elected a President or a Presidential Candidate. Which doesn't mean that our votes don't count... because they do. They are a vote to inform our representative as to our preference.

[JackRiddler]

5. "We" are what we choose to be; we are not bound by the oligarchic past.

[JackRiddler]

3. So you prefer having the loser of the election come out on top?

The electoral college creates a situation where the choice of the majority can lose due to an entirely arbitrary totalling of state votes. The original idea was that electors would control "mob rule" by being able to choose someone other than the winner of the electoral vote, but that no longer happens; electors are totally superfluous, they always go with the pledged vote. Notwithstanding that Bush was brought to power by a mob, you are saying that a largely random occurrence (how the electoral votes break up among candidates) should supercede the vote of the people.

When the oligarchy wrote the constitution of 1787 with their own interests in mind, their main focus was on preventing democracy; many of their ideas have been modified to allow democracy. (We no longer have 3/5 of a person, for example).

[JackRiddler]

4. dupe

[slackmaster]

6. The EC issue is moot - It's not going to go away ever

Changing it would require a Constitutional amendment that could never pass. It takes only 13 states to block an amendment.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Yep

that's pretty much the only thing you need to know about the E.C.

It sucks, it's unfair, it's undemocratic - and it will NEVER go away.

[slackmaster]

9. If you lived in Alaska or Wyoming you'd probably have a different opinion about it

:D

[hokies4ever]

11. People in big states think they're more important

:rofl:

[hokies4ever]

10. It's fine as is

People just forget that we're a country of states too. :eyes:

[MadBadger]

8. What I find so interesting is that so many people think Ohio was stolen from Kerry

Well, lets say Kerry ended up winning Ohio, he would have lost the popular vote by like 2 million votes, but won the presidency.

[cynatnite]

12. I don't support abolishing the EC unless we come up with a better system...

otherwise the big cities will be electing the president and not the rest of the country.