Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?

In case you don't already know, in the United States, the people don't vote directly for the POTUS, what we're actually doing is voting for electors, these electors will then meet in December at their respective state capitals, then cast a ballot for president. If candidate gets the most votes in a particular then he'll win that state's electors. Electoral votes are based on the populatin of state, California has the most (54, I think,) several states, such as Delware and Wyoming only have 3. The electors represent the state's congressional districts, plus their 2 sentors.

What sometimes is that a candidate will get more popular votes, but depending on the electoral votes of states he wins, can still loss the race.

Proponents of the Electoral College say it gives smaller states say in say in who will be president, Opponents say that the Electoral College circumvents the will of the people.

Replies

  • poindexter2poindexter2 Posts: 4,210
    Nope. Going by popular votes will only lead to more recounts, and supreme court hearings. Let it stay the way it is. I only see the popular vote working if they make presidential elections federal.
  • Oya_HusbandOya_Husband Posts: 13,887
    With all the technology we have it should be that way by now, but people are too dangerous using it in the private sector. It should federal and created by the federal government.
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    D.C., California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington and some other states have already joined the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" to process their votes in a more direct way without so much using the Electoral College.

    Anyways, this is a very tricky one for me. I can see the necessary pros and the detrimental cons to each system of voting. So I can't really answer the difficult question now, but I will say that the electoral college should at least be amended. I think that it's very important that state representation and pride is protected by the Electoral College, but I second guess the relevance of such an indirect and complicated form of national representation. Besides, electors aren't even legally obligated to vote for the candidate who wins the most votes in their state.

    I'm not even going to get into the voting issues for D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. They're all American citizens, but their votes are problematic/invalid just because their lands aren't considered official states?
  • janklowjanklow Posts: 5,438
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I'm not even going to get into the voting issues for D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. They're all American citizens, but their votes are problematic/invalid just because their lands aren't considered official states?
    wait, you noted that DC is involved in ""National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" to process their votes in a more direct way without so much using the Electoral College." shouldn't that tell you that DC does actually have electors?

    but i guess for everyone else on that list, they'll just have to suck it up and have no electoral votes

  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    edited November 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I'm not even going to get into the voting issues for D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. They're all American citizens, but their votes are problematic/invalid just because their lands aren't considered official states?
    wait, you noted that DC is involved in ""National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" to process their votes in a more direct way without so much using the Electoral College." shouldn't that tell you that DC does actually have electors?

    but i guess for everyone else on that list, they'll just have to suck it up and have no electoral votes

    Yeah I knew that. I didn't so much make it clear, but when I said that their votes were "problematic/invalid", the "problematic" part was referring to D.C. and the "invlaid" part was referring to the other territories. The other territories can't vote (hence their votes being "invalid") because they're not states. But even though D.C. has electors and can vote, I think that their system of voting differs from the system of voting that states use. And for this reason, a lot of native D.C. voters aren't happy (hence the D.C. voting being "problematic"), so a lot of alternatives have been proposed as a result. I'm not exactly sure how being involved in the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" changes their system though.

    Puerto Rico and the others might have to suck it up now, but I think that they should be able to vote since they are Americans and since our votes do affect them right? It only makes sense. Of course this would have a significant effect on our national elections, but it is what it is.
  • janklowjanklow Posts: 5,438
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Puerto Rico and the others might have to suck it up now, but I think that they should be able to vote since they are Americans and since our votes do affect them right? It only makes sense. Of course this would have a significant effect on our national elections, but it is what it is.
    perhaps these territories should make a push for statehood, then
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    yes, they should and must. I wonder if they have already though. I'll have to check that out.
  • Swiffness!Swiffness! Posts: 6,843
    Obama just barely winning the Popular Vote. Electoral College empowers small states. Without it, you can win by just campaigning in the big metropolitan areas.

    people who wrote the constitution & its amendments knew what the fuck they was doin' for the most part lol
  • janklowjanklow Posts: 5,438
    Plutarch wrote: »
    yes, they should and must. I wonder if they have already though. I'll have to check that out.
    i am pretty sure that this election day Puerto Rico had a big "yeah, we'd like to be a state" vote, but then again, it's not like that alone is going to make them a state
    Swiffness! wrote: »
    people who wrote the constitution & its amendments knew what the fuck they was doin' for the most part lol
    imagine that!

    (please note that the sarcasm is not actually directed at Swiffness!)
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820
    SO even though elections are held by secret ballot with no way of actually tracing who voted for who...eh fuck it.

    The electoral college is outdated. There isnt any good reason why it should be used instead of the popular vote.

    Truthfully there is no good reason why open and transparent voting shouldnt be in place.
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,815
    edited November 2012
    Amotekun wrote: »
    SO even though elections are held by secret ballot with no way of actually tracing who voted for who...eh fuck it.

    The electoral college is outdated. There isnt any good reason why it should be used instead of the popular vote.

    Truthfully there is no good reason why open and transparent voting shouldnt be in place.

    I agree somewhat (I think that he current system should at least be modified but not completely abolished like some have said), but I still think that some of you aren't recognizing the pros that an electoral college has, like reinforcing state representation and unity. Smaller states with smaller populations especially would be at a disadvantage without the electoral college. Washington D.C. residents might be completely irrelevant without the electoral college.

    And without the electoral college, Obama had a much greater chance of losing the election. Almost 50% of the country voted for Romney. I'm guessing that this might change the opinion of many who are anti-electoral college but pro-Obama, and aren't most of us pro-Obama?
  • AmotekunAmotekun Posts: 7,820
    The heart of the matter is that voting period is a diluted power. Voter fraud the biggest issue but the other issue is one of agency.

    Because voting is a secret process and isnt transparent it can't be said that this government derives its authority from the consent of the people.

    It's supposed to be a government for the people by the people, what politician can point to any one individual and say that man voted for me or these group of people voted for me; it is through them that I derive my power to act in such and such capacity as a representative of the government?

    No official in office can say that. Because of that what we get is this supposedly representative government that is supposed to see to the needs of the people, but instead its a body of officials that see to the needs of its largest donors. Not one person, constituent or party affiliate can go to that official and say you did not hold up your oath por que the people have no way to prove their vote outside of they cast a ballot.

    ~Thoughts emanating from Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Cooper
  • hueyhuey Posts: 9,108
    i would say yes, but then you have to deal with how powerful media is and their influence on potential voters...fuck it, abolish it
  • @Janklow thanks for informing.... this argument changes every four years based on who is elected
  • jonojono Posts: 14,648
    I believe it must be uniform. The electoral college as it stands right now can be gimmicked to give a certain amount of votes to the winner and a certain amount to the loser, it complicates matters a lot.

    If your going to split votes, then everyone should (of course this is problematic for states with few electoral votes). If your going to do winner take all...then everyone should (which is what I personally would prefer).

    When it comes to National elections the Federal government needs to be more uniform period. Not just with the electoral college, but whether to use voting machines or paper ballots, mandating that ALL votes are counted, the type of identification necessary etc. States shouldn't have the ability to gimmick elections to help one candidate over the other.

    I know that takes a lot of the fun out of election season lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.