Electoral College - Essential or Old Fashion?

i think B has it nailed. there are a lot of things i don't like about the electoral college (especially its cementing of the two-party system which i've really come to loathe in the last decade), but getting rid of it would only be worse.
maybe it just needs some tweaking?
khairete
S.

The electoral college system -
The Pros:
"contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
enhances the status of minority interests,
contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
maintains a federal system of government and representation."
The Cons:
"the possibility of electing a minority president
the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will."

I can't argue with the founding fathers premise - less nicely put - many people are too stupid to make an intelligent choice.

That it supports a 2 party system at this point might be a negative, not a positive.
I'd like more choices and a multiparty system could be very beneficial.

There have been many proposals to do away with it, but they fail because no one can come up with anything better to replace it.

I think a fairer, better solution would be somewhere in between: say, an electoral college made up of counties, not of states.

With the current system, a small number of swing states, and the same states every time, often determine the outcome of a presidential election. If you live in a "deep blue" or "bright red" state -- be it Mississippi or Massachusetts -- your vote is irrelevant. If you're a minority within your state (say, an African American in Mississippi or a conservative Republican in Massachusetts) your vote is not only irrelevant, it's also effectively uncounted. The Electoral College is also unproportional and therefore discriminatory -- the votes of people in rural, low-population, predominantly white states count for more than the votes of people in more diverse, urbanized, highly populated states.

However, if we dispensed with it entirely, I think the outcome would be depressingly predictable. It would be the end of "retail politics." No more handshakes, town halls, or pancake breakfasts. The entire thing would be fought on the airwaves. Positions would be determined by political consultants100%. The candidate with the most money and the slickest, nastiest adds would win. It's already pretty much that way anyway, but it'd be much, much more so.

I think an electoral system of counties -- one that would acknowledge and respect the difference between say, Manhattan and Pottstown, NY, would be more representational and would still reward politicians, at least a little, for going outside the Beltway and talking to real, actual people.

On the question of testing and accountability, I just have to respond briefly: This was done in the United States for about 70 years. Literacy tests were di riguer in the Jim Crow South, and they functioned to deny African Americans the vote. They were outlawed by the Civil Rights Amendment. Are you really advocating returning to that system??? I am also going to choose to believe that the line about "voting for people because of their color" was intended as less racist than it sounds.

Ideally, election results ARE a form of accountability. This is a basic principle of democracy. I think the real problem is that our media is so fragmented and biased. On the Left and the Right, people get their news from sources that affirm their existing beliefs, so when there's a problem, there's no consensus about whom to blame. Can't propose a solution to that offhand, though.

Testing for the right of voting?

Sure--right after we start testing people to make sure they're "fit" to have children!
That would be invasive, subjective, immeasurable concept. And it might have some VERY surprising results! LOL

And we'd need MORE government to administer/track/enforce......

The electoral college is flawed, but geez, people, some of these comments have me scratching my head about the "good" citizens in the US! LOL

While it could be revamped is some ways, it is still essential. If we went with a popular vote, smaller, less populated states would be unrepresented. The electoral college makes it so the whims of a place like NYC do not overshadow the REST of NY state. The votes of those in big cities should not be the only ones that matter.

A popular vote isn't necessarily a fair vote. Farmers in rural areas deserve to be represented as much as businesspeople in large cities...because they both live in the country and contribute.

Far from perfect, but essential!

I don't know the answer but I do know I am not comfortable with the electoral college. In the area where I live we have had problems with redistricting. A push to redistrict helped slant our elections towards Republican voters. The electoral college may make me uncomfortable and confused, but the redistricting is clearly wrong to me.

http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/15584199501/supreme-...

Be careful what you think you wish for with a popular vote - the unintended eventual outcomes might be quite a surprise!

The electoral process keeps things in balance. Ya think folks in the big cities give much to-do about the farmers and their needs? Only when they go to the grocery - and some probably can't make the connection then!

I dont understand wanting to bring back making people take a test to vote. Who gets to say how much people have to understand? People are not always smart. Does that mean they shouldn't get to vote? Do they have to have a college degree? Do they have to have a GED? Do they have to graduate from high school? Do they have to go to the polling place and take a test like the blacks did and the white lady behind the counter said no? How hard would the writing be? THats what they did down in the sourthern states to the blacks.

Another poster already wrote about this here and I read what she said and it was true. I dont understand why her answer is gone. Miranda said the same thing. Are you all going to report her post to just because you dont like the truth?

I dont know much about the electoral college but I know about being treated bad for not being smart and not making much money. If you have brains that is great. If you have money that is great. But liking a person to vote for them is also about trust even if you dont undersantd all the pollitics.

I'm a fan of going with the popular vote. The Electoral college is total BS and not representative of everyone in the state. Personally, I think that if the state typically leans Red, and you have a blue vote...then what's the point in your voting when it won't count in the end?

That said, every single district in this nation needs to be on electronic voting. No more manual. And if you can't vote electronic -at a facility, not online - then you can't vote in that election.

We need to remove human idiots from the equation...since not one election passes that there needs to be a count and recount because someone screwed up.

I feel like my vote doesn't count for anything. No matter what I want the electoral vote makes the decision.

I agree with Amanda F. If you live in a state that always votes one way regardless of the popular vote, what's the point in voting? For example in my state, a Republican vote in a presidential election doesn't count, ever. Even if a member of the electoral college "represents" an area that voted Republican, the state as a whole will cast all Democratic votes. I tend to vote Democrat anyway, so this doesn't affect me personally, but it doesn't make sense to me. It also creates a situation where candidates only care about and campaign in "swing" states, meaning that they tailor their campaign promises and market themselves towards winning the votes of certain demographics that they really need to carry them in the election, instead of just taking a stand for what they really believe in and plan to do in office.

For those who live in "swing" states...do you hate the election cycle, and do you believe a word of what the candidates say? Or do you have the sense that they're just there saying what they need to say to try to get your vote but will ignore you when they get to office?

Ultimately, the electoral college was put into place because the founding fathers were afraid the generally uneducated public would make the wrong choice.

I can't think of a single instance in my lifetime where the electoral college didn't vote as a block nor can I think of one time in my lifetime where they voted against the popular vote in their state (save Florida... what a mess, anyway).

Updated: I don't understand how a popular vote wouldn't represent people equally By popular vote, I mean popular vote. No other mechanism to influence the outcome. One person's vote would be the same as any other person's vote. Wouldn't that sort of ensure that the beliefs and agenda of the majority would win? Isn't that what democracy is about? It may not always be fair and obviously we have put safety nets into place so minorities have a voice (to prevent discrimination, etc.), but if the TRUE majority of the US population - regardless of state - wanted a specific agenda in our government, wouldn't a popular vote promote that?

If the electoral college was actually affecting the outcome of an election separate from the popular vote, then I'd say it's still has use. However, as it is used today, no.

The electoral college and the voting screw up on the 2000 elections are what stop me from voting on the national level. It seems pointless to me. I just recently got my faith in the local government systems restored enough to vote on that level, but doubt if I will vote on national levels as long as that is in place.