The supposed justification of this archaic system of electing a president was to protect the interests of smaller states. Frankly, I fail to see that. A small state with a small population will also have a small amount of presidential electors, and their tiny amount of electors will be easily outvoted by larger states with many electors. I suspect that the only reason this system is still in effect, is because it provides a path to election for a political party that cannot get a majority of votes -- and it effectively keeps minor parties from having a voice in federal elections.
I will be honest. I do not like the electoral college system of electing a president, and I think it should be discontinued as soon as possible. It serves no purpose -- other than to occasionally subvert the will of the majority in an election. The only sensible way to choose a president in this modern world is to elect the person who received the most popular votes (either a plurality or a majority, which might require a run-off). I believe there are two main reasons to do away with the Electoral College.
1. The Electoral College can make it possible for a candidate to become president without winning the most popular votes.
This doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. It has, in fact, already happened four times in this nation's electoral history.
1824 -- John Quincy Adams was chosen president, but Andrew Jackson received more popular votes.
1876 -- Rutherford B. Hayes was chosen president, but Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote.
1888 -- Benjamin Harrison was chosen president, but Grover Cleveland received more popular votes.
2000 -- George W. Bush was chosen president, but Al Gore received more of the popular vote.
Whatever you may think of those chosen or not chosen, the fact is that the popular vote of the citizens was subverted. More of them voted for one candidate, while a different candidate was chosen to be president by the Electoral College. This is just wrong.
2. The Electoral College makes the votes of millions of Americans worthless.
Consider the following. In the 2012 election, there are about 12 swing states -- states where it is possible that either of the presidential candidates could win. That means there are 38 other states (plus the District of Columbia) where we already know who will be getting those states electoral votes. It also means that a person living in those states who is not a part of the political majority will be casting a meaningless vote.
For instance, a Republican voting in California or New York will be casting a meaningless vote, because the Democrats hold a winning majority in those state and the Democratic candidate will get all of the electoral votes from those states. And a Democrat voting in Texas or Mississippi will also be casting a meaningless vote, since it is a foregone conclusion that all of the electoral votes from those states will go to the Republican candidate. This is the case, as I said, in 38 states and the District of Columbia -- meaning that millions of votes from those states are meaningless, and will do nothing to determine the next president.
The easiest way to eliminate this problem of not having millions of votes count toward electing a president is simply to do away with the Electoral College. If there was no Electoral College, then all votes would count equally -- whether it was cast in a small or large state, or whether it was cast by a member of the majority or minority party in a particular state. All votes would be equally meaningful, and the candidate who received the most of those equal votes would become president.
That's what I think. What do you think? Should we do away with the Electoral College?
This debate has been going on forEVER. I remember having this discussion when I was in college back in the late 60s. It has gone nowhere. I have also heard many reasons for the initiation of the electoral college. One that makes the most sense considering the time it was initiated, is explained at this link. It has little to do with equality among states and more to do with the education and analytical abilities of the voters according to Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html. It was an elitist attitude by the founding fathers and should no longer be employed in our electoral process.
ReplyDeleteWell, you have a point but if you can only find four examples of the popular majority being overturned in over 200 years I hardly think that makes for a constitutional crisis!
ReplyDeleteIf you will allow an outside opinion, I would say that as a matter of principle anything that lessens the powers of State's Rights should be avoided. And I would think very long and hard before overturning the arrangements decided by the very wise men who designed your constitution.
Anytime the will of the electorate is thwarted, it is undemocratic. Those "very wise men who designed [y]our constitution" lived over 200 years ago in very different social and political times. Our constitution has had many meaningful amendments since then and has been altered to be more responsive to its citizens. Here is the preamble to the US Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The phrase "...in Order to form a more perfect Union..." gives its citizenry mandate to keep improving our constitution. The specter of the US being attacked by England is no longer a concern, we have an educated electorate, and technology keeps information immediate, so the elitist reason for the "electoral college" being initiated is not relevant in 21st century America. I would like to see it phased out completely because it has caused too much gambling and gaming and gerrymandering with our political system so that it no longer truly represents the citizens of the US.
DeleteWould that be the same "very wise men" who thought Blacks should only count as 3/5 of a person and women shouldn't be able to vote?
ReplyDeleteGra'ma Banana, you're not a lawyer by any chance? I ask because
ReplyDelete"The phrase "...in Order to form a more perfect Union..." gives its citizenry mandate to keep improving our constitution." is what I would call a lawyerly stretch!
No one, no, not even me, and I am tremendously wise as I'm sure you will agree, Ted, has perfect 20/20 wisdom.
'Banana' gives the game away in his/her dislike of variation between the States. A Federalist of the first water, I fear!
I'm not an attorney nor am I a professor. But I have lived in CA, TX, GA, AL, LA, NC, MN, MO, and Japan. Having experienced the "variation between the States" firsthand, there are some things that need to be standardized and our election system is one. The EU and its governmental problems comes to mind when thinking about variations in voting procedures and "States Rights" to legislate voting procedures. In the US, our right to vote is guaranteed by our constitution, one person, one vote. To layer it with another "silly" and unnecessary layer of voting by members of an electoral college invites state legislators to gerrymander voting districts which skew election results. Not fair to the voter nor to the candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe electoral College actually does equalize power among states to a substantial degree, and it dramatically empowers small states. The number of votes is determined by representatives in Congress, so the smallest has two for its Senators and one for its Representative for a total of three. The largest, California, has 55. But note that no state has fewer than three. DC has only one, but...
ReplyDeleteIf it were based strictly on population several states would not even have the equivalent of one vote, and California would have something like eighty. So my vote would be that, no, we should not eliminate it. The founders knew precisely what they were doing.