Should the Electoral College stay or go

[Renew Deal]

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Electoral College should remain
	9 (32%)
	Abolish the Electoral College
	15 (54%)
	Change it some other way
	4 (14%)
	Not Sure
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fearless]

1. Just because we won doesn't mean it works properly.

Some people's votes are literally worth more than others. That is unconstitutional. It should go.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Agreed, based on the idea that everyone has the same worth as a person, their votes should

have equal weight. The whole point of the EC was to let white land-owning men vote so that the unwashed masses didn't screw anything up. If that's not unconstitutional, I don't know what is.

[white_wolf]

3. Well it probably was constitutional back then.

Which just goes to show that simply because something is legal does not mean it is right. To answer the OP, yes the EC needs to be abolished ASAP.

[patrice]

4. If there were no campaiging (everyone would receive a voters' guide instead) would there be a

need for an electoral college?

[LongTomH]

6. Campaigns should be publicly funded and the Electoral College is an anachronism!

It was designed to limit the power of the common people, a purpose it still serves.

[patrice]

12. That is part of its purpose, but another part is to weight less populated areas

more heavily, so their votes stand a chance against population centers.

I was listening to someone the other day make the case that the fix is to end the "winner take all" aspect of the Electoral College, which is sketched out in this article:

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

20. The Senate is more than sufficient with respect to your point

[patrice]

21. Yes - Or it would be if we had authentic public financed campaigns & NO dependence upon MSM

as an information source, which could be affected by means of national voting guides of the sort used in Oregon, delivered to people's homes at least a month before the votes.

Really, no amount of tinkering with the systems is going to make up for an ir-responsible, ignorant electorate dependent upon various forms of propaganda and propagandists, like churches, to tell them what's going on.

Voting guides are constructed of language provided by the actual parties and ballot initiative activists and all points are presented side-by-side so that users can do precise comparisons of the official points about everything on their ballots.

[Selatius]

28. I think the United States is suffering from a lack of neutral news outlets.

If the United States government chartered something equivalent to the BBC and gave it editorial independence, it might provide a little more competition of ideas in the market of news. If all the existing news outlets are owned by corporate entities, it seems to make sense that the outlets would be skewed towards corporate interests and away from working class interests.

[jp11]

5. It should go but there need to be other changes to our elections

from money out of politics to shortening the election season, national holiday on election day, etc.

I think people looking at the results of electoral college presidential races and seeing how 'close' they can be with the popular vote are forgetting that those elections were run with the swing state mentality. Remove the electoral college and you have to change how you run an election so you won't get the same results. It seems it would be harder but with other changes like removing the edge/dependency on big money/superpacs etc with federally funded elections, free airtime shorter election seasons I don't see all doom and gloom. I also don't think the 'fear' that the electorate will be duped is destined to happen if other changes are made when removing the electoral college.

I think the worst thing about it is many people's votes don't count, and certain people's votes count more. Live in state where you are in the minority, why bother voting? your will in the presidential race will be ignored. Live in a swing state, congratulations you get special treatment probably special programs/government money etc. Presidential races are the ones that draw more people to vote, show people their will as a voter is meaningless and you just increased the load of why they might feel voting is meaningless. There's already enough of that with corrupt politicians and parties that claim to represent the people yet do whatever they feel like to chase after that check or the powerful group that has their ear etc.

[FreeJoe]

7. It should go via an amendment

I would like it to go, but not through some gimmick. It is part of the constitution. It was part of the deal to get small states into the union. We should pass a consitutional amendment to get rid of it. Until we can do that, I think it will and should stay. If we did otherwise, we would do more harm to the Constitution than we would gain in benefits.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

8. Flush it! I don't ever...

Last edited Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't ever want to hear about another swing state or panicked predictions that so-and-so will could win the EV but not the PV. I don't want to hear that so-and-so has virtually no path to victory when polls in western states are still open. I don't want to hear that it's OK for me not to vote because Illinois is solid blue. The electoral college discourages voter turnout. This country isn't center right. If the 95% turnout, we'll never again have to worry about the 5%.

Flush it!

EDIT #1
Those who don't show up now because they don't believe their vote matters got the wrong message. Their vote work down ballot races mean a lot! But they don't know that. That's because they focus solely on the top of the ballot. That's the message unsophisticated voters get courtesy the electoral college.

EDIT #2
The Senate gives tiny states all the ridiculously disproportionate power they believe they deserve.

[BadgerKid]

9. What about proportional EVs?

I can't recall exactly, but maybe two states split their EVs based on the party percentages of the popular vote. The idea of representing an blue/red island in an otherwise red/bule sea seems fair. Downsides?

[patrice]

23. Maine & New Hampshire, I think, see the article I linked above. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. This is f'ing interesting...

...at this point, 25 say abolish it and 25 say keep it, HOWEVER, those that want to keep it are keeping their reasoning to themselves.

I understand why Republicans want to keep the electoral college. It makes no sense for Democrats to want to keep it. I just don't see how Dems can agree with Rs when it comes to elections, ever!

[ipfilter]

13. Being a resident of Oklahoma I say keep it.

We are a small red state and a for all intents and purposes a statistical outlier. The state is a solid 3-1 in favor of Republicans. With a population of only 3.7 Million, 1.3 Million voted yesterday with 889,372 for Romney. In a close election this state with only 3.7 Million residents could potentially swing the popular vote. With 7 electoral votes this state gets fair representation on the national stage weighted to the population and our outlier status.

Now, perhaps we have stagnated to this point as a result of the EC. I don't know. I don't recall any candidate from any party ever campaigning here in my lifetime. Changing to a popular vote would certainly change the election game.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

16. 7 EVs is a much bigger worry when CA has *just* 55

Your argument doesn't hold water for a couple of reasons: (1) It applies to ANY state - there's nothing unique about OK or other state in that respect, and (2) CA is almost exactly 10 times larger than OK. If OK gets 7, CA should get 70. And if we're going to do it straight up proportional, shit can the damn electoral college.

Like I said above, the electoral college discourages turnout, which affects down ballot races, and if the 95% turnout, we don't ever have to worry about the 5%.

[madokie]

11. The only change needed is make them actually filibuster

That'll fix the problem

[dawg]

14. Tempted to say "keep it" after last night, but it should go.

It is arcane and undemocratic, and even if repealing it would make elections harder on Democrats right now, it needs to go.

[treestar]

15. I think it should stay

If it were by popular vote, the election could often be decided before Hawaii, Alaska or the West Coast is even counted.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

19. That's the problem today...

...I grew up in CA. It drove us nuts when they were calling CA and the presidential race early. And in the case of CA (and IL), *early* means months in advance. This electoral college shit is crap. It totally discourages people from going out and voting. Votes are counted in the PV. They don't mean diddly-poo in many cases in the EV.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

17. Go. It would be unconstitutional but for the fact....

....it is in the Constitution.

With equal protection and all.

[Ganja Ninja]

18. I vote go but ..

We need to pass some uniform voting laws that will insure elections are fair and everyone gets to vote.

[gollygee]

22. I see both sides, but can you imagine the pain of a recount?

I shudder to think.

[patrice]

24. Good point! Without EVs, HOW could you do a recount if you needed to, unless we're using paper

ballots.

[slutticus]

30. never thought about it this way....

That would be a disaster (i.e. very expensive and time consuming) but wouldn't it be worth it for a system where every single person gets an equal vote? (and campaigns would have to pander to everyone, not just swing states...)

How likely is it for the popular vote to be that close? To put things in context, if the 0.5% margin recount rule would hold, a popular vote recount would be triggered at a differential of about 500,000 votes or so....

[Bucky]

25. I think I'd like to see the states' electors unbunched (like Nebraska and Maine do).

That would take monopoly on campaign promises away from Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, but would still protect the small states from the neglect they'd suffer under a popular vote system.

[trotsky]

26. It's gotta go.

As we saw last night, everything hinged on Ohio. As it did in 2004. And as it did for Florida in 2000. It makes a nationwide election essentially just a statewide one, in ONE state! Easier to manipulate, easier to potentially steal.

[plcdude]

27. Yes I think

we should get rid of winner takes all and follow Nebraska and Maine. I vote in Oklahoma and I would have appreciated my vote and the rest of us that voted for Obama to go to Obama through the Electoral College as well.

[slackmaster]

29. The question is moot IMO

It will stay, because it takes only 13 state legislatures to block an amendment to the Constitution.

[leftlibdem420]

31. One problem with abolition...

The United States is so geographically vast, that it is possible for natural disasters or other factors external to the election itself to suppress turn out in one part of the country but to not suppress it elsewhere. What if Sandy had hit early this week instead of early last week in a popular vote election? Would Romney's inevitable popular vote victory reflect an actual mandate, or would it be due to a factor external to the will of the electorate?

[hughee99]

32. I'd prefer to see states split up EV's like Maine does.

Rather than seeing a state where it's essentially 50-50 have all the votes go to one candidate or the other.

To go to a national popular vote, instead of having 8 "swing" states decide the election, we'd have 20 or so population centers (in 6 or 7 states) decide the election. The elections would be a lot different, I think, where rather than having to address things like farm subsidies to court Iowa or Indiana's vote politicians could spend more time in their own back yard throwing out read meat to the base.