Why do we need the Electoral College?

[WaffleSingSong]

Hi. I'm at my house, on my bed, bored, watching C-SPAN (which normally turns my head into a empty void, to be honest) and as I was watching this guy, his name is Mark Levin, if you want to know, talked about how there is people who want to remove the way we want to elect our president here in the U.S, and then gave reasons why we should not, which I will explain later, which is from the Electoral College. If you do not know what that is, here is a link explaining the basis of it (and a lot more.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw

Now, Levin said we should not remove the Electoral College for three reasons.

1, We are a Representative Republic, not a Direct Democracy. If we abandon the electoral college, we would not be following our Founding Fathers.

We would still be a Representative Republic, we would elect people to go Washington to vote on laws and manage our nation for us. It's just that instead of them electing the executive, we would be electing them. I mean, does it hurt to try to inch to a Direct Democracy as close as possible without our lives being too occupied by maintaining our nation? Most political people want a more concrete say in our government. Why not give them that? We used to elect our state governors a similar way, until the progressive movement kicked it out of the system and gave way to popular vote. Why can't we do something similar to something arguably more important than that? Especially today?

And, on a side note, the founding fathers wanted rich, white, land-owning protestant christian men running this country with hardly any government whatsoever because that's what they meant in the constitution of who gets rights, despite the fact they were more "liberal" than most men that day and age. I say that they would be appalled if they seen our country today.

2. Smaller states would not be as represented.

In a federal level, why should the boundaries of a state matter? In a federal sense, they should be erased. It's not like little Wyoming's power is going to be sidestepped, because it should not matter. When we vote, we are not Texans, Californians, Oregonians or Kentuckians, we are Americans.

3. The Electoral College helps so that a tyrant will not be elected into this country.

Quite frankly, this makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever. How would some Adolf Hitler rise to power because the people elected there leader directly? Especially under an organized constitution? If someone can explain this reasoning to me, I would really appreciate it, because that statement feels like some mentally challenged kindergartner told me this.

So, in my opinion, I say throw the Electoral College in the trash heap. If we did not have it in the first place, Andrew Jackson would of been president sooner and the Corrupt Bargain would of never happened, and Al Gore would of have been president period, and we might of got out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner, which most Republicans now think was a pointless waste of time even if they were the main ones supporting the war. It would of been for sure a slightly better America :).

[Seahawks15]

I believe the Founding Fathers were some of the greatest men to ever live.I believe the Electoral College is essential for the U.S Government and the people of the United States.We do not need another tyrant.

[WaffleSingSong]

I believe the Founding Fathers were some of the greatest men to ever live.I believe the Electoral College is essential for the U.S Government and the people of the United States.We do not need another tyrant.

The Founding Fathers would of been called discriminating anarchist loons if they lived today, I think that they were good people for that time period, but on today's terms? They would be with Alex Jones and all those other right-winged anti-government conspiracy nuts.

Why do you believe in the College? It is useless and, really, authoritarian. Why not let the people directly elect there president like they do there representatives/senators?

Another tyrant? Who is that?

[Seahawks15]

It is pretty old-fashioned and some people would say inaccurate for our century.But,look at the U.S Constitution.We have had it for centuries.Yes,we have added new amendments to the constitution.But,it is so amazing that the U.S Constitution has lasted so long while other countries sack theirs.The Electoral College is a very good way to vote.I live in Oregon,which is a small state compared to others.We would be mad if Congress sacked the Electoral College because Oregon wouldn't get to participate in national elections.We wouldn't have as much of a chance compared to New York due to our population.I am saying the last thing we need is another person like King George of England.We don't need another king or queen nor someone to overpower the government nor rule our country.

[WaffleSingSong]

It is pretty old-fashioned and some people would say inaccurate for our century.But,look at the U.S Constitution.We have had it for centuries.Yes,we have added new amendments to the constitution.But,it is so amazing that the U.S Constitution has lasted so long while other countries sack theirs.The Electoral College is a very good way to vote.I live in Oregon,which is a small state compared to others.We would be mad if Congress sacked the Electoral College because Oregon wouldn't get to participate in national elections.We wouldn't have as much of a chance compared to New York due to our population.I am saying the last thing we need is another person like King George of England.We don't need another king or queen nor someone to overpower the government nor rule our country.

I think the reason why our constitution has survived so long is because it has been, for the most part, ahead of its time, and I really do like the Constitution for the most part. But, it has changed during history too. Updating our Constitution is not a bad thing, especially when in fact makes it more of a symbol of liberty and checked government than it did before.

Imagine having the electoral college at a state level, the more populous a county is, the more votes it gets to elect a governor. The focus would be on the larger counties with more votes. The Electoral College actually burdens small states because it puts out the fact that it is, indeed, small, minus the fact that some small states have large cities (such as Portland with Oregon, and Louisville and Lexington with Kentucky.) What we need to do is to elect our president on popular vote and erase the borders of states when we are addressing something on a federal level, and, besides, we still have amendment legalizing, nullification and the Senate to make things equal for states when something is addressed specifically to a state. Electing the president is a federal thing, that's final. (P.S, I lived in Oregon for 4 years and I live in Kentucky now, which is just 1 more vote than Oregon at 8, so I do feel your pain to a sense.)

I also agree on not having another dictator as our country's ruler. But, what I am asking is why would a tyrant rise to power because we got rid of the Electoral College, or, a better question, how does the Electoral College have defenses to make sure a tyrant gets elected versus popular vote? It just does not make sense to say such a statement.

And, on a side note, "we had this law forever, and it works just fine" is not an excuse all the time. Like I said before, we use to elect our senators by state legislature instead of popular vote, because only 1 man during the constitutional convention supported the idea of popular voting of senators. Sure, we had it ever since the Constitution was written, and it did work, but it was authoritarian and did not give the people themselves any choice in how THEY would want to elect the very people to represent THEM. So the Progressives said something about it and eventually the 17th amendment was made to overturn this glitch in our constitution.

[Seahawks15]

Okay,I understand now.But,wasn't the popular vote ruled out after the first constitution failed?

[WaffleSingSong]

Okay,I understand now.But,wasn't the popular vote ruled out after the first constitution failed?

The Constitution was made to strengthen the government, and politicians, after the Articles "failed" because of Shay's Rebellion. The Electoral College made sure that politicians had more say-so in electing our president than the common people. I'm glad we have the Constitution now, but some of the ideas of the Articles of Confederation were pretty good, especially the popular vote, a state militia (even though I do believe it should have a limit if we were to re-enact this) and virtually no federal taxes.

[Seahawks15]

Yes,I don't believe in a state militia.But,I think the National Guard is good to have around.

[WaffleSingSong]

Yes,I don't believe in a state militia.But,I think the National Guard is good to have around.

I believe we should generally have a small one for each state, just so that state has more power on how it wants to handle emergency situations. Like, maybe 1 out of every 1000 people living in that state as a limit, perhaps? Also, it could create a lot of jobs. However, its just a new idea, so I'm still thinking about it more :P

[Seahawks15]

Yes,I agree

[thatcountrykid]

The Founding Fathers would of been called discriminating anarchist loons if they lived today, I think that they were good people for that time period, but on today's terms? They would be with Alex Jones and all those other right-winged anti-government conspiracy nuts.

Why do you believe in the College? It is useless and, really, authoritarian. Why not let the people directly elect there president like they do there representatives/senators?

Another tyrant? Who is that?

They werent anti-government. They were anti-tyrant. Right wing people are not conspiracy nuts. There are conspiracy people on both sides.

The college is usefull in our government. The citizens elect their representatives into the college so they have their say hoping they will follow popular opinion for the area the represent.

[WaffleSingSong]

They werent anti-government. They were anti-tyrant. Right wing people are not conspiracy nuts. There are conspiracy people on both sides.

The college is usefull in our government. The citizens elect their representatives into the college so they have their say hoping they will follow popular opinion for the area the represent.

I know they were not anti-government back then, but in today's terms they definitely would be. No federal taxes, no executive, useless federal court? Sounds like a hardcore libertarian in today's terms.

I know right-winged people of the U.S are not always conspiracy people, but out of the left and right, at least in the United States, they typically are right-leaning. There is also some left-winged conspiracy nuts too, such as people who support Lyndon LaRouche.

Sure, Representatives generally vote based on there district, but that's not the problem. The vote should be based on popular vote. Think about the 2000 election. If the electoral college was not around, Gore would of been president, no controversy what-so-ever, same with the 1824 election, without the electoral college, Jackson would of been president sooner and the Corrupt Bargain would of never happened.

And besides, there is still a possibly of certain scenarios, such as faithless electors and a tie election with the college, which could end with a bi-party Presidency/VP, which we seen how well that works with Lincoln/Johnson (not well.) With a popular vote, these scenarios are for sure to be removed for good, despite the fact that they are unlikely (we should never have such a chance for such scenarios to happen anyways.)

Also, politically charged people are always wanting more say in government, so how about giving that vote that they gave and actually give it a little power? "By the People, For the People," Right?

[ottootto]

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill does not remove the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

NationalPopularVote.com

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

Winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

In 2008, of the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes), 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states - NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) - got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states. In contrast, Ohio (with only 20 electoral votes) was lavishly wooed with 62 of the total 300 post-convention campaign events in the whole country.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

April 18, 2013 — The Oregon House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 38-21 margin.

A survey of Oregon voters showed 76% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support was 82% among Democrats, 70% among Republicans, and 72% among independents.

By age, support was 67% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 82% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 81% among women and 71% among men.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

-merged multiple posts. -Emerald Dream

[Harry Smith]

The electoral vote always makes the US election interesting I have to admit, it's always great to see the Battle for Ohio and other swing states.

However I really don't understand why the US still has it, I mean I know it would be hard to have a recount of a national-wide recount but as shown in 2000 the least popular candidate can end up winning