Question:
Would you support getting rid of the electoral college.?
red
2015-10-07 19:32:57 UTC
To me this shouldn't be a democrat or republican issue. are you for or against it? I am against it. On my opinion it is completly unnecessary in todays world since we have computers. Also it is litterally completly unfair to voters in certain states for example if you are a republican in the state of california there is basically no point to voting because no matter how many republicans in that state get out and vote they would still probably lose because they are out numbered by the amount of democrats. you can switch the situation around for the state of texas and many other republican states were the amount of republicans greatly ouy numbers the amount of democrats giving the democrats no point to voting. I was thinking about starting a petition on change.org to get this issue to congress. What do you guys think about this? Dont correct my grammar I don't care.
Sixteen answers:
?
2015-10-07 20:03:18 UTC
If you are suggesting a direct popular election of the president, I am for that. I hope you understand, though, that this would favor Democrats in practically every presidential election.
Mr. Smartypants
2015-10-07 19:38:42 UTC
NOBODY likes the electoral college. Since it was put in place in the Constitution there have been something like 200 proposals to get rid of it.



But the EC was put in the Constitution as a compromise to give smaller states a little more power proportionately. Small states were afraid of big states so some concessions were made to get the Constitution ratified. It gives small states a little more power, and today those are 'flyover states', mostly red states. To ban it would require a constitutional amendment which would have to be ratified by a supermajority of states, meaning that some small states would be voting to give up some of their power. And that's not going to happen any time soon.



We have only had two presidents in our entire history who won the EC vote but fewer popular votes than another candidate. They were both pretty crappy presidents too, as presidents go.
Don't Fear The Reaper
2015-10-07 19:50:38 UTC
States do seem rigid. But, consider your argument in 1960 or 64. When several blue states today were red and red today were blue. The electoral is based upon the number of representatives in Congress per state. It provides a means of each state, or coalition of small states, to have a fair say in who may be POTUS. POTUS is not just the whole of American People as a mass. He presides over states and people. 50 unique states. There IS a point in voting. One vote can tip a former red district blue. One district can snowball into several districts. Changing the state blue.



There IS one prime reason for the electoral beyond that fairness. It keeps a demagogue from running his campaign only in large populous cities and states. Making him a potential oppressor of those whom do not live in large cities and densely populated states. The will of the large and populous dominating. A cruelly unfair democracy.
John W
2015-10-07 19:40:27 UTC
no, the small states would only join the union if there was an electoral college. Its a states rights issue of representation
viablerenewables
2015-10-07 19:51:32 UTC
If you got rid of the electoral college, large cities would be the only area where votes would matter.
2015-10-07 19:35:47 UTC
Yes I agree. Considering there isn't term limits in Congress and they have like a 12% approval rating. What is the point of voting? You would be better off stressing your concerns to your local representative.
2015-10-07 20:33:49 UTC
Yes, but a constitutional amendment to do so is unlikely to pass and would take a lot of time. That is why I support the National Popular Vote Compact. I would suggest putting your efforts there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Pat
2015-10-07 19:35:46 UTC
Yes. And Instant Runoff Voting, too.
?
2015-10-07 19:37:03 UTC
No.



Because it takes away the power of the smaller states.



If it was just popular vote, candidates would go to California, Texas, Florida, and New York.



If it was up to just popular vote, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Justin Beiber can be president.



I like our current system right now, because it forces candidates to go more towards the center.
2015-10-07 19:45:58 UTC
It serves no purpose, other than to make the vote of a Wyoming Republican the most powerfully represented vote in the country. I believe in our votes being equal...
2015-10-07 19:34:01 UTC
Yes.
2015-10-07 19:33:51 UTC
I am against it, but I've never lived in a small state.
2015-10-07 19:35:53 UTC
Yes I would
2015-10-08 12:24:39 UTC
Presidential elections don't have to continue to be dominated by and determined by a handful of swing states besieged with attention, while most of the country is politically irrelevant.



Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So, without a change in the system, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.



Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable. Only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election.



From 1992- 2012

13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time

19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time



If this pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,

Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.

If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.



Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.



• 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012

• 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012

• 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012

• 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012

• 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988

• 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988



By state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.



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 every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

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



From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie.



Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.



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.

The electors are and will be 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.



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



The National Popular Vote compact does not abolish the office of presidential elector or the Electoral College. Thus, there would be no change in whatever protection the current Electoral College system might provide in terms of preventing a demagogue from coming to power in the United States. However, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent a demagogue from being elected President of the United States, regardless of whether presidential electors are elected on the basis of the state-by-state winner-take-all rule or the nationwide popular vote



To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.



Instead, with the National Popular Vote bill, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.



The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.



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



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

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
2015-10-07 20:06:19 UTC
Totally agree. I have felt that way for years.
?
2015-10-07 19:54:20 UTC
that would completely end democracy.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...