Support NeoGAF

[Flynn]

A friend and I were discussing the coming election and It occured to me that many Americans, including myself, aren't terribly clear on how exactly the president is selected.

Here are some interesting resources:

The Electoral College
How the Electoral College Works

And here's some interesting discussion and analysis of the Electoral College:

In Defense of the Electoral College
The Electoral Vote Calculator

 

[sc0la]

The electoral college is a relic of an age in which it was far more appropriate. Plain and simple it is totally unnecessary in our time, and allows candidates from both parties to become lazy on the issues and campaigns.

When a state "doesn't matter" the candidates are not accountable for their actions towards those constituents. The term "battleground states" would disapear and everyone would pay far more attention to vote security and access since 500 votes anywhere becomes important, not just the last 500 in the last election in Florida.

For example, I can tell you the only reason Bush will even once think about california in the next month and change will be because Arnold is going to be out there pimping his campaign.

People say Nader lost the election for gore. Nader didn't, the electoral college did. I sure as hell would have reconsidered my Nader vote had my vote mattered (I am from Cali) and a lot of other people would have too.

Edit:

The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation.

From "in defence of" link.

See, this is shit. If anything the Electoral College only reinforces regionalism. Heavy and campaigning (and its inherent "promises") only get targeted in so called battleground states. The only thing we are doing is redefining regional power, based now on lines on a map rather than population. Why is that better? I understand that the fathers wanted to hedge the "tyranny of the majority" but a directly voted office does not take away the ability to to elect candidates based on plurailties etc.

If anything the founders would be appalled that we did not take the opportunity to evolve the constitution into a document that actually served as today, thats why there is an ammendment process.

 

[Drensch]

I'd say the proportions are off as well. In a state like California, an electoral vote represents a far larger number of voters than a vote from a state like Montana. I.e. an electoral vote from Montana is worth more. And that is fucked.

 

[DDayton]

But the whole POINT is to make the votes less dependent upon the population of the state. It's a balance between making sure that all 50 states have SOME say in the election and keeping the power of the population.

If we dropped the electoral college, many more states would be ignored than are ignored now. The college exists to protect states' rights... perhaps it is flawed, but it's better than a direct election by population.

 

[Jim Bowie]

 

[sc0la]

I'd say the proportions are off as well. In a state like California, an electoral vote represents a far larger number of voters than a vote from a state like Montana. I.e. an electoral vote from Montana is worth more. And that is fucked.

Exactly. I understand there is an aspect of federalism in that, but why should the states even get a say in who the president is. They are already represented by the legeslative branch.

Why should we assume that the states have any vested interest in who is president beyond what the people of that state desire? The state is not an indipendent entity that is capable of reasoning who it wants. i.e. if a candidates plolicies are detremental to one state over another in a manner that the residents of that state deem of worry, then they can cast their votes as such. This isn't the colonial times, "the states" are not the player they once were.

Its like frozen gerrymandering. and gets a big WHY? from me.

But the whole POINT is to make the votes less dependent upon the population of the state. It's a balance between making sure that all 50 states have SOME say in the election and keeping the power of the population.

If we dropped the electoral college, many more states would be ignored than are ignored now. The college exists to protect states' rights... perhaps it is flawed, but it's better than a direct election by population.

How many times in the history of the US precidency has the popular vote not reflected the outcome? 4 afaik. The last time was over 100 years ago. If the electoral college was such a powerful mitigator of majority totalitarianism you would think it would have altered the outcomes of many more. Is the popular vote still as flawed and impure when it agrees with the electoral college?

Would the states or country really have been a profoundly different place if the outcome of those had been reversed? Some would argue yes for 2000, but time has left us a lot closer to that experience than the others

 

[Drensch]

But the whole POINT is to make the votes less dependent upon the population of the state. It's a balance between making sure that all 50 states have SOME say in the election and keeping the power of the population. If we dropped the electoral college, many more states would be ignored than are ignored now. The college exists to protect states' rights... perhaps it is flawed, but it's better than a direct election by population.

Shouldn't all electoral votes be equal? Is a person in Montana more important than a person in California? I'd say their votes should be equal.

Suppose State y has 5 electoral votes an a population of 5 million, and State X has a population of 500k and 3 electoral votes. That's Bs. State X's voters have more of a say in what goes on.

 

[Zaptruder]

The electoral college isn't really a problem. Only twice in history has the popular vote gone against the electoral vote.

The real problem are with idiot voters. Most of America needs a fucking brain.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Shouldn't all electoral votes be equal? Is a person in Montana more important than a person in California? I'd say their votes should be equal.

Suppose State y has 5 electoral votes an a population of 5 million, and State X has a population of 500k and 3 electoral votes. That's Bs. State X's voters have more of a say in what goes on.

So I guess you dig the Senate over the House, yeah?

 

[DDayton]

Shouldn't all electoral votes be equal? Is a person in Montana more important than a person in California? I'd say their votes should be equal.

It's not the person, it's the state...

If we went to a strictly numbers based voting system, all the little states would lose any say they had over the choice of president, as their population is dwarfed by a few large states (with California, my home state, in the lead).

The point of the college is to make sure that EVERY state gets at LEAST three votes... extra votes are awarded based on population (via the votes per U.S. representative). This preserves the power and individuality of the states, and prevents a candidate with a very limited scope from winning the election.

The funny thing about the current system is that there are exactly as many electors as there are senators and representatives in Congress. I'm a bit surprised folks have never tried to get the electoral college filled with the reps and senators -- something which IS perfectly possible under the authority of the states.

Actually, can't a state decide on its electoral votes in ANY way it wishes? They don't all have to be "winner takes all", right?

 

[MetatronM]

Yeah, I think we might be at the point where it really is time for the Electoral College to go. It has just outlived its purpose.

Much in the way our state legislatures no longer elect the Senate, I think it's just about time for this particular constitutional relic to go. I'm actually somewhat surprised the matter wasn't really pressed after the 2000 election. I guess democrats didn't want to be accused of being sore losers who were going to try to rig the system in their favor.

 

[Drensch]

Yes(bowie), but I don't think that's related. The House is all whack jobs and radicals. It's a lot harder to be a whack job in the senate.

FYI California had about 10 million voters last election for 54 electoral votes.
Montana had 377k voters for 3 electoral votes.

An electoral vote in Cali was worth 185k votes.
A more valuable Montana electoral vote was worth 125k votes. Thus it takes far less voters in Montana to make a difference and their vote is more important than a person from the most important state.

 

[MetatronM]

Actually, can't a state decide on its electoral votes in ANY way it wishes? They don't all have to be "winner takes all", right?

Correct. The popular "election" for the presidency is actually technically little more than a state referrendum or opinion poll. It technically carries no legal power whatsoever. However, nobody is ever going to turn on their constituency and vote against them. Well...at least unless they wanted to commit career suicide.

 

[DDayton]

Correct. The popular "election" for the presidency is actually technically little more than a state referrendum or opinion poll. It technically carries no legal power whatsoever. However, nobody is ever going to turn on their constituency and vote against them. Well...at least unless they wanted to commit career suicide.

That wasn't my point. My point was that a state could set up their voting process so that the electoral votes are split by region/district, or in other ways. The federal government leaves it open to the states as to how to decide on picking their electors...

 

[MetatronM]

That wasn't my point. My point was that a state could set up their voting process so that the electoral votes are split by region/district, or in other ways. The federal government leaves it open to the states as to how to decide on picking their electors...

Hmm...you probably could do it. And it does happen from time to time that states split their electoral votes. I'm pretty sure Maine has a system that allows their votes to be split, for example.

 

[Gek54]

Shouldn't all electoral votes be equal?

No thats the point of the electoral college. It protects people from one part of the country from being ruled by people from another.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Yes(bowie), but I don't think that's related. The House is all whack jobs and radicals. It's a lot harder to be a whack job in the senate.

FYI California had about 10 million voters last election for 54 electoral votes.
Montana had 377k voters for 3 electoral votes.

An electoral vote in Cali was worth 185k votes.
A more valuable Montana electoral vote was worth 125k votes. Thus it takes far less voters in Montana to make a difference and their vote is more important than a person from the most important state.

Well, if you think about it, what you are arguing for IS a popular vote. The point is to make some STATE'S vote not irrelevant, not an individual voter. Montana deserves a say, their individual voters don't need a say, the state needs a say. You can argue that an individual from Montana has more say than an individual from Cali, but that's not really true. When you break the votes/electoral votes down as above, then yeah, you can claim that. The truth comes in that when %50.00001 of the votes of a state decide on a candidate, the WHOLE STATE backs that candidate. That pretty much overrides any breakdown you give. The point is, each state has a say in the President. Each state has a different say in the election. The point is to keep a 90% population deciding what is best for the Country when they really only care about their state.

Each state has different needs/wants. The two political parties don't come close to satisfying these needs. It would be even worse for small states if there was a popular vote. Hell with the exodus of people out of small towns towards the coast, the electoral college is one of the things actually helping the country in the long run. We can't forget about the heartland just because we don't live there. It's crucial to the world.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Shouldn't all electoral votes be equal? Is a person in Montana more important than a person in California? I'd say their votes should be equal.

Then there would be no need for the Electoral College. The point of the EC is NOT to make everyone's votes equal, but to make it possible for states to have a say in the election. A state may not have the population to make a dent in the election, but with the EC, it at least has a chance to make a difference.

Just because a part of the country is less populated does NOT mean it inherently has less of a say about domestic issues. Sorry, but the overwhelming opinion in California, Florida, and NY does NOT necessarily represent the opinion of someone in Kansas. This is a big country. There are MANY areas of concern, and what concerns someone in Oklahoma does not necessarily register with a voter in NY. With a popular vote, much of the country becomes more irrelevant than it currently is, which is not a good thing.

 

[Raven.]

A friend and I were discussing the coming election and It occured to me that many Americans, including myself, aren't terribly clear on how exactly the president is selected.

Of course, that does not mean it's the electoral college or the american voters that actually select the president, it's diebold... democracy in the US died in the year 2000.

Findings: The GEMS central tabulator program is incorrectly designed and highly vulnerable to fraud. Election results can be changed in a matter of seconds. Part of the program we examined appears to be designed with election tampering in mind. We have also learned that election officials maintain inadequate controls over access to the central tabulator. We need to beef up procedures to mitigate risks...

Diebold claimed its voting system was secure. It is, in fact, highly vulnerable to and appears to be designed for fraud....

It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully mitigate the risks. It is not too late to do so, and the corrective measures are relatively simple.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

How and when did the double set of books get into GEMS?

Black Box Voting has traced the implementation of the double set of books to Oct. 13, 2000, shortly after embezzler Jeffrey Dean became the senior programmer. Dean was hired as Vice President of Research and Development in September 2000, and his access to the programs is well documented through internal memos from Diebold. The double set of books appeared in GEMS version 1.17.7.

Almost immediately, according to the Diebold memos, another Diebold programmer, Dmitry Papushin, flagged a problem with bogus votes appearing in the vote tables. The double set of books remained, though, going through several tweaks and refinements. From the time Jeffrey Dean was hired in September, until shortly before the Nov. 2000 election, GEMS went through over a dozen changes, all retaining the new hidden vote tables.

For four years, anyone who has known how to trigger the double set of books has been able to use, or sell, the information to anyone they want.

the GEMS central tabulator system that counts approximately 50 percent of the votes in the election, in 30 states, both paper ballot and touch screen.

Elections were run on this tamper-inviting system for more than three years, and anyone who knew could sell the vote-tampering secrets to anyone they wanted to, at any time.

Whether you vote absentee, on touch-screens, or on paper ballot (fill in the bubble) optical scan machines, all votes are ultimately brought to the "mother ship," the central tabulator at the county which adds them all up and creates the results report.

These systems are used in over 30 states and each counts up to two million votes at once.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

What does this mean? All US elections going all the way back to nov 2000 have been seriously compromised... on purpose.

I think this quote, assuming it's real, is quite apt:

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
- Benjamin Franklin

 

[siamesedreamer]

The EC prevents large centers of population like NY, LA, Chicago, Philly, etc. from deciding Presidential elections.

 

[DaveH]

As a practical matter, the EC compartmentalizes trouble spots during a close election. As bad as Florida was last election, imagine going over every vote in every district of every state because every vote needed to be recounted. It's impractical. There's a huge amount of issues with electronic voting too.

Fact is, because we're human, the vote will always only be an approximation of the nation's Will... there will always be inconsistencies (corruption, lost ballots, misprinted ballots, etc). The EC does a good job of minimizing the effect of those inconsistencies, whereas a direct vote would cause them to affect the entire country.

 

[xsarien]

The EC prevents large centers of population like NY, LA, Chicago, Philly, etc. from deciding Presidential elections.

Pardon me while I try to reconcile this argument with my albeit simple belief that in elections, the person who gets the most votes should get the office.

 

[Ecrofirt]

The Electoral College, while flawed, is the best system we can come up with right now to make sure all the states have a say in the election process.

Think of it this way: Without the electoral college, the election would be based off of a pure popular vote. The problem with relying on a pure popular vote is that candidates will only have to campaign to states along the east and west coast (that is, after all where mose of out population is). Now you may say this isn't true, but imagine that you're a candidate. Would you want to spend your campaign money and valuable time coing across the midwest where you may only get several million votes total across all the states, or would you concentrate on states like California, New York, Pennsylvania?

You can't go with a pure popular vote, because at that point the middle of our nation no longer matters.

more when I get back from class.

 

[Eric-GCA]

You can't go with a pure popular vote, because at that point the middle of our nation lo longer matters.

I'm pretty sure thats exactly why most people here want the EC gone.

 

[Ferrio]

The Electoral College, while flawed, is the best system we can come up with right now to make sure all the states have a say in the election process.

Think of it this way: Without the electoral college, the election would be based off of a pure popular vote. The problem with relying on a pure popular vote is that candidates will only have to campaign to states along the east and west coast (that is, after all where mose of out population is). Now you may say this isn't true, but imagine that you're a candidate. Would you want to spend your campaign money and valuable time coing across the midwest where you may only get several million votes total across all the states, or would you concentrate on states like California, New York, Pennsylvania?

You can't go with a pure popular vote, because at that point the middle of our nation lo longer matters.

more when I get back from class.

And what's the problem with that? It isn't the fucking 1800's, we have televisions, radios and tons forms of communications. Just because a canidate doesn't go to a particular part of the US doesn't mean the people in that area cannot be informed about that canidate's ideals.

 

[siamesedreamer]

While you're trying to reconcile it, I'll give you an example.

Say candidate John Smith runs his campaign on the promise that all persons within the metro areas of cities with populations greater than 5 million would not have to pay income taxes if he were elected POTUS. Who do you think the 22 million NYers are gonna vote for?

 

[Seth C]

Pardon me while I try to reconcile this argument with my albeit simple belief that in elections, the person who gets the most votes should get the office.

It's a large country. While certain states may have a much smaller population, that doesn't mean they are less important to the well-being of the nation. While the vast majority of the people live on one of the coasts, the vast majority of the food they eat is produced inland. But, I suppose the voice of the farmers shouldn't be heard at all....

 

[xsarien]

While you're trying to reconcile it, I'll give you an example.

Say candidate John Smith runs his campaign on the promise that all persons within the metro areas of cities with populations greater than 5 million would not have to pay income taxes if he were elected POTUS. Who do you think the 22 million NYers are gonna vote for?

And while you're trying to dump a completely outlandish hypothetical situation on an otherwise perfectly legitimate and interesting debate, I'm trying to figure out how we're still using a system that allows the person with less votes to win the election. That doesn't seem a little "off" to you?

There are enough conservative metropolitan bases in the country to certainly offset the effects of the liberal slant of cities like New York City and Los Angeles.

 

[Ecrofirt]

You wackos fucking scare me.

To think that a candidate wouldn't do something tailored to the heavily populated areas is 'outlandish'.

Remind me not to vote for any of you if you ever run for office.

 

[MetatronM]

The Electoral College, while flawed, is the best system we can come up with right now to make sure all the states have a say in the election process.

Think of it this way: Without the electoral college, the election would be based off of a pure popular vote. The problem with relying on a pure popular vote is that candidates will only have to campaign to states along the east and west coast (that is, after all where mose of out population is). Now you may say this isn't true, but imagine that you're a candidate. Would you want to spend your campaign money and valuable time coing across the midwest where you may only get several million votes total across all the states, or would you concentrate on states like California, New York, Pennsylvania?

You can't go with a pure popular vote, because at that point the middle of our nation lo longer matters.

more when I get back from class.

On the one hand I do agree that the problem with going to a straight popular election is that you do in a sense disenfranchise the heartland. But to play devil's advocate, why should that be a problem? If more Americans feel one way about an issue than the other, then why shouldn't the majority rule? It's a pretty basic tenent of democracy.

That said, I do think you need some kind of check on the system to prevent a tyranny from the majority, but I don't think the Electoral College works quite right in that capacity anymore. With the Electoral Collegein place, too many voters in highly populated areas like New York and California are effectively discounted since it doesn't matter by what margin a candidate wins. If a candidate wins by a margin of 75 to 25, let's say, then nearly 50% of the voters' votes were useless in the grand scheme of things.

So the big question is "who do you give greater voting poer to?" The minority in the interior or the majority on the coasts? Or is there possibly some other system that can better balance the two?

 

[xsarien]

On the one hand I do agree that the problem with going to a straight popular election is that you do in a sense disenfranchise the heartland. But to play devil's advocate, why should that be a problem? If more Americans feel one way about an issue than the other, then why shouldn't the majority rule? It's a pretty basic tenent of democracy.

In matters of law, majority rule shouldn't necessarily be the way to go, but as you said, checks and balances. But as far as elected officials go, I'm a strong proponent of it. Not every city in the country is an oasis of liberal votes, and considering how many people could vote if they'd bother to get off the Barcalounger, a popular vote system could very well produce an official who's friendly towards the midwest.

 

[Ecrofirt]

On the one hand I do agree that the problem with going to a straight popular election is that you do in a sense disenfranchise the heartland. But to play devil's advocate, why should that be a problem? If more Americans feel one way about an issue than the other, then why shouldn't the majority rule? It's a pretty basic tenent of democracy.

That said, I do think you need some kind of check on the system to prevent a tyranny from the majority, but I don't think the Electoral College works quite right in that capacity anymore. With the Electoral Collegein place, too many voters in highly populated areas like New York and California are effectively discounted since it doesn't matter by what margin a candidate wins. If a candidate wins by a margin of 75 to 25, let's say, then nearly 50% of the voters' votes were useless in the grand scheme of things.

So the big question is "who do you give greater voting poer to?" The minority in the interior or the majority on the coasts? Or is there possibly some other system that can better balance the two?

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The Electoral System is flawed, that's for certain. I think that revisions definitely need to be made to it.

Going to a pure popular vote would kill off the interior states, and that obviously can't be done. There has to be some system of checks.

The problem is, right now the Electoral College is the best we've got.

 

[Jesiatha]

And while you're trying to dump a completely outlandish hypothetical situation on an otherwise perfectly legitimate and interesting debate, I'm trying to figure out how we're still using a system that allows the person with less votes to win the election. That doesn't seem a little "off" to you?

There are enough conservative metropolitan bases in the country to certainly offset the effects of the liberal slant of cities like New York City and Los Angeles.

While his situation is a bit outlandish, those of us in rural King county (same county Seattle is located in) are feeling some of the same problems. The county council (nearly all of which is from Seattle) does not take the rural areas into account when making decisions. So ordinances that make sense for somebody living in a major city get applied to people living on 50 acre farms where they make no sense.

The solution isn't going to be "avoid the popular vote", because there will always be some group whose voice is the minority. I think the right solution is to make sure that politicians and judges uphold the rights of those in the minority. Unfortunately, it seems way too easy for the corrupt to get in power and then you're out of luck.

 

[Ecrofirt]

In matters of law, majority rule shouldn't necessarily be the way to go, but as you said, checks and balances. But as far as elected officials go, I'm a strong proponent of it. Not every city in the country is an oasis of liberal votes, and considering how many people could vote if they'd bother to get off the Barcalounger, a popular vote system could very well produce an official who's friendly towards the midwest.

But it's far more likely to produce an official who couldn't care less about the midwest, and does everything in his power to make sure the states with huge populations love him.

 

[Seth C]

If more Americans feel one way about an issue than the other, then why shouldn't the majority rule? It's a pretty basic tenent of democracy.

Because some things we need to survive (say, food) require small populations (to allow, say, farmland). It's not so much about the average person of the heartland being left out, it's about the business that requires the heartland being left out of the decision making process. What's good for people in the city may not be good for the farmers, and we need the farmers. Even those of us in the city.

 

[xsarien]

But it's far more likely to produce an official who couldn't care less about the midwest, and does everything in his power to make sure the states with huge populations love him.

And what we have now produces candidates who pander to about two or three states every election year and take the rest for granted. Tell me how that's better.

 

[Ecrofirt]

I think what's best is avoiding the civil war that would probably arise from several presidencies of midwest-forgettin' presidents.

That's where I see the nation headed if the Electoral College is abolished and we use a pure popular vote.

 

[xsarien]

I think what's best is avoiding the civil war that would probably arise from several presidencies of midwest-forgettin' presidents.

That's where I see the nation headed if the Electoral College is abolished and we use a pure popular vote.

So you're just basing it on a big "What if...?"

 

[Ecrofirt]

It is certainly a big 'what if', I'll gladly give you that.

But I'd rather not run the risk of it coming to pass.

 

[siamesedreamer]

While my example is outlandish in its own merits, it just serves to illustrate exactly how presidential campaigns would be won - through the pandering of large urban ceters of the population.

 

[DDayton]

Besides, we've never been a democracy... we're a republic. Our strength lies in having several individual states working together, NOT in treating the entire country like one big city.

 

[Gek54]

And what we have now produces candidates who pander to about two or three states every election year and take the rest for granted. Tell me how that's better.

Thats not entirely true. Of course they will go stronger for the states with the most votes but they need as many states as they can get. Should be obvious if you followed the last election.

 

[Flynn]

Besides, we've never been a democracy... we're a republic. Our strength lies in having several individual states working together, NOT in treating the entire country like one big city.

Exactly. The men who created our representative government -- a Republic based on democratic principals -- feared mob rule and the disenfranchising of less powerful communities. The Electoral College is a check on the public, just like the House is a check on Congress.

 

[xsarien]

Thats not entirely true. Of course they will go stronger for the states with the most votes but they need as many states as they can get. Should be obvious if you followed the last election.

Two things are apparent from the 2000 election:

1) The electoral college can usurp the popular vote
2) There are states with large "prizes" for both liberals and conservatives

Take a look at what's going on with this election, both Kerry and Bush are campaigning almost exclusively in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Why? Because they're the states that can make or break a win in the EC. If it was a popular system, you'd see them trying to scrounge up votes in more isolated, rural parts of the country. There are certain states that just consistently vote a certain way. In a popular-vote system, a liberal will still take the majority of New York; a conservative still the majority of Texas. Each would probably get half of California.

If anything, it'd also provide a much more accurate political map of the country than the current system.

 

[sc0la]

Well the people on this board defending the college certainly give a better argument than the Cato institute

I understand and appreciate your arguments, but if a candidate could manipulate the popular vote, what is to stop them from manipulating the college in a similar fashion? offer citizens in florida, ohio and other battleground states some kind of incentive to turn the tables in their favor? Which is essentially what they do with manufacturing/farming subsidies etc. (not that I would argue those are as duplicitous or wrong as a "no income tax for people in this area" campaign)

 

[DDayton]

As a side note, it's not that the electoral college leads candidates to IGNORE whole states -- rather, there are several states which are more prone to having the entire populace vote a certain way, which means that they aren't as much of a fear as they might normally be. If more and more small states were undecided, they'd receive much more aggressive campaigning.

Also, I don't see how the electoral college can "usurp" the popular vote when the popular vote has never had any political value in the first place. The popular vote of the nation has no significance in and of itself, and I really don't see what's wrong with that. We are a nation of states, not one very large state.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think what's best is avoiding the civil war that would probably arise from several presidencies of midwest-forgettin' presidents.

That's where I see the nation headed if the Electoral College is abolished and we use a pure popular vote.

As opposed to, say, the civil war that would probably arise from a president winning the electoral college despite not even being on the ballot in southern states?
OH WAIT.

 

[Gek54]

Two counties right next to each other. One relies on cotton farming, the other relies on cattle. They must vote for one person to represent both counties. Cattle county had 1000 people while Cotton county has 100 people. You are in cotton county and you have entirely different needs and concerns that need to be addressed by the government. If popular vote was in practice do you realy think any of the candidates are going to give a hoot about your crop damage insurance problems?

 

[Phoenix]

Hmm...you probably could do it. And it does happen from time to time that states split their electoral votes. I'm pretty sure Maine has a system that allows their votes to be split, for example.

Yes, there are states that already do this and more that are planning to. If you get 60% of the votes, you get 60% of the electorate. No longer will winning simple majority in a state mean 'winning' that state.

 

[Phoenix]

Exactly. The men who created our representative government -- a Republic based on democratic principals -- feared mob rule and the disenfranchising of less powerful communities. The Electoral College is a check on the public, just like the House is a check on Congress.

Good, there are people here with sense. My work is done