Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Okay, here's the forum discussion of the day. Should the electoral college be abolished? It's a question that Americans have been asking since perhaps its' very beginning... so cast your vote, and defend your opinion on this forum!

Remember, if you choose to "Reform" the Electoral College, be sure to post in here how you would propose to do so.

Also, please answer the associated question with the vote selected! I'm interesting in hearing a diverse array of people's opinions on this subject.

Abolish the electoral college. Go with a popular vote. No reason why we can't.

One man one vote.

There's a very good reason why it's done the way it is. To keep one state, one region or one interest from controlling the Presidency indefinitely.

Initially the fear was that every President would come from Virginia given the states population. It's conceiveable that the big state like California coupled with say, Florida, New York or Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois could dominate the Presidency on one man, one vote.

Do you really want the 12 states with the highest population controlling the Presidency from now until time ends? That's the reason for the elctoral college, to limit the power of the states... checks and balances.

535 electoral votes one for each member of Congress. There's nothing in the Constitution that says states have to award their entire voting slate to one candidate. If a state has 21 electoral votes why can't a 51-49 vote result in a 11-10 vote instead of 21-0? That seems a little more fair.

To put it bluntly, I don't want one man one vote to count for President. It potentially gives too much power to a majority.

Initially the fear was that every President would come from Virginia given the states population

The fear was that each state would vote for a local candidate and the state with the most people would win. Not because of local bias, but because national campaigns were impractical. You may not even been heard of outside your state by their politicians, let alone their population. Later, state loyalty became party loyalty, and the electoral college was altered to prevent the people from just blindly voting their party without knowing anything else (does that function still work today?)

Do you really want the 12 states with the highest population controlling the Presidency from now until time ends?

Do you want the 12 swing states to control who gets elected from now until time ends?

To put it bluntly, I don't want one man one vote to count for President. It potentially gives too much power to a majority.

This country was built on majority rule... Your just afraid that it'll hurt the Republicans. And it probably would, since it gives more power to rural states.


The reasons for having an electoral college in the first place are gone, because of rapid transportation and the media, you can campaign on a national level, and get your messsage directly to the populus. How can a democracy function when for all practical purposes, your vote may not even count depending on your state? If you wanted to vote Republican in my state, Massachusetts, your vote isn't going to count. If you are against rule by the majority then why award the entire state to the majority when there may be a sizable minority? (previous poster has a solution for this but it still gives more power to states with lower populations).

Why rig the system so that certain people get more power than others? Thats all this system does anymore.

Wow, it only took the first poster to say that the Electoral College is only favored by Republicans. I thought it would take at least two.

Amazing how yet this is another part of the Constitution that some view as "outdated" and "obsolete" and the "living document" needs to be "brought into the reality of modern life".

I'm so glad that this issue will never go to a Constitutional vote in my lifetime and message board idealogues will be stuck criticizing anyone who supports the Constitution with a literary progrom with a visceral hatred upholding the law entails these days. Guess what, these 12 battleground states will decrease. We're in a phase, not a trend.

Once the Democratic party has isolated a continually growing amount of its aging and "labor" based members it will be further dominated by younger and increasingly more left wing and anti-American members. Then those members who they take for granted... labor, older lifelong Democrats and GASP even minorities will go Republican. When Joe Lieberman is the last of the hawkish Democrats in the vein of Hubert Humphrey and the leadership consists of Clinton (D-NY) and Pelosi (D-CA) your party is out of touch with mainstream America.

That being said these battleground states from 2000 and 2004 won't be battleground states forever. 2-3 elections tops.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark There's a very good reason why it's done the way it is. To keep one state, one region or one interest from controlling the Presidency indefinitely. Initially the fear was that every President would come from Virginia given the states population. It's conceiveable that the big state like California coupled with say, Florida, New York or Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois could dominate the Presidency on one man, one vote. Do you really want the 12 states with the highest population controlling the Presidency from now until time ends? That's the reason for the elctoral college, to limit the power of the states... checks and balances. 535 electoral votes one for each member of Congress. There's nothing in the Constitution that says states have to award their entire voting slate to one candidate. If a state has 21 electoral votes why can't a 51-49 vote result in a 11-10 vote instead of 21-0? That seems a little more fair. To put it bluntly, I don't want one man one vote to count for President. It potentially gives too much power to a majority.

as usual, PAD is correct.

Personally, I think reform is in order. A state's electrial votes should be split according to how each candidate did in each state. This more reflects what each state wanted.

That's my stance if you absolutely insist on reform ZarathosNY. If you're going to reform it don't elminate the Electoral College. Make it so states can split their votes. Then though you have an argument on how to split.

What if someone wins a state by 20 points and they just have 3 electoral votes? Is it a 2-1 split? That's 66.6% of the votes going to a 60% voting margin assuming two candidates of course. What about a state like California with 55 electoral votes? What if the margin was 52-48 for Kerry? Do you really think the California Congressional delegation could stomach giving George Bush 26 of their states votes? How about.... no f'ing way.

The founding fathers were and are more brilliant than anyone really gives them credit for. Not bad for a bunch of rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes and enslaved and stole a country from the Native Americans huh?

A popular vote best represents the will of the people because no one state is going to vote 100% for either party. This would also give third party candidates a better (although still not good ) chance.

Currently swing states get all the attention (and pork barrel). A popular vote would force both major parties to move closer to the center rather than just playing to their bases.

That's a good theory MBE but also wrong. Swing states do not get the benefit of pork. The "real" definition of pork is if your state receives more federal benefits than it pays in taxes. Consider the following statistics.

Florida receives $1.01 for every dollar it sends to Washington.
Michigan receives $.88 for every dollar it sends to DC.
New Jersey $.62
Ohio $1.03
Pennsylvania $1.09

Those are the big "battleground" states that are being heavily contested this year. The "pork" states are typically smaller in population,poor and/or have an extremely powerful Senator. The highest benficiaries of federal pork?

District of Columbia $6.44
New Mexico $2.37
North Dakota $2.07
Alaska $1.91
Mississippi $1.89
West Virginia $1.82

Oh and if you really want to gague the strength of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and the Massachusetts delegation? Quite frankly, they suck at bringing home the money for their state. The return on dollars sent home as fallen from $1.01 to $.72 in the last decade, just about the biggest drop on the list.

As always.... LINKY LINKY!

I feel that it should be reformed, but not removed entirely.

Partly why I feel this way is because of what was mentioned earlier: population appeals could dominate, drowning out the concerns of smaller states. Some states have very specific problems, that would go overlooked in a system of individual representation.

EDIT: We must remember that we are a confederacy of states, and though we don't look at it as such very often anymore, we are states that sometimes have very different agendas. If entire states' goals were ignored or not given some opportunity for fair representation, there'd be no reason for them to continue to be in the Union if you want to look at it that way. (Who ever thought that I'd be speaking like a Republican? But they have a point on State's rights I think.) Granted, the two party system hurts that state customization as well, but at least there is some say. For instance, take a small state like New Hampshire. They only have 2 million people, but they get 3 electoral votes. They have a halfway decent people to vote ratio, and thus can be heard a little louder even though they're a very small state.

The other reason why I feel this way is because of the other reason that the protection is in place. Our founding fathers believed that people were easily appealed to by emotion, and that such fallacious appeals might swing enough of the population to make us make terrible mistakes. The electoral college can potentially be a safeguard against that, because I feel that this is a quality in humans that we have to account for.

What kind of reform would I propose? Well, I would be in favor of having the electoral votes reflect the votes of the population, with reasonable measures to protect the right for electoral voters to make their own choice in extreme cases if need be.

They should just do away with it, Let the Popular Vote decide

Originally Posted by Thunderscope They should just do away with it, Let the Popular Vote decide

Yeah, like I actually trust these idiots who run out to vote because of Rock the Vote?

We don't need to reform the system... we need to get an informed population. Of course, that will never happen.

Once the Democratic party has isolated a continually growing amount of its aging and "labor" based members it will be further dominated by younger and increasingly more left wing and anti-American members. Then those members who they take for granted... labor, older lifelong Democrats and GASP even minorities will go Republican. When Joe Lieberman is the last of the hawkish Democrats in the vein of Hubert Humphrey and the leadership consists of Clinton (D-NY) and Pelosi (D-CA) your party is out of touch with mainstream America.

So we're all a bunch of pinko commys, and anyone that disagrees with the Republican party line hates America, is that right?

I could easily say the same thing about the Republican party, the far-right wing is getting far too much influence. Both parties are getting out of touch with mainstream America.

Amazing how yet this is another part of the Constitution that some view as "outdated" and "obsolete" and the "living document" needs to be "brought into the reality of modern life".

What about the Republican amendment to ban gay marriage? I don't see the Democrats trying to add something to our constitution that is bigoted, disgraceful, and specificly denies rights to a group of people. The thing that will keep centrist Democrats away and drives fiscal conservatives but social moderates crazy is the Republican War on Gays and Unwed Mothers.

The only thing unamerican here is trying to stifle your opposition by calling them unamerican and unpatriotic.

That's always been a weapon for both parties. This isn't a new thing. Since god knows how long both parties have been using the 'unamerican' slander/libel to attempt to downsize the opinion/polls of their opposition.

However, it IS unamerican for a democratic system to be denied. A democratic vote either has the people voting DIRECTLY or their representatives voting DIRECTLY. The Ellectoral College was useful in the past in order to keep a certain balance. However, the needs of the past no longer are the needs of today. The Ellectoral College should be removed.

So we're all a bunch of pinko commys

Yes, you got it. Congratulations, first try out of the box!

What about the Republican amendment to ban gay marriage? I don't see the Democrats trying to add something to our constitution that is bigoted, disgraceful, and specificly denies rights to a group of people. The thing that will keep centrist Democrats away and drives fiscal conservatives but social moderates crazy is the Republican War on Gays and Unwed Mothers.

Kerry is against gay marriage. But i guess you'd have to know his stance on things to know that...

Wow, Kerry also voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq too! You mean he has issues that sometimes agree with Republicans and even George Bush? ***GASP***

Originally Posted by Cracka Kerry is against gay marriage. But i guess you'd have to know his stance on things to know that...

Kerry is not campaigning for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. You can be against gay marriage and still not agree with the amendment.

Look you want to know how to deal with gay marriage? Stossel hit it right on the nose. Have the church do "gay marriage" and for the U.S. call it "Civil Unions", it's as simple as that. It's also a great thing to shut up the Religious Right Republicans and Bush who uses that as one of his platforms. Now if only we'd legalize Pot and Hemp and make money off both then wed have part of the stool kicked off from the Republican party.
Oh and Pitts do you REALLY think a Black man wants to associate with a party whom one of their members(one of my Uncles) who said "Black people ruined Oakland." or something to that effect when I commented on how I was excited or curious to see it.
Seriously the Republicans have to fake caring about Black people like the Democrats have done before they'll get a signifigant amount of the Black population on their side.
Oh and I'm more for the "Popular Vote" concept and abolishing the Electoral College though I respect ya'll points. Shouldn't most of the funding GO to people with the majority population Pitts? Shouldn't their issues be looked at ahead of time BECAUSE they have the bigger population and depending on the issue, the more pressing concern?