Question for debate: Should the Electoral College be removed and the President/Vice-President elected directly by the U.S. people?

Would Republicans have a better chance at winning the White House if the Electoral College was abolished and people elected the President directly? I listed to the left of each state it's Electoral College votes.

Bush states

4 Idaho
5 Utah
3 Montana
3 Wyoming
8 Colorado
32 Texas
3 North Dakota
5 Nebraska
3 Alaska
8 Oklahoma
7 Mississippi
12 Indiana
8 South Carolina
14 North Carolina
13 Georgia
13 Virgina
8 Kentucky

leaning Bush
8 Arizona
5 New Mexico
21 Ohio
5 West Virgina
6 Arkanansas
4 New Hampshire
6 Kansas (we won the Governor's race, but it went for Bush in '00)
204 sum of Bush states & likely Bush

up for grabs
25 Florida
22 Illinois
23 Pennsylvania
11 Tennessee
11 Missouri (we won the Governor's race but it has 2 Republican Senators we lost the Senate by I think less than 2500 votes)

leaning Dem.
7 Iowa
11 Washington.
7 Oregon
11 Wisconsin
33 New York
4 Maine
10 Minnesota
3 Delaware
9 Louisiana
4 43. Nevada
3 South Dakota

Dem states
54 California -- remember CA has many Green officials no way CA is voting Republican
3 Vermont
12 Masschussetts
4 Hawaii
10 Maryland
15 New Jersey
4 Rhode Island
8 Connecticut
3 District of Columbia
210 (sum of leaning Dem & Dem states

This is like asking whether we should have a playoff in college football instead of the BCS ranking stuff.

And some of the states that you have leaning one way or the other are really still in play. Just depends on local economic conditions, which tend to be the biggest cause of voter dissatisfaction with the ruling party.

If there were no electoral college during the last election, Gore would be in office right now.

I say, abolish it. It was put into place by white boys with silver spoons in their mouths wanting to make sure that the "general stupid public" didn't make a mistake.

If Gore would have been elected without it, that's an argument for retaining the Electoral College as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not so sure about that ...

It asumes without the Electoral College the popular vote would have been the same at is was is -- a questionable assumption since many third party votes were cast with the effect of the Electoral College taken into account. I voted for Harry Browne on the LP ticket knowing my state was locked up for Gore, but without the Electoral College I wouldn't have felt free to do so and would have voted for Bush instead, not enthusiastically but as the lesser evil.

No, retain the Electoral College. It's one of the important checks and balances built into the Constitution. It weights the vote just a little in favor of the smaller states, since each state, regardless of size, has two additional votes, and that's a good thing, an equalizer that helps prevent the large states from dominating all by sheer size. Because of the EC states like Delaware and North Dakota matter, but without it the big city vote is too powerful. The other way would be more democratic? Yes, it would, but that's not a good thing. This is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, and that's more than just a slogan.

Along with what Izdaari stated there are a few other problems with that statement. The electoral college leads to increased political resources devoted to battleground states. Without an electoral college more funds would be diverted to get out the vote campaigns in states where a candidate is already a clear winner. What the electoral college does is prevent a regional candidate from taking the Presidency.

I think it is simply antiquated, and should go. It was just as much a way to get around the problem of communication and logistics back when the country was founded as to disenfranchise as much of the ignorant poor as possible. Get rid of it, and let the most popular candidate win. He/She is held in check by the legislative branch, so there is no real demogogue issue IMO.

I have to agree with CruisingRam. I've never been quite comfortable with the electorial college system and after the 2000 election, the fiasco and the ultra coverage, I was educated by a constant inundation of information on the electorial process. Needless to say, I was flabbergasted by it.

"Electorial College: You are the weakest link. GOODBYE."

Coming from a "white boy," that's kind of offensive.

I thought that the electoral college was to give added weight to the smaller/less populated states during Presidential elections. You know, the same reason we have a Senate. Should we abolish the U.S. Senate while were at it? I don't think so.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue, dave.

In my conversations and reading of internet boards, overwhelmingly, liberals seem to want to see the electoral college go the way of the Do-Do. Yet conservatives want to see it stay, and cite the reasons it was instituted in the first place.
My theory: Midwest states and rural areas would not be on campaign stops anymore. Candidates would spend the lion's share of the time in metropolitan areas with population density. This would be advantageous for liberals and the death of conservative candidates.
I feel sorry for the people in North Dakota if the college ever goes away.

Frankly I can't see the reason why the electoral college should exist at all... How exactly does it provide a check/ balance?

It seems to me that its an open invitation for corruption. Democracy should be as simple and open as possible.

I'd scrap it.

Scrap it. I think that it would be more fair to use the Popular Vote than the Electoral College because, like in the 2000 elections, Gore won but he didn't and Bush won but he didn't. Everyone makes up the whining story of "Bush stole the election because Gore had more votes than he did".

Use the Popular Vote since it makes a lot more sense. The results would be the same in the 2000 election if we had used the Popular Vote but Gore would really be the President

Keep it. And it is pretty easy to understand why

The top 16 states in the United States = more than half the population of the entire U.S..

If you scrap the electoral college you will have presidential hopefuls only campaigning and making promises to people in these states. Then once elected most policy will be directed to those in the high population states effectively leaving the others in the dark. And don't say it won't happen because it will. Even now states with fewer electoral votes get less resources.

Imagine Wyoming with a est population as of census 2002 of 498,703. Why would you keep any kind of promise to these citizens when you can make the state of Florida happy with 16+ million votes available.

Maybe but that would jsut make the other states unhappy and they will drop their votes for that candidate and vote for someone else

Listen, they don't visit our state because even our electoral vote means nothing, so we don't get any consideration because we help them win the presidency, the only reason they visit is because of one or two VERY powerful and SENIOR congressmen/legislators, which provides the real check and balance I was refering too. No, the electoral college WAS set up as a means of discriminating against the poor, when land ownership was part of voting etc, and various states could find a way to keep black and women apoligist voters away from the polls. And the main reason really we have the electoral system was because of communication issues. It was very clear in many letters from the founding fathers that they feared the unwashed masses vote, that notion has gone away, time for the electoral college to go away too, as BJ said "you are the weakest link, buh bye!

I have mixed feelings. I can see the argument for shifting power a little bit away from large states and large areas of population. Overall, however, it seems to me that the Electoral College is more trouble than it's worth.

I'm glad to see moif speak up about this. I always thought that people in other nations must see this system as rather strange.

Do you have any proof of this or is this just another the rich are holding the poor down rant?

I don't know if some of my old history books are on-line, but I remember quite well the debate over whom should vote among the founding fathers, and I am sure you recall there being real debate and in some cases, actual practise of only allowing land owners to vote. That would be a complete disenfranchising of the poor landless wouldn't it? Heck, we didn't even get away from poll taxes and testing for blacks until mid last century, so is this such a stretch?

I dunno. The electoral college keeps small states fom becomming irrelevant in the process. I, myself, like the electoral college. Remember, if Al Gore would have won his home state he would be Pres right now. Tyranny of the masses is what the founders were afraid of. A populist voting of the President would be one more step in that direction. I truely believe if Al Gore would have won the way Bush had the Dems would be screaming to keep the electoral process.

cusbilla

I am very opposed to the electoral college. Yes some states would have more say but why even consider that. All that matters is that the majority of the country wants him/her to be in office. It seems like the people who want to keep the electoral college are hung up on seperating the states and less interested by whom we, as a country, want to be our president.

Well you know me... I have a big mouth

...but considering Cruising Rams post, I have to wonder, if the college has been around that long, is it not perhaps time to at least evaluate the need for a reform by now?

Honestly, I don't care if small states don't have as much power. They still get two Senators like every other state, so they still get equal representation. The President should be elected by the majority of Americans, not by an undemocratic, pointless institution. Just because the founding fathers saw it as necessary doesn't make it so.

Remeber, only white men of property could vote under the original Consitution. The Electoral College deserves the same fate as that provision.

In reading the messages in this thread, I weep for my children and their children.

I sit in disbelief of the degree that the Constitution is assaulted with modern reconstruction, and the shear number of ill-informed citizens professing the wholesomeness of this degradation of principles.

Our schools have failed our nation. They produce, by any scale used, inferior minds, looking for the easy answer, willing to sacrifice principles for expediency or worse, immediate political gain.

How can a Constitutional Republic continue with a constant influx of new voting age adults that have no comprehension of how our government functions, or worse, no knowledge of the founding principles of our nation?

As far as this nation is concerned, it is infected with a disease that is lethal to individual liberty, that disease is democracy. The first casualty under a democracy is the voice of the minority; that's democracy's ultimate outcome, to eliminate dissention. The minority is always subjected to the majority's will, generally not to their benefit. It is those reasons why the founders endeavored to close every possible gateway for "democracy" to plant root in America.

"In a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority ...and that oppression of the majority will extend to far great number, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. Under a cruel prince they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation: they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species." -- Edmund Burke

"It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason. -- Lord Acton

Such outcomes were hopefully precluded because the powers of the government are strictly limited and separated, the powers of the people are diluted by representatives apportioned by population and the President is chosen by electors apportioned to representatives.

Of course, nothing is sacred when the "will of the majority" is busy; not even the Bill of Rights. Thankfully though, some sanity exists, some adherence to the founding principles remains in force, at least until more "progressive" judges can be appointed.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).

Our rights are not subject to any vote . . .
They are not subject to the whims of public officials, or the will of the multitude . . .
Isn't that a wonderful premise?

My opinion regarding the Electoral College is that it is but another necessary requirement to ensure this nation precludes the foothold of democracy. The only change I would make would be to do away with the winner take all system, assign electors according to Congressional Representative districts.

This would get the Congresscritters out among the people more, pressing the flesh, hearing their concerns. The Reps would be pushing to deliver their district for their guy, whichever party it is. This would help the execution of government and perhaps reconnect the Reps with their constituents. Anything to keep them off the corporate jets and junkets to the Virgin Islands.

And your obnoxious, offensive rant has what to do with the Electoral College? Sitting here and insulting anyone who would dare to disagree with you isn't going to convince anyone. You see, what you've done is commit a series of logical fallacies, not a logical argument:

Ad Hominerm
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Fear
Straw Man
Red Herring


This comes from a site called Nizkor, which, among other things, lists logical fallacies. You might want to browse it sometime before you post another off-topic travesty like that.

Yes, the people should be the ones in charge, let's trash the college!! While we can thank the founders for creating a good model of government, we have had to correct some of their "safeguards"(i.e.-provisions to protect them from the propertyless hordes) such as state legislatures choosing representatives, etc. Some of them are probably rolling in their very graves over the fact that the people vote as often as we do.

Roger Sherman



Elbridge Gerry


I believe that getting rid of the electoral college will strip away the last vestige of whig breech-stocking pretense from the constitution

Good analogy considering they both leave themselves open to crown two winners and both should be done away with.

Since the number of votes each state gets is based on population, the notion that smaller states are given more voice by this antiquated system seems absurd. For example, as a resident of AZ and our 8 electoral votes, I get the feeling that I am worth 1/7 as much as a voter in CA since they have 54 electoral votes. If each state had the same number of electoral votes or we used a popular vote where each persons vote actually counted as 1 vote, then that would be a leveling of the field. But as long as a vote cast in CA is worth more 'points' than a vote cast in AK, the system is flawed. The message is that since we live in less populated areas our concerns and ideas are not worth as much.

At the very least, to be representative of what the people have voiced, the electoral vote should not be a winner take all event. After all, I'm sure the 4,437,557 people who voted for Bush in California(42%) and the 2,907,451 people who voted for Gore in Florida(49%) would have liked their voice to have meant something rather than be nullified by an electoral college.