NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an interesting opinion from the NYT editorial page.

What do you think?

Abolish the Electoral College

Published: August 29, 2004

When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.

Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.

Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/makingvotescount (http://nytimes.com/ref/opinion/making-votes-count.html?pagewanted=all)

Keep the Electoral College, it has worked for years, it is great. When in doubt, dont change an old and storied tradition. If it was good for our Founding Fathers, its good for me.

Besides the bigger things in the article that I disagree with, I just think this is plain wrong :
In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.
Wyoming gets 1 rep and California gets many, many more, not just one.

Besides the bigger things in the article that I disagree with, I just think this is plain wrong :

Wyoming gets 1 rep and California gets many, many more, not just one.

Hey Kwan!

Each delegation gets one vote. Not each rep.

Oh yeah I got it my bad.

Keep the Electoral College, it has worked for years, it is great. When in doubt, dont change an old and storied tradition. If it was good for our Founding Fathers, its good for me.
Black slavery was good for your Founding Fathers, would it be good for you?

The Electoral College hasn't worked. The article said that the president has lost the popular vote but won the election three times since 1865. Not everyone's vote is equal. I know it was designed to give the small states a voice, but in reality it is blatant favouritism towards them.

The only reason it hasn't changed yet is because the small states like Wyoming tend to be more conservative than large states like New York or California (Texas is a notable exception). It is not in the interest of conservative political parties to change the syste that favours them over liberals. That's why they want to keep the Electoral College and that's why you want to keep it too.

The only reason it hasn't changed yet is because the small states like Wyoming tend to be more conservative than large states like New York or California (Texas is a notable exception). It is not in the interest of conservative political parties to change the syste that favours them over liberals. That's why they want to keep the Electoral College and that's why you want to keep it too.
The electoral college dosen't favor Republicans or Democrats (Conservaitves or Liberals). Smaller states get more votes, but of the bigger states that vote Democratic (California, New York, Illinois) end up screwing over numbers of Republicans equivilent to the population of a few of the smaller states combined. 2000 is just one example, where the Republican won out over the Democrat, but that does not establish a pattern that this would always happen. Right up to the election a ton of people predicted that the opposite would happen, that Gore would win the electoral vote and Bush the popular.

The article seemed biased. In a pure democracy, candidates would ignore small states, and just go for texas, california, and the other larger states. The electoral college has one advantage by making all states significant, so politicians don't pander to larger populations.

The electoral college dosen't favor Republicans or Democrats (Conservaitves or Liberals). Smaller states get more votes, but of the bigger states that vote Democratic (California, New York, Illinois) end up screwing over numbers of Republicans equivilent to the population of a few of the smaller states combined. 2000 is just one example, where the Republican won out over the Democrat, but that does not establish a pattern that this would always happen. Right up to the election a ton of people predicted that the opposite would happen, that Gore would win the electoral vote and Bush the popular.

But the point is it doesn't represent the people. I have never voted in a presidential election because I live in Indiana; which has voted solidly Republican since 1914, except for FDR. (And it's not that I'm a Democrat, either... Bush is an idiot, the older Bush isn't much better, Reagan wasn't too bad, though...)

In a sense, the electoral college makes some states 'pre-decided'. And if there was less than 1% difference in the vote in California, the amount of people whose votes go unseen now is much more than the population of VT, MA, CT ... all summed together.

I would actually prefer the state governments choosing the electors w\out input from the people to the current system... at least then it's obvious that your vote does not count on the national level

But the point is it doesn't represent the people. I have never voted in a presidential election because I live in Indiana; which has voted solidly Republican since 1914, except for FDR. (And it's not that I'm a Democrat, either... Bush is an idiot, the older Bush isn't much better, Reagan wasn't too bad, though...)

In a sense, the electoral college makes some states 'pre-decided'. And if there was less than 1% difference in the vote in California, the amount of people whose votes go unseen now is much more than the population of VT, MA, CT ... all summed together.

I would actually prefer the state governments choosing the electors w\out input from the people to the current system... at least then it's obvious that your vote does not count on the national level
I never said the electoral college represents everyone, however, to suggest that it is soley or mostly to the benifit of Republicans or Conservatives is wrong. Obviously some states are 'pre-decided', barring a massively popular president and a weak candidate such as what happened in 1984, or a very strong 3rd party such as that in 1992 and 1996, where traditionally Democratic or Republican states ended up going the other way.

Any system which means the person with the most votes doesn't win has got to be a bad idea and scrapped.

Any system which means the person with the most votes doesn't win has got to be a bad idea and scrapped.
There could be a system where someone gets the most votes but the majority of people would still rather have someone else. Simple plurality has as many potential flaws as many other systems.

Black slavery was good for your Founding Fathers, would it be good for you?

You ask this in jest, but I'm sure that our neocon friends would have no problem with slavery, as long as the Market dictated its necessity.

After all, the Market is God.

The article seemed biased. In a pure democracy, candidates would ignore small states, and just go for texas, california, and the other larger states. The electoral college has one advantage by making all states significant, so politicians don't pander to larger populations.
That is untrue. Rhode Island has two senators as does California. Yet the populations of the two states are polar opposites.

Uhm, this was already beat to death on another forum and an excellent article that breaks down the "vote value" of citizens of different states can be found at http://life.short.be/ (or I'll just paste it here, hang on).

Click for source.7-28-04
Are all men really equal?

To steal a line from George Orwell's "Animal Farm," some must be more equal than others--at least in the voting power they have when it comes to choosing the President of the United States of America. Now, in case you are wondering how Gore had half a million more votes than Bush but still lost the 2000 election, the stats in the chart below I feel do a pretty good job of explaining it. By winning the votes that are worth more, such as Wyoming, The District of Columbia, North Dakota, etcetera, Bush gets the majority of the votes in the Electoral College without getting the majority of the votes in the general election.

I am not going to put too much more bias or spin from my side onto this issue because I believe the numbers can speak for themselves. I would actually like to see any disagreers post in the politics board on the forum here at http://life.short.be (http://life.short.be/) and the rest of this discussion can pan out there. The only other thing I will add is just something to think about--a hypothetical situation. Candidate A gets 49% of the vote in every state, including the District of Columbia, but he gets 100% of California (remember, this is hypothetical). There is no third party so Candidate C get 0% (hypothetical). However, Candidate B gets 51% percent of the vote in the 49 states as well as the Disctrict of Columbia, but gets 0% in California. In this hypothetical situation, Candidate A has been awarded 56% of the popular vote, but what is the real outcome of the election? The electors from California award Candidate A their 55 votes (which is about 10% of the total Electoral College, and 20% or so of the votes needed to win the majority, that's not very much) and the electors from the other 49 states and the District of Columbia all award all of their electoral college votes to Candidate B because he won the majority of their votes. A candidate who only got 44% of the general election can win the electoral college with 90%. The thing is, this hypothetical situation is not the worst possible. I think that a candidate can win up to 65-70%, maybe even more, of the general election, but still lose the Electoral College. So, these are the facts and the numbers. Present any dissenting opinions in the politics board on the forum and we'll see what happens there.

-Nick Griffith

State EC* Population** Vote Value***
Alabama 9 4,500,752 1.999665 (1.08)
Alaska 3 648,818 4.623793 (2.50)
Arizona 10 5,580,811 1.791854 (0.96)
Arkansas 6 2,725,714 2.201258 (1.19)
California 55 35,484,453 1.549975 (0.84)
Colorado 9 4,550,688 1.977723 (1.07)
Connecticut 7 3,483,372 2.009547 (1.09)
Delaware 3 817,491 3.669765 (1.98)
District of Columbia 3 563,384 5.324965 (2.88)
Florida 27 17,019,068 1.586456 (0.86)
Georgia 15 8,684,715 1.727172 (0.93)
Hawaii 4 1,257,608 3.180641 (1.72)
Idaho 4 1,366,332 2.927546 (1.58)
Illinois 21 12,653,544 1.659614 (0.90)
Indiana 11 6,195,643 1.775441 (0.96)
Iowa 7 2,944,062 2.377667 (1.29)
Kansas 6 2,723,507 2.203042 (1.19)
Kentucky 8 4,117,827 1.942772 (1.05)
Louisiana 9 4,496,334 2.001631 (1.08)
Maine 4 1,305,728 3.063425 (1.66)
Maryland 10 5,508,909 1.815241 (0.98)
Massachusetts 12 6,433,422 1.865259 (1.01)
Michigan 17 10,079,985 1.686510 (0.91)
Minnesota 10 5,059,375 1.976529 (1.07)
Mississippi 6 2,881,281 2.082407 (1.13)
Missouri 11 5,704,484 1.928308 (1.04)
Montana 3 917,621 3.269324 (1.77)
Nebraska 5 1,739,291 2.874735 (1.55)
Nevada 5 2,241,154 2.230993 (1.21)
New Hampshire 4 1,287,687 3.106345 (1.68)
New Jersey 15 8,638,396 1.736433 (0.94)
New Mexico 5 1,874,614 2.667216 (1.44)
New York 31 19,190,115 1.615415 (0.87)
North Carolina 15 8,407,248 1.784175 (0.96)
North Dakota 3 633,837 4.733078 (2.56)
Ohio 20 11,435,798 1.748894 (0.95)
Oklahoma 7 3,511,532 1.993432 (1.08)
Oregon 7 3,559,596 1.966515 (1.06)
Pennsylvania 21 12,365,455 1.698280 (0.92)
Rhode Island 4 1,076,164 1.373406 (0.74)
South Carolina 8 4,147,152 1.929035 (1.04)
South Dakota 3 764,309 3.925114 (2.12)
Tennessee 11 5,841,748 1.882998 (1.02)
Texas 34 22,118,509 1.537174 (0.83)
Utah 5 2,351,467 2.126332 (1.15)
Vermont 3 619,107 4.845689 (2.62)
Virginia 13 7,386,330 1.760008 (0.95)
Washington 11 6,131,445 1.794031 (0.97)
West Virginia 5 1,810,354 2.761891 (1.49)
Wisconsin 10 5,472,299 1.827386 (0.99)
Wyoming 3 501,242 5.985133 (3.24)
Total 538 290,809,777 1.850007 (1.00)

* Source: http://www.archives.gov/

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2004/allocation.html

** Source: Based on 2003 Estimates. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

*** Source: Electoral College Votes divided by State Population then multiplied by 10^6 (to avoid lots of zeros) then rounded to the millionth (to avoid excessively long numbers). The number in parenthesis represents the value of that state divided by the national value (rounded to the hundredth).

Keep the Electoral College, it has worked for years, it is great. When in doubt, dont change an old and storied tradition. If it was good for our Founding Fathers, its good for me.

When the Electoral College was first put into effect, there were a LOT fewer states. Personally, I think it's obsolete. Worse, It's unamerican.

Why do 500 floridians count more in an election decision than 500,000 americans?

I would like to see the Electoral College done away with. "One man = One vote". We do not need a voting curve, we just need to make sure people vote.

foxterrorist

You ask this in jest, but I'm sure that our neocon friends would have no problem with slavery, as long as the Market dictated its necessity.

After all, the Market is God.
Sure enough. Look at what the "market" has done. In my childhood it was almost unheard of to have both husband and wife working. A single income was able to cover all the expenses. Then when two income households became more popular there was much made of the new "leisure class" it provided. That second income now made accessable more "extras". Somewhere along the way, the "market" absorbed that extra income by raising prices so that now it takes two incomes to pay the basic expenses.

Now we have an administration that is taking it further by slashing wages by taking away overtime pay - not the overtime hours, just the pay for them. People who have held their jobs have to accept wages that do not pace inflation. Jobs are being exported because the "market" demands it. So we have less jobs at ever lower wages with escalating costs for basic goods and services.

Ya gotta know that Marx wasn't entirely wrong. Slavery is alive and well in America. It's called the working class which lives a heartbeat above poverty.

The electoral college is on it's way out, and has been since the 1960's when they made it illegal for representatives of states to choose whether to follow the state's majority vote, or to add their electoral college vote to whoever.

It's pointless. Some states will not swing at all. They recieve no funding from either side, the issues there are not addressed, and nothing changes. Only 3-4 big swing states have any pressure, and they get bombarded. I live in Pennsylvania, and I see more of Kerry and Bush than I do my own mother (shush, I'm still a student, I live at home)!

I miss the days where people treasured their vote and cared about who won. In these non-swing states, it's pointless for there to be any motivation to turn out. Americans are stupid enough to believe the press. This is why half the nation simply doesn't vote at all, and it's going downward.

Let the people decide something for once. Republics have their limits, and this is why.

-Fury