NationStates Jolt Archive

Why to abolish the Electoral College:

States with miniscule populations have a voting weight many tmies their population. As a result, voters in the more heterogeneous, densely populated coastal cities end up with a real voting power of less than 1/2 a vote, and occasionally less than 1/3 compared to voters in states such as Iowa, Kansas, or Utah. This is a genuine problem for democracy when it comes to electing a person to a national office.

Many voters in coastal cities, quite rightly, understand that their vote in the presidential election is virtually useless. For more local elections, gerrymandering of congressional districts has resulted in a system where the majority of districts will always go unchallenged. As such, there are many states where there is no rational incentive to vote. To many people, it will, in practice be a complete waste of time. Spending 2 hours of time, that would better be spent at work so you can put food on your family's table to cast 1/4 of a vote for a president or throw a vote at 2 effectively uncontested races is not acting in a rational self-interested manner.

Significantly more than 50% of the country has little-to-no incentive to vote. Most of that 50% resides in the most heavily populated sections of the country. Should there be a real incentive, I would expect a significantly different turnout in the presidential campaign.

No. That would be a bad idea.

The little states deserve as much time as the big states.

California is used to being ignored. We are just and ATM to the parties.

Why to abolish the Electoral College:

States with miniscule populations have a voting weight many tmies their population. As a result, voters in the more heterogeneous, densely populated coastal cities end up with a real voting power of less than 1/2 a vote, and occasionally less than 1/3 compared to voters in states such as Iowa, Kansas, or Utah. This is a genuine problem for democracy when it comes to electing a person to a national office.
The thing about that is that you need to do the math before you start rambling that bullshit. I actually did the math and I am currently looking for the chart I made out, and it doesn't match up with what you're saying. It's not based purely on size of state, even though you'd like to think that.

One of the vital things about the EC is that it ensures that candidates spend time in the small rural states. Because, if we were to switch to a pure popular vote situation then a candidate would only need to visit California, Texas and New York, with side trips to florida, pennsylvannia and ohio to win, with the EC, candidates pay attention to places like south dakota and nevada. The EC is a good thing.

No. That would be a bad idea.

The little states deserve as much time as the big states.

California is used to being ignored. We are just and ATM to the parties.
electoral colelge needs to be gone

1) intentionally disenfranchises more than half the nation
2) the idea that it gives people in smaller states more of a vote than that in bigger states is a mathematical equation to make idiots feel better
3) it will not cause the mass ignoring of whole states, especially sicne that already happens

One of the vital things about the EC is that it ensures that candidates spend time in the small rural states. Because, if we were to switch to a pure popular vote situation then a candidate would only need to visit California, Texas and New York, with side trips to florida, pennsylvannia and ohio to win, with the EC, candidates pay attention to places like south dakota and nevada. The EC is a good thing.
oh yeah because bush and kerry spend alot of time in texas, north dakota, south dakota, alabama, mississippi, georgia, and all these other little piss ant guaranteed states

One of the vital things about the EC is that it ensures that candidates spend time in the small rural states. Because, if we were to switch to a pure popular vote situation then a candidate would only need to visit California, Texas and New York, with side trips to florida, pennsylvannia and ohio to win, with the EC, candidates pay attention to places like south dakota and nevada. The EC is a good thing.
Wrong.

You need 270 votes to win the presidency.

CA 55
TX 34
---89
NY 31
---120
FL 27
---147
OH 20
---167
IL 21
---188
PA 21
---209
MI 17
---226
GA 15
---241
NC 15
---256
VA 13
---269

...so, by winning the 11 largest states plus picking up 1 vote anywhere else (maybe one of Maine's, I don't know), you can win the presidency without winning any of these small rural states that you speak of...

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).

So, my chart probably doesn't line up nicely, but I don't care. You can see that I have indeed done the math.

Wisconsin is the closest to being proportioned properly, but you can see that Washington DC, a very non-rural area, is in the top 3 as far as how much their vote is worth, and Rhode Island isn't exactly a huge state, even though they're 11 and 9 percent behind California and Texas respectively as far as their vote value goes.

I made a thread about Electoral Reform. I think the Electoral College was created to serve a purpose. It was a good purpose. But I think the Electoral College can serve it better.

Rather than a few large, heavily populated states having too much power, not a few evenly divided states have too much power. Either way, candidates are campaigning too heavily in some states, and ignoring irrelevan ones.

I think the Electoral College can be improved to both better reflect the will of the people and make the entire country a battleground.

One sec...
Yeah this is about the 86,000th time the Electoral System has ever been questioned so I don't think it matters any more.

I'm tired of all these people saying that we need to get rid of the electoral college. YOU DON"T SCREW WITH THE CONSTITUTION!!!

There are a couple of reasons that we don't change the system.

The candidates would be stressed beyond belief with all the traveling they would have to do to win all of the votes in every state.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic where we don't have direct voting.

Direct voting will only lead to fraud and people stuffing ballot boxes.

This seems to be a tactic envoked by the democratic party to change the system. Even if we did have a direct democracy election Bush's win would have been even more decisive.

Direct democracy is about THE WORST thing we could turn to.

People also do not like that electoral voters are not bound to vote for the party. This is based mainly on the fact that the Four Fathers wanted to put a provision in to make it so that elections would not be affected by propaganda and vote in say someone who would damage our system of government like a Mussolini or a Hitler. They are supposed to vote how they best see fit. I think this has only happened 3 times during our government, I may be wrong. Someone will probably check it out.

I'm tired of all these people saying that we need to get rid of the electoral college. YOU DON"T SCREW WITH THE CONSTITUTION!!!

There are a couple of reasons that we don't change the system.

The candidates would be stressed beyond belief with all the traveling they would have to do to win all of the votes in every state.

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic where we don't have direct voting.

Direct voting will only lead to fraud and people stuffing ballot boxes.

This seems to be a tactic envoked by the democratic party to change the system. Even if we did have a direct democracy election Bush's win would have been even more decisive.

Direct democracy is about THE WORST thing we could turn to.

People also do not like that electoral voters are not bound to vote for the party. This is based mainly on the fact that the Four Fathers wanted to put a provision in to make it so that elections would not be affected by propaganda and vote in say someone who would damage our system of government like a Mussolini or a Hitler. They are supposed to vote how they best see fit. I think this has only happened 3 times during our government, I may be wrong. Someone will probably check it out.

I know what you mean. Screwing with the Constitution is a bad idea. What's next? An anti gay marriage amendment?!? :eek:

Wrong.

You need 270 votes to win the presidency.

CA 55
TX 34
---89
NY 31
---120
FL 27
---147
OH 20
---167
IL 21
---188
PA 21
---209
MI 17
---226
GA 15
---241
NC 15
---256
VA 13
---269

...so, by winning the 11 largest states plus picking up 1 vote anywhere else (maybe one of Maine's, I don't know), you can win the presidency without winning any of these small rural states that you speak of...

Although it is possible, it is highly unlikely that one single candidate could get all of these states in their bag. Bush won and he had a number of small midwestern states which proves the point you were trying to disprove.

Popular vote is inherently close. If one canidate spent all his time in large states, the other would divide his time between large and small. The second guy would gain many more votes, for reaching for the smaller population states.

Canidates would spend less time campaigning period, because they couldn't reach all states. It wouldn't be any worse than is it for now at least. The canidates only go to small states now, I think switching it to big states isn't that bad, especially because it means everyone votes equal. The same logic can be used now, that large states are under-represented, that smaller states will be. Why should small states get the attention over us? If it comes to us, at least voting will be fair.

Why to abolish the Electoral College:

States with miniscule populations have a voting weight many tmies their population. As a result, voters in the more heterogeneous, densely populated coastal cities end up with a real voting power of less than 1/2 a vote, and occasionally less than 1/3 compared to voters in states such as Iowa, Kansas, or Utah. This is a genuine problem for democracy when it comes to electing a person to a national office.

Many voters in coastal cities, quite rightly, understand that their vote in the presidential election is virtually useless. For more local elections, gerrymandering of congressional districts has resulted in a system where the majority of districts will always go unchallenged. As such, there are many states where there is no rational incentive to vote. To many people, it will, in practice be a complete waste of time. Spending 2 hours of time, that would better be spent at work so you can put food on your family's table to cast 1/4 of a vote for a president or throw a vote at 2 effectively uncontested races is not acting in a rational self-interested manner.

Significantly more than 50% of the country has little-to-no incentive to vote. Most of that 50% resides in the most heavily populated sections of the country. Should there be a real incentive, I would expect a significantly different turnout in the presidential campaign.

The reason NOT to abolish it is that large metropolitan centers would have ALL control over every election.

Those areas are controlled by leftists (or at least "leftists" as far left as you can get in America, which hates leftists), and their control would be permanent and unbreakable.

Very simply, we do NOT live in a pure democracy for this very reason. It would be even worse than a "dictatorship of the majority" (mobocracy).

I know what you mean. Screwing with the Constitution is a bad idea. What's next? An anti gay marriage amendment?!? :eek:
state versus u.s. ..wrong constitution..thanx

state versus u.s. ..wrong constitution..thanx

UM... they tried to pass a U.S. Constitutional amendment. Where were you?

UM... they tried to pass a U.S. Constitutional amendment. Where were you?
did it pass?..

No. That would be a bad idea.

The little states deserve as much time as the big states.

California is used to being ignored. We are just and ATM to the parties.

California is most definataly not ignored in the house. If you want some legislation passed, you better make sure California and New york and Illinois and Jersey get something out of it.

See, Thats how the whole check and balance thing works.

did it pass?..

Noipe. But the very attempt offends me. The purpose of the Costitution is to limit government, not the people.

Even in the populous states that go Democrat the rural areas in those states are solidly Republican. The Electorial College gives the rural votes and the rural states greater wieght, which is what the founders intended, and which we still need to prevent the urban areas from having too much control. Regional concerns are still very much important.

Why not keep the college votes, but let them be split among the popular vote of the state? That way rural states would still get a little more bias, but there's still a chance that an individual's vote would swing a point towards their candidate.

C'mon people admit it. This isn't just about ideology. If the electoral college stands, then we'll continue to have more conservative presidents (33 of the past 50 years have been under Republican presidents). If the electoral college is repealed, Democrats get more votes. I'm cetain that if popular vote favored Republicans, then it would be exactly the same argument, just the sides would be reversed. I'm sure some of us would still believe in abolishing or keeping it, but most of us are just going to go for whatever would help our party. Just look at the poll.

The electoral system is there to protect smaller states from getting completely run over. As you probably know, the number of electoral votes is the amount of senators in the state (always 2) plus the amount of congressman in the house.

What I don't understand is why a lot of people want the electoral system abolished and never even mention the senate, which also exists to protect smaller states from getting run over. In the senate, the tiny state population of Alaska gets the exact same say as California. In addition, laws are getting voted on all the time in the senate while elections are held only four years. So the senate system affects our country much more. Yet I see noone complaining. Interesting.

Why not keep the college votes, but let them be split among the popular vote of the state? That way rural states would still get a little more bias, but there's still a chance that an individual's vote would swing a point towards their candidate.
That might not be as bad as the current system, but what if you have a state like Wyoming. The Equality State (I refuse to acknowlege that other, hickish nickname) only has 3 electoral votes so what if somebody wins, but it's nowhere near by a 2:1 ratio? The best option, therefore, would be to go exclusively to the popular vote.

Just for the record I voted "Yes - Blue", as it fited my views better than anything else. I'm actually not a US citizen, but most people in my country (UK) would have prefered Kerry to win over Bush. Personally I just think you guys need a better system to get some form of democracy back into your voting. Reps and Dems policies are so similar - where's the choice? Hardly anyone in the US votes for a 3rd option because one vote makes no difference. This should *never* be the case in a democracy.

Abolish the electoral college in favor of preferential voting - where you rank candidates based on 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc preference

What about having a mixed version, like one of the states (I forget which one), where the E.V's are split among the candidates. It would give it a proportionality and might mean the candidates would focus on ever state, not just the swing ones and ignore the solid states, if there's a chance of picking up EVs in every state.

No, because election night would be boring without it...

That might not be as bad as the current system, but what if you have a state like Wyoming. The Equality State (I refuse to acknowlege that other, hickish nickname) only has 3 electoral votes so what if somebody wins, but it's nowhere near by a 2:1 ratio? The best option, therefore, would be to go exclusively to the popular vote.
You're probably right, but I would have thought a revision to the current system would have been more palatable to the majority of voters than a complete overhall.

What about having a mixed version, like one of the states (I forget which one), where the E.V's are split among the candidates. It would give it a proportionality and might mean the candidates would focus on ever state, not just the swing ones and ignore the solid states, if there's a chance of picking up EVs in every state. Echo! :)

I would rather like it if every state adopted Maine and Nebraska's electoral system. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state automatically gets 2 electoral votes ( for the 2 senators ) and then each and every other electoral vote depends on the popular vote in each congressional district.

<snip> <paraphrase> We should change to a system, similar to ME and NE, where electoral votes will be split on the basis of the states' population--splitting proportionally </paraphase>

Echo! :)

The electoral college in its present form is definitely losing relevance in modern society. Concentrating on a few low-population swing states is not the way of respecting democratic values. Disenfranchising large sections of the nation for any reason is not acceptable.

However, a more thorough solution, IMNSHO, would involve a change to the voting process that better respects the ability of the individual citizen to choose according to their real choices. As such, either approval or instant run off for national general elections (president) would more effectively represent the actual prefences of the electorate.

That's what this is about, right? Flaming is for kids. Let's be adults and respect each other in dialog.

Isn't it more useful to explore ideas to create a better alternative?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't think it's broken.

I would rather like it if every state adopted Maine and Nebraska's electoral system. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state automatically gets 2 electoral votes ( for the 2 senators ) and then each and every other electoral vote depends on the popular vote in each congressional district.

I made exactly that suggestion earlier today in a thread entitled; Electoral Reform.

We could divide it
by the states popular vote
and accept the fact that
a president can be elected
by a plurality of the vote.

One thing we can all agree on
is eliminate the electors.

The reason NOT to abolish it is that large metropolitan centers would have ALL control over every election.

Those areas are controlled by leftists (or at least "leftists" as far left as you can get in America, which hates leftists), and their control would be permanent and unbreakable.

Very simply, we do NOT live in a pure democracy for this very reason. It would be even worse than a "dictatorship of the majority" (mobocracy).


I think the reason to abolish it is so large metropolitian centres wouldn't have as much control. Look at the 2000 election -(i'm not going on a Bush rant before people get worked up) Gore won the popular vote, yet Bush was elected dispite that the majority of voters voted for someone else. Its not really fair just because in some areas like Florida more people support one candidate, while the rest of the voting population wants some one else. Come over to our side.. You put number 1 on your first preference then no. 2 on your second and so on. If your first candidate isn't elected your vote will not be wasted and will go to your second preference and so on

TAKE A LOOK AT the tallies for the popular vote. THEY ARE AWFULLY CLOSE. The EC rigs it -_-... what I'm saying is that if 51% vote Democrat in any one state, and the other 49% vote Republican, then all of the EC votes go to the Democrat, and in a state like CA, that can make a lot of ppl mad (the vice versa is also true in any one case). Maybe if the EC were changed (an issue in Colorado [I think] which I know didn't pass) so that they could go different ways, based on the popular vote, maybe (in this instance) half of them going to the Democrats, and half of them going to the Republicans. IT WOULD MAKE THE ELECTION MORE FAIR!

Why to abolish the Electoral College:

States with miniscule populations have a voting weight many tmies their population. As a result, voters in the more heterogeneous, densely populated coastal cities end up with a real voting power of less than 1/2 a vote, and occasionally less than 1/3 compared to voters in states such as Iowa, Kansas, or Utah. This is a genuine problem for democracy when it comes to electing a person to a national office.

Many voters in coastal cities, quite rightly, understand that their vote in the presidential election is virtually useless. For more local elections, gerrymandering of congressional districts has resulted in a system where the majority of districts will always go unchallenged. As such, there are many states where there is no rational incentive to vote. To many people, it will, in practice be a complete waste of time. Spending 2 hours of time, that would better be spent at work so you can put food on your family's table to cast 1/4 of a vote for a president or throw a vote at 2 effectively uncontested races is not acting in a rational self-interested manner.

Significantly more than 50% of the country has little-to-no incentive to vote. Most of that 50% resides in the most heavily populated sections of the country. Should there be a real incentive, I would expect a significantly different turnout in the presidential campaign.


This would alienate the voters in the rural areas of the country. If a candidate appealed a lot to only urban areas but then screwed over rural areas, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it because they don't have as high population. The United States is 50 states combined into one country, not just one giant land mass. Thats why there are different laws in different parts of the country - states can do what they see fit while still working toward the common goal of a unified country where states are still allowed some individuality.