Electoral College - Why?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

Interesting. I see it differently. If candidate A wins the election in California by one vote, doesn't that then render all the votes for candidate B null and void? It seems to me that if a candidate was able to win close votes in CA, NY, TX, FL, and IL, he (hopefully not she) could then lose by a landslide in all other states, but still be the president at the end of the day. Therefore, a candidate can limit himself (hopefully not herself) to campaigning in big states and swing states, and states like Utah get left out in the cold, since our meager five votes are virtually meaningless.

Not necessarily. Some states have proportional electoral votes, where a winner of 60% of the votes gets 60% of the electors' votes, and the person with 40% gets 40% of the electors' votes. It is totally left up to each state to decide.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

...Therefore, a candidate can limit himself (hopefully not herself) to campaigning in big states and swing states, and states like Utah get left out in the cold, since our meager five votes are virtually meaningless.

Which is exactly why the electoral college was put in place - so states like Utah would not be meaningless.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There are advantages to the electoral college (and disadvantages).

The first reason the college was created was so that electors would be elected from each state who, theoretically, would be wiser than the general population in choosing the president. There is no constitutional rule that the electors must vote the same way the state votes. Under the constitution, the electors are free to disregard completely the votes of the majority of the population of their state. Most states have established their own rules that require the electors to follow the majority vote of the state, but not all have.

The second was to protect the small states by giving each state at a minimum 3 electors (2 for each senator the state has and one for each representative). The actual effect has been over-representation of small states (due to giving each of them 2 additional electors for their senators which is the same number given to large states).

There are benefits to the system. For example: it is harder to defraud a system based on electors than it is a system based on national voting. Additionally, imagine a scenario like in 2000 where, rather than recounting just ballots cast in Florida, the entire nation had to recount the votes. It wouldn't make sense to only recount Florida, since a vote in Florida has equal impact on the race as a vote cast in North Dakota. As it was in 2000, a bad voting system in Florida only impacted Florida and its votes.

I totally disagree with Woot about giving more power to more states by eliminating the electoral college. Elimination would vest total control in states with huge populations, and the bonus of 2 extra votes for the smaller states would disappear.

Well stated.

Wow, we can agree - and not just on The Three Amigos.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is this really a problem of the electoral college?

Yes. Without the electoral college, we'd get an inordinate amount of attention being paid to issues that the population centers are concerned with, and rural issues would be mostly ignored, which is also a problem.

[woot]

Apparently a few states are considering giving all their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, which would be a good way of working around the current system.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Simple. It's to give each state a say in the election. Without the electoral college, the states with huge populations (like California, NY, etc.) could force their will on the smaller states (like Utah, WY, etc.)

The candidates are running to represent all the citizens from each state and therefore, are running in 50 separate elections.

It really is the best way to do it.

And your vote really does count in the state in which you cast it. Yours could be the one that makes the difference in the candidate of your choice winning the state in which you live.

I do think there is some merit for larger states in population to have the electoral votes awarded based on how each Congressional District votes, not the entire state vote. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever dreamed there would be a state as big as California.

The arguments to keep some form of the electoral college are very sound though. The smaller states, and rural communities need to have a voice. If it were a straight popular vote a candidate could simply pander to NYC, Chicago, LA, SF Bay Area, Houston, and the other biggest cities, and win the Presidency.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Apparently a few states are considering giving all their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, which would be a good way of working around the current system.

How is this good for a state? Why would a state decide to vote however the rest of the nation voted? That seems like a tremendous abdication of a state's responsibility to participate in the process. I fail to see how that is good for the country (because it removes a possible dissenting voice that requires the majority to do some introspection) and it appears bad for the state (by surrendering their interests to those of the majority).

[Coach McGuirk]

Where the hell are the city and state govs to take care of their city and state problems. I have not heard one problem sited here that the federal government should be dealing with. Local government have become so dependent upon big brother, which the fed loves, that they seem not to be able to solve their own problems anymore. People don't even care about their local govs, as shown by horrendous voting turnouts when national seats are not in play.