I see this stated by many on the left, but is it a disaster or the best thing for democracy? Our country is actually a republic made up of 50 separate and independent democracies. Each state is allocated a certain number of representatives that they send to the House of Representatives based on the number of US Citizens who live in that state, and each state is also represented equally in the Senate by 2 representatives. Each state can define their own election rules and procedures for how they elect their allocated number of representative to each chamber of Congress. If this were to become a true and fair democracy, all 50 states would have to agree on things like vote ID laws, polling place opening and closing times, early voting procedures, absentee ballots, and on and on and on. This is not necessary because we are made up of 50 independent democracies, each state can choose their own rules. If California wants to have a Motor Voter law that automatically registers someone to vote as soon as they get a driver’s license that is fine. If they want non-citizens to have a say in their local government, they should be commended on that. If their rules and procedures are lax on how they separate the non-citizen ballots from how they elect their representatives for congressional seats, they should be allowed to do that. As it stands now, if any state wants to go through all of the time and expense to super increase their voter turnout, that makes no difference outside of that state because their representation in the federal government does not changes because of having their polls open for additional days, internet voting, etc. The bottom line is that democracy and our individual freedom to vote as we want in local elections is enhanced by the electoral college because it gives that freedom to each state and does not force every state to stay in the same nationalized line to vote.
Electoral college needs to change to better represent the will of the people. Currently each state gets 2 votes for their senators and 1 vote for each congressional district. My idea is that each congressional district has their own vote and the state popular vote get the 2 votes for the Senate seats.
This was a huge issue with the founding fathers, states rights. This is why there even is a Senate, so the smaller states can’t be bullied by the larger states. The original argument for election of a president was along the same lines the compromise, not surrender by one side or the other, was to vote for president both ways at the same time. As it stands today, 435 of the presidential votes come from population and 100 from states. Could you imagine the problems if someone won the presidency by a few thousand popular votes and we had to recount the votes in every voting machine in every precinct in every state? Do you remember all the time and money it cost to recount the Florida votes in 2000? Examining chads with microscopes, each side saying that a possible indentation on the card did or did not count as a vote, or if a stray mark from a pen meant that that person wanted to vote for or against someone. So, if you do feel that way, what are your ideas on what form of ID should be used for every voter in every state. What hours are the polls to be opened in every state? How do you intend to make sure that the voters in North Dakota and Alaska have polling places as convenient to them as the voters in California? Remember if it is one vote for one person, then every person in the entire country has to be given the same opportunity to vote. You can’t make it easier for people in high population areas to vote and difficult for those in wide open areas to vote. Maybe we could say that the voters in LA had to go to their polls in San Francisco and vice versa, after all that is the distance that someone in northern Alaska might have to travel! Each state has the right to make that rule. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. This election was the first time that Maine actually split its vote, 3 for Hillary Clinton and one for Donald Trump.
The simple fact is the electoral college was a brilliant invention by our founding fathers to protect the many from the dictates of the few.
I don’t see why it needs to be considered either. The Electoral College was a practical solution to the difficulty of holding an election across such a large nation without the benefits of any rapid communication or transportation technology. It’s really just an extension of the representative democracy that applies to Congress and Senate (as used by the European governments they were modelled on). The Electoral College clearly isn’t necessary today. You could have direct voting for Presidential elections (even if you still wanted the count to take account of representative religions rather than a simple popular vote) without any risk to democracy but equally the motivations behind the political machinations surrounding the Electoral College during the last elections would still exist if the Electoral College were abolished, they’d just be applied to whatever system replaced it instead (probably with the complaint that this wouldn’t have happened if we still had the Electoral College!). Not necessarily. The election could still be held within each state, it could just be that rather than voting for an elector who can theoretically vote for whichever candidate they personal want to, the state-level result directly sets that state’s Presidential votes (with a similar population-based number per-state). A true national vote would raise some practical difficulties (especially with the massive partisan and social divisions you’re suffering at the moment) but I don’t think it’s beyond possibility for a suitable system to be established that accounts for them. Other large (if not always quite as large) countries seem to manage. It still wouldn’t be a perfect system but there’s no reason it’d be any worse than the Electoral College system you currently use.
NO matter what...the Electoral College is not going anywhere...and it is not going to be changed. What we have is what we are stuck with. Gotta make the best of it.
Population-based? What you are doing is completely eliminating the voice of the states. Our founding fathers argued a lot over how the president was to be elected, the people or the states. They came up with the compromise that allowed both to have a voice, 435 for the people and 100 for the states. Think of this, California has a higher population than the total population of the remaining 10 states that border on or are west of the Rocky Mountains. California decided to build a huge city in the middle of a desert, Los Angeles. In order to do so they take a huge amount of the water from the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado River, to water their lawns and palm trees. If the states had no rights, they could just take it all, there are more of them!
Sorry that wasn’t clear. I was suggesting having the same number (or at least proportion) of votes per state as they currently have Electoral Votes, which already takes account of population (albeit indirectly and with conditions). My main point was that doing away with the Electoral College doesn’t automatically mean doing away with all of the elements in incorporates, such as this one. The idea that the Electoral College is the be-all and end-all of democracy is flawed (as is the idea it fundamentally destroys democracy). There isn’t any division between the state and the people in the actual vote though (I’d argue that a state is it’s people anyway). The fact congressional and senate seats are divided differently and the fact EC vote are based on a combination of those is to ensure the wishes of the people of smaller states aren’t (entirely) overridden by those of the most populous. Incidentally, I’m not convinced that actually works all that well these days, given how the big swing states get most of the politician’s attention for obvious reasons. All the more reason to actually think about how your electoral system works in the modern world.
In 2012, Trump tweeted, "the Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy" and called it "a total sham and a travesty."
The Founders didn't want a democracy. They wanted governmental power distributed as widely as possible. They didn't want any one group, even the people, from having too much power. It has worked very well for over 200 years. The main problem being is that we have been allowing the federal government to go beyond it's constitutional boundaries for around a hundred years. I'm afraid if it continues, we won't be a well functioning country for 300 years.
Then get your state to do that. The above is perfectly acceptable, and your state can implement that. Two states do that--Maine and Nebraska. The only way that can be changed on a national level is by a Constitutional amendment, as the Constitution specifies that the states have the power to determine how their electors are chosen. - - - Updated - - - Getting rid of the Electoral College would be centralizing the vote, not decentralizing it. - - - Updated - - - He's not very bright, in terms of how the government runs. Pretty much I view most of what he says to be crap. The above is an example of it.
Not getting rid of the electoral college, just changing the rules. I have spoken to my state senator on several occasions and this is one of the things we have discussed. Unfortunately, hes the typical hard core religious right from backwoods GA that loves the winner take all model in this very red state.
