Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the electoral college be abolished?
Results so far:
| No | 36% | 170 votes | Total: 471 votes | |
| Yes | 64% | 301 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesRefined, yes. Abolished, no. While having it's flaws the electoral college does serve the important purpose of making votes is flyover country count. The idea is every state cast a ballet with size based on population. Therefore the smaller states aren't completely ignored, but the larger state do, rightfully, earn more attention.
Everyone remembers Al Gore lost Florida. What everyone forgets is Gore lost New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada and Tennessee (his home state) all by less than 4%. In fact if Al Gore had won any of those small, insignficant merely 3 vote states, he would have been president.
This isn't debating the Florida recounts, it's showing that the electoral college did it's job and the half million people in Wyoming had their votes count.
If we were to change and go with just the popular vote half of the states would become irrelevant. All a politican would have to do is campaign in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia to reach 50% of the nation. If a politican could get half of Cal, Tex, NY, FL and Ill to vote for them they would have as many votes as Gore had in 2000. With just a popular vote only about a dozen city would need to be visited: LA, NY, Houston, Miami, Chicago, Phily, and a few others. No need to visit small cities like Pierre, Green Bay, or even Portland.
Another idea is the equal congressional representation. Remember that T-Shirt that showed the country being 90% red and only blue in big cities? That's what it would look like. While that would favor my party, it's not the right approach.
The real problem with the electoral college is how much weight to give the larger states. This is known as the Clint Eastwood problem. Yes it is a real example used in college math courses. The states with the most crime coincidently have the most people and the most votes. So in November its McCain, Hillary and Clint Eastwood. Since Eastwood gets in late he only campaigns in the eleven biggest states. He promises to be tough on crime. He's Dirty f-ing Harry, of course he's going to be tough on crime. 34% vote for Eastwood in those states, while the rest is split between McCain and Hillary. Every other state votes for Hillary because McCain picks Barry Bonds to be his veep, but it is too late. With just eleven states and only 19% of the popular vote Eastwood has 271 Electoral votes. Highly unlikely, but does show the potential flaws in the current system.
The solution that I would prefer is adjusting the number of votes each states gets using the Banzhaf power index. Another nerdy math term, look it up on wikipedia.org. It measures how much power an individual has in swinging a particular contest. In the current system California measures 3.4 and New York 2.4 while Oregon is 1.2 and Kentucky is 1.2. In other words a vote cast in New York is twice as likely to effect the outcome as a vote in Oregon or Kentucky. California is three times as likely.
Refining it so every state is closer in value will most likely upset Californians, but it would produce a fairer election. Not to mention keeping the tradition of being a federal nation. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are in Indiana today, but only because of the primary. If we had a populus vote in the national election they wouldn't need to return.
Learn more about this author, Matthew Venia.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
The Antiquated Electoral College
The results of the November 2000 presidential election clearly pointed out what many have
said for years, "The Electoral College needs to be changed or abolished." George W. Bush was elected President by the Electoral College even though he did not have a majority of the votes of the people of the United States.
The Electoral College is a rather complex system of choosing the president of the United States. The persons writing the Constitution labored many hours over this process. As in the choice of senators and representatives, the small states wanted to be fairly represented so that the larger states would not have an unfair advantage. The final compromise was the Electoral College in which each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives each state has. This body meets in December following the general election in November and casts the votes for the president. This is called an indirect election. The framers of the Constitution did not think the people were informed enough to participate in the direct election of the president.
One of the more unfair aspects with the Electoral College is the "winner-take-all" feature. When the public goes to the polls to vote they actually cast their vote for a political party. When the votes are tallied, the party with a majority of the votes in that state is awarded all the electoral votes for that state. Thus if one party wins 51% of the votes and has 10 electoral votes, all 10 votes are allocated to that party's candidate. The candidate of the other party receives none although 49% of the people may have voted for him.
For as many years as I can remember, immediately following a presidential election, there has been a hue and cry against the Electoral College. There is a lot of discussion in the media then it dies away for another four years. Most of the talk centers on the abolition of the Electoral College and putting in its place a direct-popular vote method. An amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to do this. It is unrealistic to think such an amendment would pass, because of the fear on the part of the small states of losing representation. It would need their approval to pass. Such amendments have been proposed but soon whither away from lack of support.
There is a way that the system could be changed without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution states that the choice of the electors is determined by the states. Thus, states could change from the winner-take-all method currently in place, to the allocating of electoral votes. In this way if a party's candidate received 60% of the popular vote, 60% of the electors would be allocated to that candidate and the remaining 40% to the other candidate(s) in proportion. This, at least, would be a more fair way than the current system.
Those proponents of maintaining the system as it is say it has worked well for us for 200 years so why change it. True there has not been a true crisis under the system, but the year 2000 election was a fiasco partly because of it. Also the smaller states are right to not want to be dominated by the larger states.
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is antiquated and should be abolished. Short of abolition, a major reform is due. We are not living in the same age as the Founding Fathers of our country. The voting public is informed and quite capable of making a choice as to who should be their leader. Let them do it.
Learn more about this author, Annalou Mack.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political & Economic Theory
- Is the cost of moving to a single global currency worth the gains?
- Have democrats gone crazy with America's money?
- The existing multicurrency international financial system is too risky
- Is there a solution to the mortgage foreclosure crisis?
- Should lawmakers free us from market forces by controlling gas prices?
- Is the US facing another economic depression?
