TED Conversations

Juan Donado

High School Student,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should Americans eliminate the Electoral College and elect their presidents through simple majority vote?

Given that some presidents have won without persuading the majority of Americans, and the huge deal of money spent only on swing states I ask myself that question

I have always thought that it is unfair that republicans in California or Democrats in Texas are not taken into account just because people around them think differently.

Time for change?

+7
Share:
progress indicator

  • Daniel Warren

    • 0
    Nov 19 2012: I definitely think it should be eliminated the country was founded to be the true definition of a republic (regarless of political party) as a system "by the people for the people" not by the electoral college for the government. it is frustrating that your vote doesnt really count. The offices which we vote on should be determined by they number of people who voted not based on "more demcrats in this state" counts for more than "more republicans in this state"

  • Andrew Hogenson

    • 0
    Nov 18 2012: Yes we should eliminated it. It had it place back in 1776 when it was put into the Constitution. However, I agree its not fair when you live in a state that is heavily weighted on another party. Its like whats the point of voting knowing your vote doesn't really count in those states.

  • Age Funk

    • 0
    Nov 16 2012: On the one hand, it's apples and oranges. One cannot truly compare a country half the size of Oregon with only 10.5 million people to America at all. Everything is on a smaller scale. But on the other hand, I'd love to see America's magnification *of* this smaller scale - where 10.5 million people have 11 candidates to choose from, America having 11 doesn't seem so 'wild' to me by ratio. 350 candidates (1 per million citizens) is a bit much, and maybe that possibility is a fear behind abandoning the EC. But back to your question, the press is as - or more - active than the US, it's just a smaller market. When there are political (or other) scandals here, it monopolizes the media's attention in a way that puts TMZ to shame, but it's also possible to campaign on that same smaller scale, thereby giving "regular people" a real shot without SuperPACs and corporate/lobby/interest support being required in the USA. I think it is both the R/D for life mentality and large size that breeds negativity.

    I guess my stance goes back to my original post: That I don't understand why there are so many defenders of the EC when no beneficial reasons have been cited thus far. Everyone seems to agree with my general statement that when a citizen lives in an area with disparate political beliefs, their presidential vote doesn't matter, and my statement is that I believe every citizen's vote for president should count. If not, than in many ways, the USA is a parliamentary republic: Parliament being the electors for the states, who vote for what the majority of their people want in unison. I feel like the bulk of what I've read from EC supporters on the topic are answering with a variety of "because that's the way it's always been" answers, without citing real benefits over a true popular vote system.

    I was brought up to believe my vote matters and it doesn't, all because of an archaic system that no one else in the world uses, and due to my geography as a registered voter.
  • thumb

    Borrah Campbell

    • 0
    Nov 16 2012: A black man with "Hussein" in his name & Arab blood in his veins is president. When I first heard his name I didn't believe it. For the longest time I thought it was a running joke.

    My point is, if the system wasn't honest, there is absolutely no way this would be possible. The voting system clearly still works. With that said, I completely agree with doing away with the electoral college. There's no point such a thing. Thanks to the new demographics of the U.S.; democrats will stay in power for a long time. The EC is in clear favor of democrats now.

    There should be no ruling party! Majority rule is the way of the west.

  • John Nelson

    • 0
    Nov 15 2012: The electoral college is vital to the Constitutional compact forming the United States of America. It really has its roots in the 1776 Constitutional Convention in the bicameral legislative compromise between large states and small states. James Madison's original "Virginia Plan" proposal was for one legislative body with representation based on population. New Jersey countered with a "small state" plan - a bicameral legislative branch: one house (Senate) with equal representation for all of the states and one house (House of Representatives) based on population. Today's electoral votes continue that compromise, giving small states power in the electoral process. Otherwise there would be no reason to vote in a state like South Dakota or Wyoming because there are probably 100,000 voters in California for every voter in South Dakota. There would be no incentive to vote if you lived in a small state. America would be the United Large States of America with some subservient small states without any power in a presidential election.

    Certainly every state could split their vote by Congressional districts - similar to what Maine & Nebraska do. That would make Republican votes in California more meaningful and Democratic votes in Texas count as much as those votes in South Dakota and Wyoming. It would also force the candidates to consider every state as significant to the outcome. Currently the Democrats start with more than a 100 vote advantage - New York (29), California (55), and Illinois (20) from just three states - without having to allocate any campaign dollars. Resources for both parties then focus on just a few states.

    Final word: this is the United States of America, not the People's Republic of America. The Electoral College works. Every state is represented fairly. Small states are important. Large states have clout. Individual voters affect the outcome in their state. Popular sovereignty & state sovereignty unite to elect our President.

  • Age Funk

    • +1
    Nov 15 2012: Hi Noah,

    I largely agree with your points and have a few other thoughts to offer. I think that the bi-partisan system is inherently flawed because it encourages only voting for "the one you like better than the other" when I haven't found strong allegiance with either candidate in the last 30 years. I currently reside in the Czech Republic and I'm very intrigued by their system. This January will be their first election where the president is not elected by parliament. a) it's a popular vote (as is everywhere in the world that has free democratic elections - America is the only one that uses an electoral college) - b) they currently have 11 candidates for president. I closely identify with several of them.

    The pre-requisite for becoming a candidate here is getting 50,000 signatures from the general populace, and they must be endorsed by 10 deputies (senators). This - for a country of ~10.5 million people - makes it challenging enough that one must be a serious contender just to be nominated. So, from these 11 candidates, there is a "primary" of sorts, but it's a popular primary. No affiliation with a political party is required. From this primary, the two with the most votes go to a popular vote run-off. The most interesting thing? I've yet to see *any* mud-slinging. It is strictly business from their stance about what they will do to improve the country in their way with their methods.

    I believe that it's *because* the electoral college doesn't give us enough choice in the matter from the very beginning during the primaries, that we are forced to form allegiance with one of the two political parties.

    But my larger point, addressing your first paragraph, is that I - and tens of millions like me - don't vote because our vote doesn't matter for purely geographic reasons. How would things change if we had 80% voter turnout instead of 57.5%? Until I live in a state where my views matter in the EC, I fail to see the value in voting for president at all.
    • thumb

      peter lindsay 30+

      • 0
      Nov 15 2012: Do you think the relative civility of Czech elections is to do with a less active press and therefore less ability to "buy" votes with massive and expensive advertising campaigns? Or is it more to do with the lack of a well formed bi-partisan R or D for life mentallity that seems to exist in much of the US.

    • Noah Crossfield

      • +1
      Nov 16 2012: Age Funk, you have seen the flaws of the Electoral College system. It can discourage voter turnout. Discouraging voter turnout is probably the best argument against the system.

      The other comments about the bi-partisan system actually encapsulate the goal of the system. When the U.S. was first created, it was very diverse. The bi-partisan system normally works in larger diverse states; the parliamentary model works better in less diverse states. There were lots of immigrants in the colonies, and the economies of the North and the South were drastically different. There were lots of different ideas and interest groups with conflicting ideas. The two-party system tries to force platforms that untie as many people as possible. This would prevent one group from trying to legislate only for its benefit. (For example, if the people located in the major cities of the US could gather enough support to win the election for whoever they wanted, they could pick one candidate who put ridiculous land taxes on the entire nation. This would severely hurt the people who live in rural states while the city-dwellers were largely unaffected. This is just an example, but it demonstrates the point.) The two-party system forces the two different parties to make platforms that are broad to gather as many votes as possible. If the US had a system like the Czech Republic, the popular primary that you spoke of could very well lead to two candidates that did not represent the public at large. (Maybe two candidates that were pro-military and also pro-life. If one did not like those stances, he could not vote against them because both candidates would be for it.) The popular election would then be less representative of the wishes of the people than the two-party system.

      I see what you are saying. The system is not perfect, but the alternative has the potential to be much worse.

      • Age Funk

        • 0
        Nov 16 2012: If it was a truly popular vote, how would you end up with a run-off between two candidates who had the same views? Here, there aren't 6 of the same candidate and 5 of the other - that's the beauty of it. They are all extremely different from each other. I guess to me, it feels like the USA as a whole - through the EC - doesn't trust its people to choose from a rainbow of colors, only black or white. If you are Orange, or Blue, you have to decide what your 2nd favorite color is, but they're all different colors. You couldn't end up with two Reds to vote between because there would be no point running against someone so similar when there are so many diverse choices. By polarizing the entire nation, the EC encourages a black or white, segregationist, for-us-or-against-us mentality which frankly, goes against everything I believe America was founded upon.

        Subsequently, I believe that by not having a 2-party system, during the primaries, yes, you would have 11 people receiving (likely) far less than 50% of the popular vote, but the MOST *popular* 2 candidates would be in the runoff. It's the exact same as the USA primaries now, except that instead of having truly varied opinions as here, you get 11 Rs and 11 Ds deciding who will be black and who will be white at the end, that can only be decided by registered Rs or Ds, so it's polarized from the start. There are no shades of grey, and this is what America is: 16 million shades of grey between the two extremes.

        What you speak of about one group railroading another group into something they don't want is EXACTLY what I complain about happening today in the EC. Oregon's vote is swung every election by the urban areas - Portland and Eugene - which goes completely against the roots of the state. People don't migrate to rural areas (or they would no longer be rural) so no matter how you slice it, I politely have to disagree about it being a worse alternative, but I agree that R or D, America is terrified of change.

  • Hlmut Degen

    • 0
    Nov 13 2012: I just did some math: comparing the ratio by dividing the population per state by the number of electoral votes for fifty states:

    - The lowest ratio is in Wyoming: 1:189,316: This means on average you need 189,316 people for one electoral vote (this does not consider the number of eligible voters, but I assume the proportion is the same in the states).
    - The highest ratio is in California: 1:685,307: You need on average 685,307 people for one electoral vote.

    This means, more than three times more people/votes are required in California for one electoral votes, compared to Wyoming. In other words, each vote in Wyoming is three times more effective. This does not sound fair, what do you think?

    • Noah Crossfield

      • 0
      Nov 15 2012: I see what you are saying, but this is due mainly to the fact that we stopped adding representatives to the House of Representatives. We used to keep adding representatives based on population, but now we just switch how many seats a state can have based on population. If we added representatives, (or atleast gave representatives more vote based on population, or some similar system) the problem would be moot. I think it would be easier to change this aspect of the electoral college than change the electoral college.

      • Hlmut Degen

        • 0
        Nov 15 2012: Hi Noah, thanks for your comment. I think one of the problems is that the people who can change the election system are impacted by the same decision. This indicates a conflict of interest. Changing the election system requires a non-partisan mind set. I am not sure we have the mindset at the moment.
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • +2
    Nov 12 2012: I think maybe the last few elections show that the whole purpose of the EC is defeated by the winner takes all policy of the majority of states. It just means that instead of the few large states dominating the campaigns the few swinging staes of various size dominate the campaigning. If all states used proportional representation then campaigning in any state would be just as likely to get you another EC vote so the potential POTUS would have to cover a lot more ground.

    • John Smith 30+

      • 0
      Nov 12 2012: Yes, and even if they only went to the major cities they would already reach more people than they currently do in such metropolises as Des Moines and Cleveland.

  • Eric Brosch

    • +2
    Nov 9 2012: The fact that we are discussing removing the Electoral College shows the extent to which we are no longer a republic (small R) but are instead run by an enormous central government. To get rid of the Electoral College is to say that we are simply one large, monolithic governmental unit, ignoring the fact that the initial structure of the government gave very little power to the central government, conferring most to the states. Under that system, essentially, the states as relatively-sovereign units were voting for *their* representation at the federal level. We now see our city/county/state governments as relatively feeble and useless with most of our focus being on Washington, DC. Abolishing the Electoral College would, in effect, crystallize the idea that we are not a plural "United States", but a singular.
    • thumb

      Danger Lampost 10+

      • 0
      Nov 12 2012: I appreciate what you're saying there Eric, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with that sentiment. Our federal government, or "central government" as you call it, consists of the three main powers, of which the presidency is just one equal third. This question is only about the presidency, and so I presume the other two thirds consisting of the congress and supreme court would not change the way those members are chosen. The congress is obviously very much about individual states representing their citizens.

      I think what's happened is that technology has allowed 100's of millions of us citizens to actually make an informed decision about who to elect for president. That just may not have been imaginable at the time of the founding of this nation. At the same time, the expanded role of the federal government has made the choice of president much more relevant to citizens.

      Because of all that, I would heartily endorse efforts to abolish the electoral college and elect our president through simple majority vote. Only then would every vote really count.

      Edit: And this is why I'm so interested in how the how legalization of pot thing plays out in terms of states rights. There is no valid constitutional basis for the federal government's stand here, and I am hoping this issue gets to the Supreme Court and helps tip the balance of power back towards the state.

  • Age Funk

    • 0
    Nov 9 2012: Hi Evan,

    Thank you for your reply. One point of clarification: I still vote, I just abstain from voting for President because of the EC and I believe your logic is somewhat flawed. I am sincerely sorry if I'm being dense here and welcome a better explanation, but I don't understand how my vote would count less with national popular vote. I live in Oregon (whose electors voted for Obama therefore Oregon as a state voted for Obama) but let's say that I chose to vote for Romney. My vote is wasted as far as the Presidential election is concerned. If it was popular vote, my vote counts toward Romney. I am talking about a nationwide popular vote, and you are comparing the sizes of states - without an EC, the population of individual states doesn't matter anymore. When you say that in the EC, Oregon=about 1/4 of New York, you are talking within the context of an EC voting system, but look at it with me with some actual numbers from this election:

    Oregon has 7 EC votes, and voted 54.3 to 42.8% for Obama - 905,831 to 714,194
    New York has 29 EC votes, and voted 62.6 to 35.5% for Obama - 3,873,650 to 2,224,963

    Adding these two together, 4,779,481 voted for Obama but 2,939,157 votes did not count. This is a 100% victory for Obama because he got all 36 electoral votes, even though it was a 61.9 to 38.1% actual victory.

    The final national electoral vote was 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney which is a 61.7 to 38.3 victory for Obama percentage-wise, however 61,170,405 for Obama 58,163,977 for Romney is a 50.5 to 48% victory for Obama.

    Effectively, 42.8% of Oregon's presidential votes were wasted because of the EC. Same goes for 35.5% of New York.

    No candidate cares about states they know they will win anyway, they setup camp in batteground states only. Look at Hawaii - no one votes. My point is *voter turnout* - millions feels the same way I do and don't vote because it doesn't matter. It does matter if the margin is 2.5% popular instead of 23.4% EC. :)

    • John Smith 30+

      • +1
      Nov 9 2012: Yes, because of the electoral college an American presidential candidate can theoretically win an election with only 25% of the popular vote!

    • Noah Crossfield

      • 0
      Nov 15 2012: I see what you are saying as well, Age Funk, but I do not think that a popular vote would really solve the problem. It can go either one of two ways.

      Lets take the example about Oregon's presidential vote being "wasted." I see how you could argue that about half the state didnt have a vote in the election, but if a popular vote system was used, a similar result would occur. The only difference would be that the "wasting of votes" would be on the national level instead of the state level. Oregon's votes for Romney would be added to the population vote, but since Obama got the majority, the Romney votes still get "thrown out." Because only one person can be the president, about half of the nation will not vote for him. This is just do to the nature of the election; it isnt based on the Electoral College.

      The other part of the system is that it encourages only two candidates. Since a candidate has to win a majority of a state to get any electoral votes, a candidate has to have a lot of backing. It discourages less popular candidates from running. This helps prevent the population from splitting the vote greatly. (if three equally popular candidates ran in an popular-vote election, one could win with about 35% of the vote which is significantly less than what normally happens in the Electoral College system.) This is the trade off. I personally find this a worthy trade off.

  • Evandro Maranhao Fagundes

    • 0
    Nov 9 2012: I totally agree with you. In fact, it seems to me that taking into account all popular vote is more fair.I can't understand completely a system where someone can be elected to be the President without the majority of people's vote.

  • Misael Diaz

    • 0
    Nov 9 2012: No! Public opinion should only influence public policy in a limited manner. If Public opinion were to completely run gov. then we would have declared war on numerous countries, oppression would still be a in action and who knows it might have of destroyed our proud nation many years back!
    • thumb

      Kitty Hawk

      • +1
      Nov 12 2012: We have been/are still in numerous wars over the last decade, minorities and women are vastly underrepresented in every profession, human rights are withheld from many others, and our economy has destabilized more than once over the last two decades.

      How would a presidential nationwide-popular vote make any of that worse?

      • Misael Diaz

        • 0
        Nov 12 2012: Have you looked around! Look at the people, around half of the public does not vote. How can you expect an indecisive nation to beget transitional decsions like these. To add to that public opinion should have some influence on presidential nominations. Lets look back at history and observe countries that eliminated restrictions on public opinion: Germany 1933. The repurcussions of the irresponsibility of the german goverment still has aftermath today. America being the greatest nation of all time can not afford, for the sake of international stability and stability for future generations to fall and conjointly make similar mistakes especially in today's times.
        • thumb

          Kitty Hawk

          • 0
          Nov 12 2012: You are assuming that people do not vote due to sloth/indecision, but that trivializes the situation; you could just as easily argue that they don't vote because their vote won't change the outcome or that think every alternative option is terrible.

          There is a reason why that happened to Germany and no one else: the other nations of Europe used the Treaty of Versailles to create ridiculous legal impositions on them (executing civilians as war criminals, military occupation, division of territories, and reparations to name a few) as well as political positioning, a regime of dictatorship, and propaganda. If you need a scapegoat for that situation, it might be better to look at the oppression that incited it, because that's what we did to Iran and look where that got us.

  • Jennifer Newman

    • +2
    Nov 8 2012: We need to get rid of the electoral college. It's obsolete. It was created when there were many rural areas that knew nothing of the candidates. Today we live in a digital age where all day and night you can watch news or go online to research info.

  • Dan Geurin 10+

    • +2
    Nov 5 2012: In a national vote, separation of votes by stae is not needed. Simple majority should be the rule

  • Justin Clark

    • 0
    Oct 30 2012: this is a funny video and I think would be a much better system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=26&feature=plcp
    • thumb

      pat gilbert 50+

      • 0
      Nov 5 2012: Yup but it is still the tyranny of the majority.
  • thumb

    James Randolph

    • 0
    Oct 30 2012: I thought it should be abandoned originally but I now realize this issue is more complicated then I had originally imagined. It's something I would need to reflect on a little further. In cases where the popular vote is almost evenly split it seems unfair that a candidate without popular vote should be elected. I believe it should be updated if not removed.
  • thumb

    Tim Thornton

    • 0
    Oct 30 2012: If we are going to make any change, it should be an actual fix to the real problem. We of age know of the real problem for seeing it for so many years. However, since we have left are youthful hopes behind us; we do nothing to change the process. To say it another way we forgo the good fight to fight merely for our side as if it were really the better side. To fix the problem we must destroy the sides. We must vote on every issue since no candidate will ever wholly represent our opinions. Therefore, if you want the majority to rule then each issue that engages us should register our votes. However, most of us lack the time to spend on learning all the aspects of all the issues so we elect someone that we trust to represent us by spending the time on the issues. Unfortunately, today many elected-officials are directed by their affiliations on how to vote and not your vote.

  • Rick Pedigo

    • +2
    Oct 29 2012: The Electoral College is a direct violation of my Civil Right to vote for President and Vice President. In nearly all states, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state. Therefore, all citizens that voted for the candidate that lost that state have had there votes eliminated. In states where one political party is stronger than the other, the minority party will never get a chance to vote for the President. This is a direct violation of my constitutional rights to have my vote count.

    We have the technology and ability to correctly count ballots. The Electoral Collage is outdated, and is no longer needed.

    Regardless of your political views or party, wouldn't you like your vote to count?

    • Noah Crossfield

      • 0
      Nov 3 2012: I see what you are saying Rick, but I dont see how a direct popular vote would change the situation. If we had a direct popular vote, one side would still win. The losing side's votes would "not count" just like the minority in the state did not count in your example. The problem is not the electoral college system but the fact that there is only one president who is elected. A popular vote system wouldnt change that

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Nov 3 2012: With a popular vote you really need 50%+1 votes to win, with the electoral college you can win with as few as 25%+1 votes because the vote of a democrat in Texas or of a republican in New York really don't count.

    • Sage Hagan

      • 0
      Nov 9 2012: While I understand your frustration, claiming it's a violation of your "Civil Rights" is incorrect. Because the United States Electoral College is established via Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution which binds the electoral college votes to the membership of Congress and the 23rd Amendment which gives D.C. three electoral votes the electoral college is perfectly constitutional.

      I do believe that the electoral college itself should be updated to be required to take into account the popular vote in a state unless less than 50% of the states registered voters do not vote. It's a complicated issue and should not be looked at as simply as a "gut it and take into account the popular vote only" viewpoint in my opinion. Many of the systems in place are to prevent a tyranny of the majority situation. Many are also in place when the electorate as a whole did not always have access to information like we do now. Update it absolutely. Gut it and be done with it... I don't think that's an answer.

  • Bradley Holt

    • +2
    Oct 28 2012: Hell No!! If you do away with the Electorial College then our Presidents could theoreticaly be elected by people living on the east coast between Boston and Washington DC, combined with the people living on the California coast. Thereby leaving everyone living in the rest of the country without a voice. The Electoral College is designed for each State to be represented based on its population, as is the US House of Representatives. As for Wade's comments about to much Lawyers being elected, he is right that to many Lawyers are elected. But that is WE THE PEOPLES fault. We choose to vote for them and 50% of us are to DAMN LAZY to vote. Hence we have the Govt. we deserve. If we as a Nation truely want a better, more representitive govt. then WE THE PEOPLE should get off our collective lazy butts, and VOTE in the primaries for any candidate who is not a lawyer. If we as a Nation are fed up with 24 consecutive years of IVY League rule, then WE THE PEOPLE should vote for any third party candidate. Unfortunately, I believe we have a combination of to many spineless people and to many sheeple. I for one will continue to vote my consience and vote for a non lawyer Third party candidate.
    • thumb

      Kitty Hawk

      • 0
      Nov 12 2012: And why should the opinions of "people living on the east coast between Boston and Washington DC, combined with the people living on the California coast" matter less than yours?

  • Tyler Leonard

    • 0
    Oct 27 2012: This is the way I think it should go. If a state wants to make up a new law, it should go on ever state ballet. For example, in early 2000 or mid 2000 California past the medical marijuana law and DEA came in and shot down the shops. In witch cost tax money. So if we was to do that, it would have ether been ligalized or not. In witch would have saved tax money. When we do vote it goes as country not a state. I say how can we be a united stats if we don't have the same laws. So let's unit and do the right thing.

    • Justin Clark

      • 0
      Oct 30 2012: We are united under the constitution which has the 10th amendment which aperrently you have not read.

      • Tyler Leonard

        • 0
        Nov 8 2012: I have read it, thank you, but it don't mean we are united.
  • thumb

    Wade Crum

    • 0
    Oct 26 2012: Whatever system we use, we must make it more transparent. There will always be corruption and abuse in any system unfortunately. So the real issue (IMHO) isn't the Electoral system but rather the balance of power. When I say balance of power, I'm referring to the power between the people and the government. We should be able to vote on all legislation as it is presented much like we do with levys but this time we don't wait for a general election. We do it real time. I also think there should be pilot legislation at the community and state levels before anything is attempted at a federal level. This will allow us see how well or bad ideas work on a smaller scale. (without putting the entire country at risk or in turmoil), I would go further to require more diversity among our legislators. Meaning not just Harvard Lawyers. Lawyers are the worlds best at making arguements. I see this as a real problem. We need diversity of ideas and backgrounds, this will diffuse the narrow ideologies we find today. I would even suggest a new branch of government. "The People's anti-corruption Branch". That would be comprised of all of us. This branch would be responsible for transparency in every department.. We should not be a Nation boxed in by two Ideologies. We should become a Nation of new ideas from a diverse multitude of people. Isn't that who we are anyway?

  • Age Funk

    • +1
    Oct 26 2012: I have read so much about the EC lately but fail (still) to understand how there is a better representation of individuals through the EC as many assert, compared to a popular vote. I am an Oregon resident and I have never voted in Presidential elections. Why? Because my vote does not matter *because* of the EC. In 2012, Obama will win Oregon and Romney will not. Regardless of who I vote for, my vote does... not... matter. Millions in the USA feel the same as I do. Show me a conservative in Oregon and I'll introduce you to a liberal in Texas. And the media wonders why there's low voter turnout, *this is why.* Regardless of the debates about whether or not the USA is a "true democracy" or a "representative republic" these are tangential to the real issue which is that statistically, millions and millions of people do not vote, and one of the many reasons why is that a percentage of non-voters feel that their vote simply does not count, because it doesn't in an EC for the majority of politically concerned non-voters. If there were a popular vote, I would be voting in every single election because at least I'd know there would be a check mark for an official I want to see in office. Until then, I deliberately neglect my civic duties as a voter and US citizen because it's an utter waste of my time, all due to the geographical area in which I happen to live and work and pay taxes. One could assert that it's a form of taxation without representation in a way, when one's representation is determined solely by the majority, that's just another form of mob rule, cloaked under the guise of democracy.

    • Evan Perriello 20+

      • 0
      Nov 8 2012: Hey Age,

      I get your frustration, but here's two things to think about: First of all, you should still vote. I'm in Massachussetts, which is also going to go blue no matter what, but I still vote because there are a lot more offices than just the presidency--this year there was a very close senate race as well as 5 referendums, some of which passed and others failed--for which your vote does certainly count.

      Secondly, if we did away with the EC, I hate to say it, but your vote would count for less than it does now, because it would get lumped in with all of the votes from huge population centers like New York City. To put it in perspective, NYC alone has a population of 8 million people (New York state has 20 mil).
      South Dakota has 800k
      North Dakota has 700k
      Montana has almost 1mil
      Oregon has almost 4mil
      Idaho has 1.5mil


      All of those states added together barely come to one NYC, and they come to less than half of one New York State (add in Washington state, and you're still lagging far behind). Right now, by the electoral college, Oregon= about 1/4 of New York. That may sound bad, but by popular vote, Oregon would equal less than 1/5th of New York. All of the states listed above currently equal 4/5 of a New York by the EC, but by population, they'd only equal a little over 3/10 of one.

      In other words, a vote in Oregon is a lot more valuable now than it would be if we got rid of the Electoral College. And what that means is not just that candidates would have no reason to appeal to Oregonians if we nixed the Electoral College, but that every single viable candidate would have to come from New York or LA. Because a New Yorker would automatically have enough in-built supporters to dwarf any candidate from any other state. So unless you like the idea of every president being the former Mayor or Governor of New York for the rest of time, you should be pretty happy the Electoral College is in place.
  • thumb

    Tammy DiBartolomeo Downey

    • +1
    Oct 26 2012: Presidents should be elected through simple majority voting without any influence from an outdated electoral college system. Let's keep moving forward and diffuse aged systems that are no longer effective in today's society.
    • thumb

      Theodore A. Hoppe 200+

      • 0
      Oct 29 2012: What are the reasons this "aged system" was put in place?
      Do you know?

      • Justin Clark

        • 0
        Oct 30 2012: The system was put in place over 200 years ago when communications took weeks in some cases. so they made the number of votes each state get proportionate to avoid majority rule and sent the electors to DC to choose the president on their states behalf.

        • Jeffrey Krantz

          • 0
          Nov 3 2012: Well, the was one reason, but the main reason is representation. I live in a smaller community in California that is majority Republican Conservative (way up north), so I understand exactly why we have the electoral college. Its for the small states such as Wyoming or Nebraska who have less people than California. Growing up in certain areas makes huge influences on your beliefs, and thus who you vote for. Being in San Francisco is substantially different than Redding Ca. If it were majority vote, the voices of smaller communities (the important ones who grow food for America) will not be heard while large cities with similar beliefs from similar cultures choose for the rest of us.

    • Justin Clark

      • +1
      Oct 30 2012: I'm sorry but majority rule is just as bad as minority rule.

  • Dorothy C Brown

    • +2
    Oct 24 2012: By all means! This is an outdated situation. We've been a UNITED STATES for a long time.

  • John Smith 30+

    • +5
    Oct 24 2012: To end the "confusion" about "tyranny of the majority" once and for all: that phrase is about a majority oppressing minorities through democratic means (such as Jim Crow and DOMA). It is about people, not states. People have votes, not states. The electoral college has nothing to do with tyranny of the majority, the bill of rights, having two parliamentary houses, having a supreme court and the requirement of a supermajority for a constitutional amendment do. The electoral college is a freak accident, a means to let southerners have their cake and eat it to (they could prohibit slaves from voting and still not lose influence in elections). Several founding fathers opposed the idea and several others saw it as nothing more than an acceptable temporary compromise.
  • thumb

    edward long 100+

    • +1
    Oct 24 2012: A chart of interest in this subject would look like a healthy person's EKG. Every 4-years interest peaks and we all agree that the EC should be looked at and probably abandoned. Then, BOOM!, we have a new or a returning president and nobody cares for the next 3-1/2 years. Besides, Christmas is coming, we can talk about this later. Politically speaking America is 50 states, not 365 +/- million individuals. If everyone moved to one state guess which state would have the most say in electing a new Prez?

  • Juan Donado

    • 0
    Oct 24 2012: Someone please explain to me the logic on "states" having more influence than others. Who do you think should elect the president, states or people? Plus, when I vote for president I am not voting as a Californian or as a New Yorker, I am voting as an individual, an American with personal convictions regardless of where I live.

    Plus, in a democracy every vote should weigh the same, right?
    • thumb

      pat gilbert 50+

      • 0
      Oct 24 2012: The United States is not a democracy. The states. Are you an American or a Colombian?
Load more comments…