Why an Electoral College?

[Toddsterpatriot]

The current system makes fraud less profitable than a popular vote system would.

It only took 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide, to elect the 2nd place national popular vote getter.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

Currently, fraud in Chicago could help Dems steal Illinois. LOL!
Under a popular vote system, it could help them steal the Presidency, again.

Again. With the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), we know that as little as 537 votes, all in one state can determine the election.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief, because a small number of people in a battleground state can affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

In 2004, President George W. Bush had a nationwide lead of 3,012,171 popular votes. However, if 59,393 Bush voters in Ohio had shifted to Senator John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would have carried Ohio and thus become President. It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 million votes (51 times more votes) nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving 3,012,171 votes.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, there are huge incentives for fraud and mischief

Yup, we need voter ID.

In the current system, is there any incentive for Dem voter fraud in CA, NY or IL?
What about Republican fraud in Texas, Oklahoma or Utah?

Leave the EC system as it is.

There is HUGE incentive for voter fraud in any swing state.
We have seen as little as 537 votes, all in one state determine the election, despite a nationwide popular vote margin of more than 1,000 times that.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

There is HUGE incentive for voter fraud in any swing state.

And now we'll have incentive everywhere.

Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose.

And? How many times has it happened? 4? Somehow the Republic survived.

We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Yup. Leave the quirk alone.

 

[Blackrook]

When the Electoral College was conceived, votes had to be counted and collected/reported via horseback or sailing ship. Apparently, our founding fathers wanted someone watching the final voting, so they had representatives come from the states to do the deed. Times have changed.
If the new app created to report the votes of the Iowa caucus works well (which it seemed to last night), couldn't we eliminate the electoral college and go to a straight count of votes for the presidential election? We certainly don't need to wait until December anymore for the results of the popular vote.
Does it have some important purpose I'm not aware of?

couldn't we eliminate the electoral college and go to a straight count of votes for the presidential election?

No.

I'm beginning to believe that everyone is as confused about the purpose of this mysterious Electoral College as I am. I'm sure not getting much of an explanation as to its Very Important Purpose.
Are you telling me the whole system is rigged by the parties to ensure someone like Trump doesn't get elected?

Right. Or someone like Caesar. Or someone like Napoleon. Or someone like Alexander the Great. The Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College as the last chance of normal people to reject a demagogue.

 

[there4eyeM]

From an online dictionary: "A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek dēmagōgos, dēmos ‘the people’ + agōgos ‘leading’)[1] or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower socioeconomic classes to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population."
How is this different from most of the Presidential candidates in recent elections?
In any case, with the way electors are compelled to vote in most states, there is no reason for other than direct voting in the first place.
The Electoral College has outlived its historical 'raison d'être'.

 

[OldLady]

To answer the OP, the United States was set up as a federal republic, wherein sovereign States agreed to a central government with limited powers. As such, the States themselves selected the President according to a process which mirrored the composition of the House and Senate. The method of selecting Presidential Electors was and still is left to the States:

"Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a "winner-take-all" basis.[2] That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote." -Wiki

Thus, the direct popular election of the President is opposed in large States, whose power and influence would be diluted by proportional assignment of electors to each candidate, and in small States, who fear that vote manipulation in large urban areas could sway a national election. The first step towards reforming this system would be to require proportional selection of all electors, but this would never be supported by the Democratic states.

Thank you so much for explaining the Electoral College in an understandable way. Don't understand why the Democrats would be opposed to making it more fair? I'm glad quite a few states have worked on legislation to make it more representative. But at least now I know, the STATES have the ultimate control over who is elected, hence the Electoral College. Thanks again.

 

[xotoxi]

It's to give smaller states a say.
. . .

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Maine is not a winner take all state. An EC point is given to the candidate which wins each of the two districts, and then 2 points to the overall winner.

Same thing happens in Nebraska.

I would like to see this done in all the states, because it would represent a little closer to the popular vote, but would still give small states a little more say.

 

[jwoodie]

Political reality

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally.

Thanks for the political advertisements.

 

[jwoodie]

Maine is not a winner take all state. An EC point is given to the candidate which wins each of the two districts, and then 2 points to the overall winner.

Same thing happens in Nebraska.

I would like to see this done in all the states, because it would represent a little closer to the popular vote, but would still give small states a little more say.

This would be an improvement, but would also inject the issue of gerrymandering into Presidential elections. I would prefer allotment of electoral votes on a percentage of vote basis, which would minimize the effect of voting "irregularities" that occur in many elections. (Why are Democratic precincts always the last to report their vote totals?)

 

[Rouge Rover]

. (Why are Democratic precincts always the last to report their vote totals?)

It ain't easy tracking down all of those ballots in all of those cars. It's hard work man.

 

[xotoxi]

(Why are Democratic precincts always the last to report their vote totals?)

Might it be that they tend to be urban, and thus more votes to report?

 

[xotoxi]

Maine is not a winner take all state. An EC point is given to the candidate which wins each of the two districts, and then 2 points to the overall winner.

Same thing happens in Nebraska.

I would like to see this done in all the states, because it would represent a little closer to the popular vote, but would still give small states a little more say.

This would be an improvement, but would also inject the issue of gerrymandering into Presidential elections. I would prefer allotment of electoral votes on a percentage of vote basis, which would minimize the effect of voting "irregularities" that occur in many elections. (Why are Democratic precincts always the last to report their vote totals?)

I would like to see gerrymandering be made illegal.

I think that congressional districts should be forced to follow already established political boundaries (counties, towns, municipalities, wards) rather than the random shapes that they now follow.

And once established, they must remain in place for 5 presidential election cycles, and then could only be changed if there is a 10% change in population.

And the new boundaries would be established by a non-partisan committee that looks just at population and not voting patterns.

And pigs should be allowed to fly.

 

[mvymvy]

"Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.


For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." --FairVote

 

[Rouge Rover]

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." --FairVote

You're wrong. A State's responsibility under the Constitution is to have electors. You need a Constitutional amendment to get your way. Good luck with that.

 

[mvymvy]

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." --FairVote

You're wrong. A State's responsibility under the Constitution is to have electors. You need a Constitutional amendment to get your way. Good luck with that.

With National Popular Vote states will still have electors.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.



National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

[Rouge Rover]

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." --FairVote

You're wrong. A State's responsibility under the Constitution is to have electors. You need a Constitutional amendment to get your way. Good luck with that.

With National Popular Vote states will still have electors.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.



National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

You are confusing changing the method with what is actually in the Constitution. Don't play this stupid game, you've been advocating for a popular vote but now you just spent 10 paragraphs trying to say something I said in 5 sentences in a previous post. You don't even know what you believe now do you? Are you still for a direct vote for President or not? And it shouldn't take more a couple of sentences to answer that.

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would not be direct voting for President.
We would continue to vote for electors.
Electors would continue to elect the President.

There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

 

[Rouge Rover]

The National Popular Vote bill would not be direct voting for President.
We would continue to vote for electors.
Electors would continue to elect the President.

There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

My Gawd! 10 paragraphs again! So I take it you have changed your mind and are no longer arguing for the direct vote. Ok, got it. No need to respond, in fact I'm not sure the servers could handle another one.

 

[mvymvy]

All along I have been referring to the National Popular Vote bill.
It is not direct voting for President.
We would continue to vote for electors.
Electors would continue to elect the President.

 

[jwoodie]

There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

Although each State retains the right to apportion its electors, the 12th Amendment requires that this be done within each State:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

I do not believe that an agreement among several states to jointly cast their electoral votes according to votes cast outside of each state would meet this requirement.

 

[mvymvy]

There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

Although each State retains the right to apportion its electors, the 12th Amendment requires that this be done within each State:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

I do not believe that an agreement among several states to jointly cast their electoral votes according to votes cast outside of each state would meet this requirement.

With National Popular Vote, the electors in each state will continue to meet in their respective states, and cast their state's electoral votes.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.