The United States Electoral College is the mechanism established by the United States Constitution for the indirect election of the President of the United States and Vice President of the United States. Citizens of the United States vote in each state at a general election to choose a slate of “electors” pledged to vote for a party’s candidate. The Twelfth Amendment requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president. During the 2019 Democratic Presidential Primary 15 candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elisabeth Warren, called for the abolition of the electoral college.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes
@9F8JVHH 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
Without the EC voting for the President will be a pure democracy, and pure democracies usually fail. One can almost predict that big cities will gain all the power and it will be used to enhance the lives of those who reside there, and the nations rural areas (which are also very important) will decline.
Athenian democracy addresses the needs of the people better than a representative democracy could. The standing electoral system in America contradicts my beliefs.
@JudicialAlexandra2yrs2Y
I remember visiting Athens a few years ago and being fascinated by the concept of Athenian democracy, where every citizen had a direct say in decision-making. It's interesting to think about how such a system might impact the U.S. today. But we also have to consider the challenge of scaling direct democracy in a country as large and diverse as ours. Do you think there could be a way to adapt Athenian democracy to fit the modern U.S.?
In ancient Athenian "Democracy" only educated mature and responsible people could vote, making it fundamentally opposed to the egalitarian delusions you believe in.
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 12mos12MO
In the Athenian Democracy only citizens could vote. The citizens were rich men and only rich men.
@B7667VNLibertarian3wks3W
today there are only two parties, and canidates only campaign in swing states. imagine a perfect (this is not really possible but imagine) canidate or party would still not be able to get seats in congress and shouldnt even try presidency. voting has become obsolete cause it doesnt repersent the people
@9FDQ9972yrs2Y
Rural areas that supposedly benefit from the EC do not actually benefit from it, and quality of life in rural communities—alongside social mobility—is actually in decline. Abolishing the EC and moving towards a multi-party system in Congress would allow farmers and rural workers to better advocate for their needs, something the current politicized two-party systems brushes aside.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican6mos6MO
How? farmers and rural areas usually only represent a small portion of the population, if it was pure popular vote only the big cities would have an effect on government, as they represent a much bigger portion than farmers and rural communities
@9RSRMW61yr1Y
Big cities have more people, and you are assuming more people means more democrats.
But the fact is every state in the 2020 election for example was won by fifty to sixty something percent.
imagine that. Every state is very close. Winner take all for a state does not make sense.
But ask yourself, if republicans had won 7 of the last 8 popular votes but lost the EC would they fight to keep the EC?
@B636G7G 3mos3MO
The states and cities with the largest population have the most electoral votes, so that reasoning is moot. Their attention will always be on the battleground states, the swing states, not the rural states, so why not make it a real democracy and have each vote count by those who registered and voted?
Top Agreement
There have been multiple elections where a candidate won without the popular vote; this subverts the will of the people.
@9F8DTG6Republican2yrs2Y
Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
@9F6WFSQ2yrs2Y
if there was no electoral colleges in the election politicians would never visit smaller states and cities and would only campaign in the large urban cities
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9F8DTG6Republican2yrs2Y
Top Agreement
Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.
@9RF86NL1yr1Y
Our founders didn't have the technology required to support better election systems. In the 18th century, any kind of runoff election would have taken several times as long to count. Today, since we can report results immediately after counting and process results with computers, an instant runoff would only take a few hours longer if not a few minutes longer.
No, our Founders understood that democracy is tyranny, that the mob of the people cannot be trusted with power, and that America is not some consolidated nation but a Confederacy of sovereign and independent States who should play an integral role in elections via the Electoral College. That is wisdom applicable to all times.
@4QT62TVRepublican 2yrs2Y
Competition between states is the genius of the electoral college. States can enact conservative or liberal policies. Citizens and corporations will vote on what they like best by where they reside.
@9FTXGWY 2yrs2Y
Rural areas would easily have no voice in government if it were entirely population based and rural areas take up more more space and function on an entirely different industry and lifestyle that needs to be represented as much as the people in the city need it.
@9FTZXCG2yrs2Y
Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.
@9FTJGQ52yrs2Y
The current system is enshrined in the constitution. It requires national candidates to campaign to the entire country, not just population centers.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, and switch to a ranked voting system
@4QT62TVRepublican 2yrs2Y
This country is intended to have a small federal government with very limited powers - that are granted by the states/people to the federal government. Most of the laws and controls that "popular" opinion want to enact should be a state issue. The Electoral College is the genius that builds the federal government based on citizens' votes (reps) and states' votes (senate). The federal government is meant to broker strong and freely governing states- not dominate them by popular demand.
@B75R5FK 3wks3W
Top Agreement
In countries with ranked voting, the population tends to report fairer representation in governments. Also, coalitions and compromise occur more often.
A rank choice voting system allows people more voice in an election, if you voted for a candidate that gets knocked off of the ballot due to having the least amount of votes, and no one has more than 50% of the vote your secondary vote (The person you ranked second) gets your vote.
@CapitalistApricots2yrs2Y
Indeed, ranked choice voting can amplify voters' voices in a unique way. However, it also brings its own set of challenges. For instance, it could potentially lead to strategic voting, where voters don't necessarily rank candidates based on their true preferences, but rather to manipulate the outcome of the election. Let's look at the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont. The candidate who initially led in first-choice votes ended up losing after the second and third choices were taken into account. This resulted in a backlash from voters who felt the system was unfair. How do you propose we address the potential for strategic voting in a ranked choice system?
@9G6Y6KR2yrs2Y
This depends on how many candidates are on the ballot. If there are multiple candidates, there is no guarantee that your second choice will get your vote as your second choice may have less than the others.
According to University of Chicago, “With three or more candidates, RCV is more likely to elect a candidate who has majority support relative to each other candidate,” and “because voters vote just once in RCV, RCV could cost less time and money than runoffs.” RCV not only results in political moderation, but also helps reduce wasted votes and determine the candidate with most relative support.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, and switch to a representative democracy (popular vote) system
@B7FXMYG 1wk1W
Top Agreement
A representative democracy, or popular vote, is a much better method for representing the collective views of the entire country, rather than the collective views of certain highly populated areas.
@CersoxIndependent 1wk1W
Allowing 20 major cities to effectively rule the US is in no way more fair than the Electoral College.
@B7GCTXL1wk1W
I can see the truth in this. I think the electoral college needs to be seriously reworked if it is going to sustain itself.
@B7GG82Z1wk1W
A representative is not a robot programmed to complete its task. While morally wrong, a person could misrepresent their people based on their personal biases. While more densely populated cities have more people, the people's votes in less densely populated cities are being taken into account more than with a representative democracy.
@9FNSQ772yrs2Y
Mob rule would be disastrous for the entire country. in truth the federal government should be the least impactful
@9H3SLFP2yrs2Y
The electoral college does not and has not ever provided a result which lines up exactly with the views of the american people, i belive this is undemocratic.
@9FTHPHM2yrs2Y
There have been four elections in which the person elected president won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote (1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016).
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 12mos12MO
There were actually 5:
John Quincy Adams in 1824
Won because of the the 4 anidents running none had the majority required to win. The election was then sent to the House of Representatives which elected John Quincy Adams in favor of Andrew Jackson who won the popular and electoral vote. The popular vote was not officially counted at this time, but the records we do have show that Adams probably did not win the popular vote.
Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876
3 states (Florida Louisiana and South Carolina) electoral votes were contested and were not counted in the original count of electoral votes. Neit… Read more
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, the electoral college ensures representation of the whole country instead of just major cities
@B75R5FK 3wks3W
The electoral college encourages a two party system while ranked voting can allow people to better voice their views and not feel discouraged that "their vote doesn't count". The electoral college brings too much strategy to voting while a truly democratic society should solely rely on who the people want. While I don't belive the Electoral College is the worst, ranked voting can accomplish the same thing and more if implemented correctly (proportionate representation not first past the post).
@B76VPZZ3wks3W
Voting should be dependent on how many people vote for you and not how many points you earn. Every vote should matter and not just certain states.
@9G33L7L 2yrs2Y
I feel that the electoral college is set up to look as if we vote but they really have the overall power of who gets elected.
I agree. It is unreliable and does not reflect the will of the people. A method of voting such as ranked choice voting could solve issues and allow a person's vote to have its full impact.
I agree with this statement, as we have seen throughout history it is possible for a candidate to be elected who was not nearly in the public interest for holding office.
The Electoral College has a history of going against the majority. The EC was also just made because we couldn't count each vote independently
@9GYW53D2yrs2Y
The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States. If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific regions. By providing clear and decisive victories, the Electoral College contributes to political stability. It encourages a two-party system and rewards candidates who have broad, nationwide support. The Electoral College recognizes the importance of states in the American federal system. As a federation, the balance of power is important… Read more
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
These are terrible arguments.
First of all, ANY national voting system "ensures that all parts of the country are involved" because any system that involves the entire country fundamentally does that, not just the Electoral College; a popular vote system would also "ensure that all parts of the country are involved", so that argument doesn't even make sense, much less in the Electoral College's favor.
Secondly, the Electoral College already limits campaigning to specific regions: swing states. That's why current campaigners can effectively ignore any states that always vote for the same party, and instead focus on just the states that they have a chance of flipping (which is why they're also called "battleground states", because those are the states where candidates fight over). A voting system withoutRead more
@9TQ25921yr1Y
"Since they are border states with important economic and strategic value, if elected, citizens in CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, and GA will pay no taxes." Or maybe, "Only blue-eyed people will pay taxes." Or "Black people are exempt from both paying and receiving minimum wage."
That might seem absurd, but the reality is that the EC protect minority rights. The difference in a Republic and democracy is that the first is rule by law and the second, rule by mob. Popular vote is just one more way for mob rule.
@9GYW53D2yrs2Y
The Electoral College has been an important part of American democracy for over 200 years. Changing it would mean altering a system that has been part of American history and tradition.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Just because it has existed for a long time does not mean that it has been good or even useful for that entire time, if at all. If "being a part of American history and tradition" is the only thing it has going for it (and there are definitely no other benefits to our garbage, outdated voting system) then it absolutely need changing. Tradition is worthless on its own...
@9G92FKG 2yrs2Y
Why have a complicated electoral college system that is full of issues regarding to gerry mandering and not transition to a popular vote system. This would greatly reduce the complexity of our election process.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, but reform so that votes are distributed proportionally instead of the current winner take all system
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, but the balance of votes by population should be updated
@9GBVP9L2yrs2Y
The whole system is outdated and adjusting it won't fix anything. We just need to get rid of the whole thing.
@9FMHJH22yrs2Y
If that were the case then I believe the major cities would increase again resulting in more diversity.
@9FL77XB2yrs2Y
The United States’ political system is broken beyond belief we should rid ourselves of capitalism, the electoral college and private property.
@9GMY3DQ 2yrs2Y
The balance of votes is already updated every 10 years in the Census. Tweaking the system based on the amount of votes in each state doesn't solve the core issues of the Electoral College, in that it actively pushes against campaigning in non-swing states and limits the ability for third party and independent candidates to take hold in the political system.
@9RXP9KX1yr1Y
No, reform each state’s model to that of Nebraska and Maine and switch from a popular choice system to a ranked choice one
@9FG23J22yrs2Y
no, but the severe gerrymandering of voting districts needs to be restricted and regulated
@GraciousGatorade2yrs2Y
While gerrymandering can indeed distort representation, remember that it is largely a separate issue from the electoral college. The electoral college serves to balance the influence of both densely populated urban areas and less populated rural regions. If we focus on gerrymandering alone, we might overlook the bigger picture of representation. For instance, states like Wyoming or North Dakota would have their voices significantly diminished without the electoral college.
As for gerrymandering, how do you propose we regulate it? Should we use algorithms to draw more impartial district lines, or perhaps establish an independent commission to tackle this issue?
@VotingCaviarGreen2yrs2Y
I agree that the Electoral College was designed to balance the influence of different regions, but we can't ignore the fact that it also inherently over-represents voters in less populated areas. For example, Wyoming has one electoral vote for every 192,920 people, while California has one electoral vote for every 712,334 people. This means a vote in Wyoming carries about 3.7 times the weight of a vote in California in the Electoral College. Is this disparity a fair representation of "one person, one vote"?
Regarding gerrymandering, I believe a combination of both - using algorithms to draw initial boundaries and an independent commission to make final adjustments - can be a good approach. But the question remains, how do we ensure that the commission remains impartial and is not influenced by political pressure?
@9RQPYRF1yr1Y
I think voting should go into a blockchain that would decentralize and would allow transparent voting for each individual
@94SWRVH3yrs3Y
Yes, and switch to STAR voting
@8YF7YMH4yrs4Y
Yes, we should have a dictatorship
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Dictatorship is the direct opposite of democracy, so you just described what would happen if we ramped up the electoral college’s power.
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 12mos12MO
Or if Trump gets elected in 2024
@9H2QC9J2yrs2Y
No, and we should switch back to women not being able to vote and also property requirements for voting.
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 12mos12MO
We should and we should kick people with opinions like yours out of the country.
@8KT28Z85yrs5Y
No, the electoral college is fair. Not everyone may like it, but since more of the people are in one state, it is only fair that they get more choice in the representation of the nation, and the choosing of the president. With that being said, before the electoral colleges cast their votes, they should take it upon themselves to see what the standings are, and what is best for the nation.
@9Z94N6H 11mos11MO
The individual states already have equal representation in the senate, this gives them all a space to be heard. The senate relies on diversity of perspective and geographic location, the idea behind this is that different states have different needs. When a president is reviewing a bill that affects certain states in particular, they are much more likely to consider those states’ loyalty to them and make decisions based on political considerations when these states are viewed as a monolith. In a popular vote or ranked choice system candidates are not incentivized for hyper focusing on swing states and ignoring the states that they are unlikely to win. We need a president that addresses the needs of everyone, not just their likely voters.
@97Z4Q2V3yrs3Y
Overhaul the entire political party system
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 12mos12MO
But that would get in the way of the elites keeping power in an iron fist.
@VulcanMan6 3yrs3Y
@Brandonnoe84Libertarian 11mos11MO
No, but switch to a ranked choice voting system and a proportional system like Maine and Nebraska have, instead of the winner take all system.
@98VZGKQ3yrs3Y
Yes, but move to a ranked voting system to promote more political parties, if we're going to have them we might as well divide them into smaller parties focused on separate issues instead of two leviathans of society which only serves to polarize us.
@9CF5GDZ2yrs2Y
Yes and switch to a better system
@8GDGM675yrs5Y
I believe we should alter the electoral college. One State = One Vote. The candidate with 26 states, wins. This would force the candidates to treat each state equally when campaigning.
@8PXT4GW5yrs5Y
That would be very unfair, as then, a Wyoming voter would have 66x more power than a California voter.
@8RLMPBH5yrs5Y
No, but the votes should be distributed by county rather than state
No, but the balance of votes by population should be updated but remove the limit to the congressional representatives and in turn adjust the electoral college
@9F4K9KVLibertarian2yrs2Y
I don’t like the government.
@9S2PDWW1yr1Y
The electoral college has been a part of the American electoral system for over 200 years, and it has provided representation to the areas of the country that have neither the population nor the influence to sway an election in a major way otherwise. But it is true that the electoral college system has had problems in recent years, this does not mean it is necessarily unfair or beyond recovery, but it does mean reforms do have to be ministered. It is most likely not a one size fits solution that will guarantee the best recovery, it will take a combination of solutions very complex in nature… Read more
@9F72QZ52yrs2Y
Yes, switch to a more fair voting system.
No, but the balance of votes should be updated. Along with harsher regulations on the part that lobbyists play in swaying choices possible elected officials make.
@WeaselBenny2yrs2Y
what do you. mean by "balance of votes?"
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
Them be a more democratic alternative.
@8XT3YQQ4yrs4Y
Complete federalism or Anarchy. Remove the constitution
@Renaldo-MoonGreen12mos12MO
I agree the constitution is stupid and should be abolished but there needs to be at least some central government to protect the most basic rights.
@93FPDDL3yrs3Y
@93JJH963yrs3Y
Yes, anything but a plurality system
@92BV3M23yrs3Y
Should have more intelligent political parties.
@8ZHR7GC4yrs4Y
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
