Should the United States get rid of the Electoral College?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Founding Fathers in the U.S. are generally deemed to have been very wise, but it always seems to me that no human is perfect, and committees sometimes do worse than individual. Thus, we can argue that the Fathers made some errors. One in particular that I’ve been studying for a bit now is the Electoral College.

I held off posting this during the election, but I think now is the right time, so let’s open up the argument: Should the United States get rid of the Electoral College as a means of selection Presidents and Vice Presidents?

Here’s a summary of my best arguments against the Electoral College in the United States, with some comments to consider.

1. Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote Discrepancy

• Argument: The Electoral College can lead to a situation where the candidate who wins the popular vote does not become president, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This undermines the democratic ideal of "one person, one vote."
• Comment: This discrepancy raises questions about legitimacy and public trust in the system, especially in closely divided elections where the result may not reflect the majority's choice. Certainly in the 2016 election, many Americans were incensed that Hillary Clinton won over 3 million more votes than Trump, but lost the EC and the election.

2. Overrepresentation of Smaller States

• Argument: Smaller states receive disproportionately more electoral votes per capita than larger states. For example, a vote in Wyoming has significantly more weight in the Electoral College than one in California.
• Comment: While it aims to balance power across states, this system can skew representation, giving a minority of voters in smaller states outsized influence over the presidency.

3. Focus on Swing States

• Argument: Presidential candidates often focus their attention, resources, and policy promises on swing states, ignoring the majority of states that are predictably red or blue.
• Comment: This focus leads to uneven representation, as the interests and issues of residents in reliably "safe" states receive less attention during campaigns. More importantly, though, I think it leads to my next point:

4. Discouragement of Voter Turnout

• Argument: The "winner-takes-all" system in most states means that votes for the losing candidate are essentially discarded, which can discourage people in non-competitive states from voting. In the same way, votes for the winning candidate may be seen to be superfluous – “why should I waste my energy voting, we’re going to win anyway. My vote won’t make any difference”
• Comment: When voters feel their votes won’t impact the outcome, turnout suffers, which undermines broader democratic participation. The supporters of the expected winner may reason, "Our candidate will win here anyway," leading them to skip voting because they see their contribution as redundant. This effect reinforces low turnout overall and can contribute to an inaccurate measure of popular support.
  
  This dynamic highlights a broader critique of the Electoral College system: it doesn’t just depress turnout among supporters of the expected losing side but can lead to widespread voter apathy on both sides in non-competitive states.

5. Risk of "Faithless Electors"

• Argument: Electors are not legally bound in every state to vote for the candidate they pledged to support, which could result in "faithless electors" voting unpredictably.
• Comment: Although rare, this issue introduces an element of unpredictability and could allow individual electors to override the popular will within their state.

6. Potential for Crisis in Close Elections

• Argument: The Electoral College can complicate close elections, leading to legal battles over recounts in individual states and potentially resulting in a contingent election decided by the House of Representatives.
• Comment: This has the potential to create political and legal crises, particularly in an era of polarized politics, which can erode public confidence in electoral outcomes as the popular will is completely ignored.

7. Outdated System Rooted in Compromise Over Slavery

• Argument: The Electoral College was partly a compromise to protect the political influence of slaveholding states, making it a relic with origins that are at odds with modern democratic values.
• Comment: While the system has evolved, the historical roots in slavery raise ethical concerns about continuing a system that originated in a less inclusive era.

8. Barriers to Reform

• Argument: Amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is challenging, as it requires a high level of agreement from states and Congress, where smaller states have little incentive to give up their advantage.
• Comment: The difficulty of reforming or abolishing the system reflects structural inertia and highlights the gap between democratic ideals and political reality.

In sum, critics argue that the Electoral College fails to represent the popular will, focuses on a limited subset of states, and has structural flaws that are difficult to address. Supporters argue it protects smaller states and ensures a balance of regional interests, but whether these benefits outweigh the challenges is the subject of ongoing debate.

I would seriously appreciate a comment or two on whichever option you choose, or even objections to the observations I've made myself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Founding Fathers in the U.S. are generally deemed to have been very wise, but it always seems to me that no human is perfect, and committees sometimes do worse than individual. Thus, we can argue that the Fathers made some errors. One in particular that I’ve been studying for a bit now is the Electoral College.

I held off posting this during the election, but I think now is the right time, so let’s open up the argument: Should the United States get rid of the Electoral College as a means of selection Presidents and Vice Presidents?

Here’s a summary of my best arguments against the Electoral College in the United States, with some comments to consider.

1. Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote Discrepancy

• Argument: The Electoral College can lead to a situation where the candidate who wins the popular vote does not become president, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This undermines the democratic ideal of "one person, one vote."
• Comment: This discrepancy raises questions about legitimacy and public trust in the system, especially in closely divided elections where the result may not reflect the majority's choice. Certainly in the 2016 election, many Americans were incensed that Hillary Clinton won over 3 million more votes than Trump, but lost the EC and the election.

2. Overrepresentation of Smaller States

• Argument: Smaller states receive disproportionately more electoral votes per capita than larger states. For example, a vote in Wyoming has significantly more weight in the Electoral College than one in California.
• Comment: While it aims to balance power across states, this system can skew representation, giving a minority of voters in smaller states outsized influence over the presidency.

3. Focus on Swing States

• Argument: Presidential candidates often focus their attention, resources, and policy promises on swing states, ignoring the majority of states that are predictably red or blue.
• Comment: This focus leads to uneven representation, as the interests and issues of residents in reliably "safe" states receive less attention during campaigns. More importantly, though, I think it leads to my next point:

4. Discouragement of Voter Turnout

• Argument: The "winner-takes-all" system in most states means that votes for the losing candidate are essentially discarded, which can discourage people in non-competitive states from voting. In the same way, votes for the winning candidate may be seen to be superfluous – “why should I waste my energy voting, we’re going to win anyway. My vote won’t make any difference”
• Comment: When voters feel their votes won’t impact the outcome, turnout suffers, which undermines broader democratic participation. The supporters of the expected winner may reason, "Our candidate will win here anyway," leading them to skip voting because they see their contribution as redundant. This effect reinforces low turnout overall and can contribute to an inaccurate measure of popular support.
  
  This dynamic highlights a broader critique of the Electoral College system: it doesn’t just depress turnout among supporters of the expected losing side but can lead to widespread voter apathy on both sides in non-competitive states.

5. Risk of "Faithless Electors"

• Argument: Electors are not legally bound in every state to vote for the candidate they pledged to support, which could result in "faithless electors" voting unpredictably.
• Comment: Although rare, this issue introduces an element of unpredictability and could allow individual electors to override the popular will within their state.

6. Potential for Crisis in Close Elections

• Argument: The Electoral College can complicate close elections, leading to legal battles over recounts in individual states and potentially resulting in a contingent election decided by the House of Representatives.
• Comment: This has the potential to create political and legal crises, particularly in an era of polarized politics, which can erode public confidence in electoral outcomes as the popular will is completely ignored.

7. Outdated System Rooted in Compromise Over Slavery

• Argument: The Electoral College was partly a compromise to protect the political influence of slaveholding states, making it a relic with origins that are at odds with modern democratic values.
• Comment: While the system has evolved, the historical roots in slavery raise ethical concerns about continuing a system that originated in a less inclusive era.

8. Barriers to Reform

• Argument: Amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is challenging, as it requires a high level of agreement from states and Congress, where smaller states have little incentive to give up their advantage.
• Comment: The difficulty of reforming or abolishing the system reflects structural inertia and highlights the gap between democratic ideals and political reality.

In sum, critics argue that the Electoral College fails to represent the popular will, focuses on a limited subset of states, and has structural flaws that are difficult to address. Supporters argue it protects smaller states and ensures a balance of regional interests, but whether these benefits outweigh the challenges is the subject of ongoing debate.

I would seriously appreciate a comment or two on whichever option you choose, or even objections to the observations I've made myself.

The Electoral College needs to stay, otherwise you will only have a handful of States each and every election that will just dominate the political landscape and remove the voices of states that don't have that kind of influence.

 

[We Never Know]

The Electoral College needs to stay, otherwise you will only have a handful of States each and every election that will just dominate the political landscape and remove the voices of states that don't have that kind of influence.

In this election it wouldn't have mattered.
Trump won the popular vote by around 5 million, so EC or not, he still would have won.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In this election it wouldn't have mattered.
Trump won the popular vote by around 5 million, so EC or not, he still would have won.

Yeah but think about concentrations of populations. Policy will always be based on city and urban environments and the rural constituency will be left without any kind of voice whatsoever.

That's what actually is happening here in the people's Republic of New York where New York City largely dictates policies and tax for the rest of the counties in the state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Electoral College needs to stay, otherwise you will only have a handful of States each and every election that will just dominate the political landscape and remove the voices of states that don't have that kind of influence.

That's already what swing states are.

 

[Stevicus]

The Founding Fathers in the U.S. are generally deemed to have been very wise, but it always seems to me that no human is perfect, and committees sometimes do worse than individual. Thus, we can argue that the Fathers made some errors. One in particular that I’ve been studying for a bit now is the Electoral College.

I held off posting this during the election, but I think now is the right time, so let’s open up the argument: Should the United States get rid of the Electoral College as a means of selection Presidents and Vice Presidents?

Here’s a summary of my best arguments against the Electoral College in the United States, with some comments to consider.

1. Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote Discrepancy

• Argument: The Electoral College can lead to a situation where the candidate who wins the popular vote does not become president, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This undermines the democratic ideal of "one person, one vote."
• Comment: This discrepancy raises questions about legitimacy and public trust in the system, especially in closely divided elections where the result may not reflect the majority's choice. Certainly in the 2016 election, many Americans were incensed that Hillary Clinton won over 3 million more votes than Trump, but lost the EC and the election.

2. Overrepresentation of Smaller States

• Argument: Smaller states receive disproportionately more electoral votes per capita than larger states. For example, a vote in Wyoming has significantly more weight in the Electoral College than one in California.
• Comment: While it aims to balance power across states, this system can skew representation, giving a minority of voters in smaller states outsized influence over the presidency.

3. Focus on Swing States

• Argument: Presidential candidates often focus their attention, resources, and policy promises on swing states, ignoring the majority of states that are predictably red or blue.
• Comment: This focus leads to uneven representation, as the interests and issues of residents in reliably "safe" states receive less attention during campaigns. More importantly, though, I think it leads to my next point:

4. Discouragement of Voter Turnout

• Argument: The "winner-takes-all" system in most states means that votes for the losing candidate are essentially discarded, which can discourage people in non-competitive states from voting. In the same way, votes for the winning candidate may be seen to be superfluous – “why should I waste my energy voting, we’re going to win anyway. My vote won’t make any difference”
• Comment: When voters feel their votes won’t impact the outcome, turnout suffers, which undermines broader democratic participation. The supporters of the expected winner may reason, "Our candidate will win here anyway," leading them to skip voting because they see their contribution as redundant. This effect reinforces low turnout overall and can contribute to an inaccurate measure of popular support.
  
  This dynamic highlights a broader critique of the Electoral College system: it doesn’t just depress turnout among supporters of the expected losing side but can lead to widespread voter apathy on both sides in non-competitive states.

5. Risk of "Faithless Electors"

• Argument: Electors are not legally bound in every state to vote for the candidate they pledged to support, which could result in "faithless electors" voting unpredictably.
• Comment: Although rare, this issue introduces an element of unpredictability and could allow individual electors to override the popular will within their state.

6. Potential for Crisis in Close Elections

• Argument: The Electoral College can complicate close elections, leading to legal battles over recounts in individual states and potentially resulting in a contingent election decided by the House of Representatives.
• Comment: This has the potential to create political and legal crises, particularly in an era of polarized politics, which can erode public confidence in electoral outcomes as the popular will is completely ignored.

7. Outdated System Rooted in Compromise Over Slavery

• Argument: The Electoral College was partly a compromise to protect the political influence of slaveholding states, making it a relic with origins that are at odds with modern democratic values.
• Comment: While the system has evolved, the historical roots in slavery raise ethical concerns about continuing a system that originated in a less inclusive era.

8. Barriers to Reform

• Argument: Amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is challenging, as it requires a high level of agreement from states and Congress, where smaller states have little incentive to give up their advantage.
• Comment: The difficulty of reforming or abolishing the system reflects structural inertia and highlights the gap between democratic ideals and political reality.

In sum, critics argue that the Electoral College fails to represent the popular will, focuses on a limited subset of states, and has structural flaws that are difficult to address. Supporters argue it protects smaller states and ensures a balance of regional interests, but whether these benefits outweigh the challenges is the subject of ongoing debate.

I would seriously appreciate a comment or two on whichever option you choose, or even objections to the observations I've made myself.

These are all good arguments, and I would agree that the Electoral College is kind of outdated and doesn't always reflect the popular vote or the will of the people.

On the other hand, a possible alternative would be to prohibit the "winner take all" aspect of it, so that electors can be chosen by their respective districts, not given to an entire state.

The main issue is that it would require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the EC, and that's a rather slow, clunky process. The last time the Constitution was changed was back in 1992. People don't like to change the Constitution.

 

[We Never Know]

These are all good arguments, and I would agree that the Electoral College is kind of outdated and doesn't always reflect the popular vote or the will of the people.

On the other hand, a possible alternative would be to prohibit the "winner take all" aspect of it, so that electors can be chosen by their respective districts, not given to an entire state.

The main issue is that it would require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the EC, and that's a rather slow, clunky process. The last time the Constitution was changed was back in 1992. People don't like to change the Constitution.

I foresee parts of it being changed in future times.
235 years ago the people, politics, the world was a lot different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Founding Fathers in the U.S. are generally deemed to have been very wise, but it always seems to me that no human is perfect, and committees sometimes do worse than individual. Thus, we can argue that the Fathers made some errors. One in particular that I’ve been studying for a bit now is the Electoral College.

I held off posting this during the election, but I think now is the right time, so let’s open up the argument: Should the United States get rid of the Electoral College as a means of selection Presidents and Vice Presidents?

Here’s a summary of my best arguments against the Electoral College in the United States, with some comments to consider.

1. Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote Discrepancy

• Argument: The Electoral College can lead to a situation where the candidate who wins the popular vote does not become president, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This undermines the democratic ideal of "one person, one vote."
• Comment: This discrepancy raises questions about legitimacy and public trust in the system, especially in closely divided elections where the result may not reflect the majority's choice. Certainly in the 2016 election, many Americans were incensed that Hillary Clinton won over 3 million more votes than Trump, but lost the EC and the election.

2. Overrepresentation of Smaller States

• Argument: Smaller states receive disproportionately more electoral votes per capita than larger states. For example, a vote in Wyoming has significantly more weight in the Electoral College than one in California.
• Comment: While it aims to balance power across states, this system can skew representation, giving a minority of voters in smaller states outsized influence over the presidency.

3. Focus on Swing States

• Argument: Presidential candidates often focus their attention, resources, and policy promises on swing states, ignoring the majority of states that are predictably red or blue.
• Comment: This focus leads to uneven representation, as the interests and issues of residents in reliably "safe" states receive less attention during campaigns. More importantly, though, I think it leads to my next point:

4. Discouragement of Voter Turnout

• Argument: The "winner-takes-all" system in most states means that votes for the losing candidate are essentially discarded, which can discourage people in non-competitive states from voting. In the same way, votes for the winning candidate may be seen to be superfluous – “why should I waste my energy voting, we’re going to win anyway. My vote won’t make any difference”
• Comment: When voters feel their votes won’t impact the outcome, turnout suffers, which undermines broader democratic participation. The supporters of the expected winner may reason, "Our candidate will win here anyway," leading them to skip voting because they see their contribution as redundant. This effect reinforces low turnout overall and can contribute to an inaccurate measure of popular support.
  
  This dynamic highlights a broader critique of the Electoral College system: it doesn’t just depress turnout among supporters of the expected losing side but can lead to widespread voter apathy on both sides in non-competitive states.

5. Risk of "Faithless Electors"

• Argument: Electors are not legally bound in every state to vote for the candidate they pledged to support, which could result in "faithless electors" voting unpredictably.
• Comment: Although rare, this issue introduces an element of unpredictability and could allow individual electors to override the popular will within their state.

6. Potential for Crisis in Close Elections

• Argument: The Electoral College can complicate close elections, leading to legal battles over recounts in individual states and potentially resulting in a contingent election decided by the House of Representatives.
• Comment: This has the potential to create political and legal crises, particularly in an era of polarized politics, which can erode public confidence in electoral outcomes as the popular will is completely ignored.

7. Outdated System Rooted in Compromise Over Slavery

• Argument: The Electoral College was partly a compromise to protect the political influence of slaveholding states, making it a relic with origins that are at odds with modern democratic values.
• Comment: While the system has evolved, the historical roots in slavery raise ethical concerns about continuing a system that originated in a less inclusive era.

8. Barriers to Reform

• Argument: Amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is challenging, as it requires a high level of agreement from states and Congress, where smaller states have little incentive to give up their advantage.
• Comment: The difficulty of reforming or abolishing the system reflects structural inertia and highlights the gap between democratic ideals and political reality.

In sum, critics argue that the Electoral College fails to represent the popular will, focuses on a limited subset of states, and has structural flaws that are difficult to address. Supporters argue it protects smaller states and ensures a balance of regional interests, but whether these benefits outweigh the challenges is the subject of ongoing debate.

I would seriously appreciate a comment or two on whichever option you choose, or even objections to the observations I've made myself.

The current American system isn't what the Founding Fathers envisioned and was never designed to be the way it is today.

Originally, EC delegates were chosen by state legislatures, not by a popular vote of the citizens of the state.

The EC delegates were also given autonomy to vote as they see fit, trusting that they would have the best interests of their state in mind, since in an era when information moved at the speed of a horse, a delegate might not have the opportunity to consult with their state legislature if situations changed.

Also, originally, EC delegates didn't vote for Vice President. Whoever got the most votes became President and the runner-up became the Vice President.


... so I think the people who argue that we should stick with "what the Founders planned" don't really know what they're talking about.

 

[Augustus]

The US is a union of states, why would the smaller states agree that they should play by new rules that make them insignificant?

There should be a change in the voting system to break the duopoly though.

Also lots of federal power should be returned to the states. This would make the Presidential election far less consequential and divisive, and more people would have the kind of governance that best represents their values.

The problem is not really the EC, but the winner takes all nature so one half "loses" and grows bitter while the other "wins" and gloats until the tables are turned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

These are all good arguments, and I would agree that the Electoral College is kind of outdated and doesn't always reflect the popular vote or the will of the people.

On the other hand, a possible alternative would be to prohibit the "winner take all" aspect of it, so that electors can be chosen by their respective districts, not given to an entire state.

The main issue is that it would require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the EC, and that's a rather slow, clunky process. The last time the Constitution was changed was back in 1992. People don't like to change the Constitution.

The EC is unfair, which is why it's unlikely to change. A constitutional amendment would need to be approved by the states who benefit from the current unfairness, which they aren't going to do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We should. We should also eradicate hunger, sexism, and xenophobia. Some tasks are more doable than others.

 

[We Never Know]

The US is a union of states, why would the smaller states agree that they should play by new rules that make them insignificant?

There should be a change in the voting system to break the duopoly though.

Also lots of federal power should be returned to the states. This would make the Presidential election far less consequential and divisive, and more people would have the kind of governance that best represents their values.

The problem is not really the EC, but the winner takes all nature so one half "loses" and grows bitter while the other "wins" and gloats until the tables are turned.

I'm all for repub pres and dem VP or vise-versa.
The problem might be one trying to undermine the other to get them out so they could take over.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There should be a change in the voting system to break the duopoly though.

I'm surprised that third parties haven't figured out what most FPTP-system countries have: small third parties can really punch above their weight if they focus only on a few districts or states.

The Greens or Libertarians are fighting an uphill battle trying to get support everywhere, but an "Alaska Party" - for instance - could probably get 2 senators and a representative with only about 150,000 votes and without the effort of running candidates in 49 other states.

It's not the presidency, but a small party could definitely have oversized influence as a member of a coalition with a larger party.

 

[Shaul]

Eliminating the Electoral College would so fundamentally alter the United States that it would cease to be. Federalist Paper #68 explains how.
Federalist 68, 70, 72 (1788) | Constitution Center

Before non-Americans opine about the Electoral College they should do basic research on it.

 

[Augustus]

I'm surprised that third parties haven't figured out what most FPTP-system countries have: small third parties can really punch above their weight if they focus only on a few districts or states.

The Greens or Libertarians are fighting an uphill battle trying to get support everywhere, but an "Alaska Party" - for instance - could probably get 2 senators and a representative with only about 150,000 votes and without the effort of running candidates in 49 other states.

It's not the presidency, but a small party could definitely have oversized influence as a member of a coalition with a larger party.

You might be right.

2-3 small states acting together could basically control the balance of power, at least in the senate and possibly both houses.

The 'Wyoming and New Hampshire' First Party - "We always side with the highest bidder".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm surprised that third parties haven't figured out what most FPTP-system countries have: small third parties can really punch above their weight if they focus only on a few districts or states.

The Greens or Libertarians are fighting an uphill battle trying to get support everywhere, but an "Alaska Party" - for instance - could probably get 2 senators and a representative with only about 150,000 votes and without the effort of running candidates in 49 other states.

It's not the presidency, but a small party could definitely have oversized influence as a member of a coalition with a larger party.

This is what I find. I am a huge fan of multi-party coalitions, because they require larger (but not majority) parties to work with other parties with different priorities. This has the effect, in my view, of incorporating broader public viewpoints into public decision-making, which can hardly be a bad thing -- well, at least for those who really do like the notion of democracy.

Many democracies are currently or recently governed by coaltions, including Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany and more.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We should. We should also eradicate hunger, sexism, and xenophobia. Some tasks are more doable than others.

Some of those seemingly undoable tasks, however, can become much easier if the focus turns from "eradicating" to "educating."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eliminating the Electoral College would so fundamentally alter the United States that it would cease to be. Federalist Paper #68 explains how.
Federalist 68, 70, 72 (1788) | Constitution Center

Before non-Americans opine about the Electoral College they should do basic research on it.

What makes you think we have it?

And this doesn't describe the system you have today:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Hamilton is describing something akin to a College of Cardinals, not representatives sent with marching orders to only vote one particular way.

And this:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided…

... Is better served by selection by nationwide popular vote than by the EC. If we want to put the power to select the President in the hands of the people, this is better served by going straight to the people instead of distorting their will with an intermediate step.

 

[We Never Know]

What makes you think we have it?

And this doesn't describe the system you have today:



Hamilton is describing something akin to a College of Cardinals, not representatives sent with marching orders to only vote one particular way.

And this:



... Is better served by selection by nationwide popular vote than by the EC. If we want to put the power to select the President in the hands of the people, this is better served by going straight to the people instead of distorting their will with an intermediate step.

It wouldn't really matter. Trump won the PV and look how many in this forum are already saying American people are basically stupid/ignorant.

EC or PV, people are only happy with it if it goes their way lol

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some of those seemingly undoable tasks, however, can become much easier if the focus turns from "eradicating" to "educating."

And some do not.That fact of the matter is that those who benefit from the Electoral College have the power to resist efforts to eradicate it.

Read the Wikipedia entry ...