Electoral College

[puppychow]

I'm pretty ignorant on this topic, but as presidential election season nears for the US, that system just seems so antiquated to me...if you are voting rebublican and live in new york or california, you know ur state is going democrat, so whats the point? Just as if you are votong Democrat and live in texas, you know that texas is going red...

are there still benefits to this system?

[Streetwolf]

There are if your name is George W. Bush.

[delete]

I'd never trust the general population to make an intelligent decision on the president of the united states. Masses are stupid enough said.

[Boston]

The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that it wouldn't give the small states a voice. No one would worry about North Dakota, with only 600,000 people living there. Candidates would simply skip the place. So, in this effect, the Electoral College is especially beneficial to small states in close elections. Thus, the Electoral College was strongly supported by the small states since its inception. There are other problems that would occur in trying to abolish the Electoral system. For one, it would require a constitutional amendment and passed by 36 states in the union. This would never happen, mostly because of what I described above. It has become too much of a tradition to just stop.

It's not perfect, as it was a compromise between the larger and smaller states (e.g. Madison vs. Sherman). When we look at the Electoral College we have to realize that it has evolved into something the Framers did not expect. It was designed to work without political parties, to cover both nominating and electing, and ultimately to elect a nonpartisan president. What the Framers expected was overwhelming majority's votes for one person. Of course, we saw this lasted no longer than Washington stayed in office. Also, electors had no way of distinguishing which vote was for president and which for vice president. As a result, for example, in 1800, Democratic-Republicans Jefferson and Burr were running for president and vice president, respectively. Accordingly, each Democratic-Republican (the majority) casted one vote for Jefferson and one vote for Burr. The result was a tie between them both. Of course, the House voted Jefferson in as president, but only after convincing the lame-duck Federalist not to vote Burr into presidency. Luckily now, we have the Twelfth Amendment. Still, there were problems. For example, in 1824 Jackson had more popular votes and electoral votes, but not enough to gain presidency. When the vote went to the House, Adams was voted in, not Jefferson! Despite these problems, there are many more problems that would result without it. It works, but it's not perfect.

[Repair Man]

are there still benefits to this system?

The main thing it protects against is the tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). One of the major flaws of a pure democratic system is that if a rigid majority were to arise within the general population, this majority could potentially suppress the ideas and beliefs of those in the minority every bit as effectively as a despot or dictator.

This isn't a problem thats confined strictly to elections mind you (the social side-effects can be pretty severe as well) but to give you an example pertaining specifically to the presidential election:

Say that over the next ten years or so, New York, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and two or three other moderately populated states become overwhelmingly Republican/Democrat. These are all states that contain a number of large cities that are likely to have a huge pull in an election. The values and concerns of people that live in cities are drastically different than those who live in more rural settings, and as such, people living in rural areas might find that their needs aren't being met if an urban-minded president is elected time and time again. Farming in particular could suffer a great deal if say an urban-minded president decided to take funds normally used for agricultural subsidies and use them for something else, like building brand new interstate highways or something like that. That probably isn't the best example in the world, but I think you see what I mean.

[Sponge]

I'd never trust the general population to make an intelligent decision on the president of the united states. Masses are stupid enough said.

for real? there have been maybe 3 cases in the entire history of the US where an elector in a particular state didn't vote for the popular election winner in that state and none of those 3 defections meant a damn anyways.

the electoral college sucks hardcore and needs to be scrapped. why shouldn't more people have more of a say? moreover, it has the effect of marginalizing states that are guaranteed to be democrat or republican. four out of the six populous states that repair man lists and the issues that the people in those states raise are going to be ignored because presidential elections are won or lost in swing states.

[Swifty]

When I was in high school I too thought the Electoral College should be abolished. Now I’m in college and would never want high school me making any such decision.