The Electoral College has many problems and I'm surprised there have been no efforts to change the system. (that I'm aware of) As opposed to a direct election, where everyone's vote has equal value; the current system unfairly changes the value of a person's vote based solely on the population of the state they live in. Example:

California. 55 electoral votes, population: 33,871,648
Nebraska. 5 electoral votes, population: 1,711,263

So, for every million voters, California gets about 1.6 electoral votes while Nebraska gets about 2.9. Here's why this is is a problem: if we combine Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota; we'll get the same 55 electoral votes California receives. However, there's only 22,585,441 people living in those states combined. This simply doesn't make sense.

The reasoning behind using Electoral College is that it makes candidates get more wide-spread support as opposed to just focusing on areas that have a high population. When the founding fathers decided on using this method, half of the country lived in Virginia. It's understandable that they would want candidates to try to get support in other states as opposed to just focusing on Virginia. But this is 2007. We no longer have this problem.

The "winner-take-all" method the Electoral College uses also sucks. Battleground states such as Florida or Ohio get tons of campaign stops while states that greatly favor one side over the other hardly get any. Secondly, it would just plain suck to be a republican in California or New York or a democrat in Texas. Is your vote really going to matter when the opposite side has such an overwhelming majority?

Currently, the system favors republicans. Generally, the country is split right down the middle, with either candidate receiving slightly more votes than the other. However, democrats receive a lot of their support from large-population areas which are less valuable than the small states which republicans get most of their support from. Republicans simply get more value out of the votes they get then democrats do. This is why Gore lost the 2000 election despite winning the popular vote.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that the Electoral College is the ideal system. With something as important as choosing our President, we need to abolish the imbalanced Electoral College and install a direct election.

People have been voicing this argument for a number of years. So far, getting Congress to even acknowledge our concern has been impossible.

Great post, CarbonBasedLife.

I agree with you about abolishing the electoral college, and adopting a system of election that reflects the realities of the 21st century United States, rather than those of the 18th century.

The Electoral College was intended to dilute the votes of population centers that may have different concerns from the majority of the country. The system was designed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than those of a specific region or state.

The concern of our founding fathers however (that candidates from Virginny would have an unfair advantage over candidates from the Plains States, far from the popular press and the newspapers) should by now be put to rest.
With the advent of cable/satellite tv and home computers & the internet, it's hardly fair to say that big city residents enjoy any sort of advantage from the 'information and media' standpoint.

I'm not sure I follow you though about how the system currently favors one party over another. Can you elaborate?

Well done, CBL.

I heard a commentator make the analogy "if three men and two women were on an island, pure democracy would make rape legal".

If the east coast wanted to drill in ANWR and Alaska and the NW states preferred not to, the Electoral College affords them some protection against getting rolled over by larger population centers.

(On edit: Yeah, I just parrotted exactly what Sparky said. I know)

I heard a commentator make the analogy "if three men and two women were on an island, pure democracy would make rape legal".

If the east coast wanted to drill in ANWR and Alaska and the NW states preferred not to, the Electoral College affords them some protection against getting rolled over by larger population centers.That's why we have a Senate.

The Electoral College elects Presidents.

We already have a President who favors drilling in ANWR.

The analogy sucks. :)

The analogy or the example?

it is still all a popularity contest based on jiggling peoples paranoias.

there are few countries that will push the envelope on that one by making sure that the vote is over 60% before you get elected. like russia.

but don't worry, bush has guarenteed that his regime will effect history for some time. no matter who gets elected, it WILL be based on paranoia, because they will be dealing with iraq, afghanistan, "terrorism", and now http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20269253/

have fun trying to keep a military going and having a country falling apart.

It should also be noted that the Electoral College system was designed when each state had a lot more power than they do now. Also back then, all the states were a bit paranoid of each other for this very reason.

This is why Gore lost the 2000 election despite winning the popular vote.
Yeah, but the electoral college afforded Bill a win. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. (I think logic dictates he had to.)

If all the typical "red states" voted Republican and all the typical "blue states" voted Democrat... Which one would have more electoral votes? And which would have a higher population? I guess what I'm trying to say is that those two questions should have the same answer.

I'm not sure I follow you though about how the system currently favors one party over another. Can you elaborate?
Great question.

I'm not sure I follow you though about how the system currently favors one party over another. Can you elaborate?

Sure thing. I'm going to look at the most recent presidential elections and determine how much value each candidate got per vote. To calculate, I'm using a very simple formula: the number of electoral votes each candidate received divided by the total number of votes they got. Here are the results:

2004
Bush: ~4.6/million (286/62million)
Kerry: ~4.25/million (251/59million)

2000
Bush: ~5.4/million (271/50.5million)
Gore: ~5.2/million (266/51million)

I mean, it's not a huge advantage that can't be overcome. Clinton won in landslides in both 1996 and 1992. However, in close elections it definitely can be a factor. Which, obviously, it shouldn't be.

Yeah, but the electoral college afforded Bill a win. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. (I think logic dictates he had to.)

Clinton won in landslides both years. Closest was in 1992 when he won by 5.5 million votes.

I heard a commentator make the analogy "if three men and two women were on an island, pure democracy would make rape legal".

If the east coast wanted to drill in ANWR and Alaska and the NW states preferred not to, the Electoral College affords them some protection against getting rolled over by larger population centers.

(On edit: Yeah, I just parrotted exactly what Sparky said. I know)

Conversely, in a presidential election 34 million people living across several small states have more power than the 34 million residents of California. I think we're past the age where we have to be worried about a specific region dominating politics.

If the electoral college is used at all, the electoral votes should be distributed in proportion to the popular vote, instead of winner-takes-all. That would give you a much better reflection of the popular vote and how the nation voted as a whole.

Secondly, it would just plain suck to be a republican in California or New York or a democrat in Texas. Is your vote really going to matter when the opposite side has such an overwhelming majority?


Which is EXACTLY the same reason that it 'sucks' to be a leftist in America.

The worth of my vote is effectively -- zero.

Nothing. Yet every year I pay taxes in the five figures. And have ZERO representation in any political body in America. Yeah; that "fair". :rolleyes:

Leftists --and anyone else who stands in opposition to the pro-war, pro-big business, Mom and Apple Pie, flagwaving, Bible believing status quo-- will be forever barred from having a say so in the running of this country. THAT is why I so despise the system that is in place.

I am going to start a thread about a certain perception that some people have of America; what they see when they see America flaunting her colors, flaunting her oh-so-righteous supremacy. It will be called -----"When I see the flag........

Which is EXACTLY the same reason that it 'sucks' to be a leftist in America. Wrong. People who are left of center can find many reasons to be optimistic in America.

You are more of an embittered nihilist who could never be happy in any situation.

Wrong. People who are left of center can find many reasons to be optimistic in America.

IF they are 1% "left of center" in this country (which would still equate to a die-hard conservative anywhere else in the world) they might.

As it would regard anyone within shouting distance of being an actual leftwinger...........we disagree.

You are more of an embittered nihilist who could never be happy in any situation.

Wrong. I would not be merely 'happy' but ecstatic if a Socialist Democrat were elected to lead the U.S. and if both houses of Congress were led by socialist majorities. I would also be very happy to see the US unilaterally disarm. I would also be very happy and encouraged to see B*sh and his far-Right cabal standing in irons in the International Court of Justice in The Hague being tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. So you see, there are many things and situations that would cause me to "be happy".

I mean, it's not a huge advantage that can't be overcome. Clinton won in landslides in both 1996 and 1992. However, in close elections it definitely can be a factor. Which, obviously, it shouldn't be.
So do you consider the Electoral College as some form of nationalized gerrymandering?

More pointedly, do you think it always swings in favor of the Republican Party?

So do you consider the Electoral College as some form of nationalized gerrymandering?

More pointedly, do you think it always swings in favor of the Republican Party?

No, I don't think it's like gerrymandering. To my knowledge, the number of electoral votes each state receives has never been changed in order for one party to gain advantage over the other.

And no, it doesn't always favor the Republican Party. The Electoral College favors whichever party wins most of the small states, which just happens to be the Republican Party at this time.

I would not be merely 'happy' but ecstatic if a Socialist Democrat were elected to lead the U.S.....
if both houses of Congress were led by socialist majorities.....
[if] the US unilaterally disarm.....
to see B*sh and his far-Right cabal standing in irons.......
Thanks for making my point. The only things you could list that would make you happy are things that you know are never going to happen.

But I have a feeling that even if these things occurred you'd find something else that was horrible about this country or the world or your life.

Thanks for making my point. The only things you could list that would make you happy are things that you know are never going to happen.

Never say never, Mr. Negative.

Bernie Sanders, a socialist democrat, is in the Senate.

Uh oh, everyone - run for the hills......Bernie Sanders could spell out total reform for our ENTIRE political system.