Kialo requires JavaScript to work correctly.
Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Kialo
Should the electoral college be abolished?
Perspective
All Votes
Loading Discussion
The electoral college system results in unfair outcomes for voters.
Pros
Cons
Because less than 600 appointees decide the presidency despite how the majority of the people in the US vote and essentially nullifies every persons vote other than those of the appointees this creates apathy that harms society.
Either the electoral college produces the same outcome as the popular vote, or it produces a different outcome. In case it produces the same outcome, it cannot be said to be superior to the popular vote. In cases where it produces a different outcome, it must be said to be inferior to the popular vote, because the difference can only be attributed to arbitrary geographical factors, not to the issues relevant to most voters.
The electoral college is fundamentally undemocratic. Because electoral votes are tallied by Congresspersons + Senators, all states get at least 3 and states such as Wyoming and North Dakota (population 563,000 and 672,000, respectively), get the same 2 Senators as California (37.2 Million, and New York 19.4 Mil. respectively). So, electoral votes per population are 1 per 678,000 and 1 per 669,000 in Ca. and NY, while 1 per 187,00 and 1 per 224,000 in Wyoming and N. Dakota, respectively.
The electoral college discourages democracy. Red voters in blue states and blue voters in red states often feel that they need not vote since their vote "doesn't matter." Conversely, red voters in red states and blue voters in blue states may also decide that they need not vote, as their preferred party is a "sure win." Moving to the popular vote would encourage democracy, as every vote would "matter" equally.
The electoral college alienates minority voters in 'safe' states. These votes could be meaningful an impactful in a system where voters vote directly for president.
Abolishing the electoral college allows full representation of all U.S. citizens to be heard rather than the majority. It gives the people who have less of a say in government to have their opinion heard in elections instead of a select majority being chosen to represent what the people want. Because of this, it would give an accurate representation of what the people want.
As long as the average person obtains all their information from biased or incomplete sources and continues to thrive off of severe confirmation bias, a system that gives greater representation to rural areas is guaranteed to be skewed by whatever prevalent confirmation bias exists in those areas, which tends to be uninformed conservativism based on shallow appeals to fear and faith. This gives conservativism an edge in an electoral college system.
The electoral college is one of many outdated things in the constitution. In the WV senate race in 2018, Democrat incumbent Joe Manchin won 24 out of 55 counties, but won the popular vote which ultimately decided who won the seat. If states began using methods such as giving counties a specific number of votes based on population, this would lead to less voter turnout.
A
highly-representative electoral system that selects by consensus
can enhance total representation. Nonpartisan blanket primaries using a proportional method followed by general elections using a Condorcet method will identify the common consensus candidate. This incorporates all votes into the final selection and represents the electorate as a whole, rather than exclusively representing some plurality (of voters, majority of EC).
The Electoral College allocates the weight of a citizen's vote unequally, based on their state and region, which violates the notion that all men are created equal.
The electoral college is not a form of democracy, as electors in many states can vote differently than the result of the election. This means one person's vote can not only be less valuable (i.e. depending on where you live your vote is worth less then or more than one vote thanks to the electoral college) but can also be given to a party opposite the one that the person voted for.
The electoral college places voting power in land rather than in individuals; it is a relic of the injustices in the US when power was directly related to land ownership.
Many states use a winner-takes-all system where a candidate could get 51% of the vote, but all of the electoral college vote.
The electoral college is not as efficient as other methods of voting in terms of representing the will of the majority. For example, "
Ranked Choice Voting
," also known as "Instant Run-Off Voting," has been shown to more reliably produce results that are in line with the wishes of the majority of voters.
The possibility of a candidate winning the election but losing the popular vote undermines the perception of legitimacy of the victory.
The electoral college exacerbates the effects of voter suppression because no matter how many or few vote in the state, the elective power of the state is the same.
The electoral college defies the principle of equality of voters: one person, one vote.
Since there are only 538 electors as opposed to hundreds of millions of voters, it is far easier to influence the vote of the electors than it is to influence the vote of the populace.
The electoral college protects the interests of one particular minority (residents of smaller states). There are myriad other minorities who do not receive preferential levels of influence over the general election. There's no logic for why this particular special interest group should receive such preferential treatment.
"Unfair" is a subjective term and the term "fair" can have many equally valid definitions when applied to elections. Whether or not the electoral college results are "fair" depends entirely upon one's definition of the term.
Democracies fail because of Tyranny of the Majority (TofTM). The Electoral College, divided sovereignty (Preamble, Federalist #51, 9, 10, 17, 45, Amendments 9 & 10(14 delayed in Madison's time)), and State legislature election of Senators are protections from TofTM. The 17th Amendment and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 removing Divided Sovereignty and "post Roads" restriction created a "needful" majority. Removing the Electoral College increase TofTM.
Greater than proportional representation for small states seeks fairness in a way the popular vote does not.
The electoral college is how the founding fathers compromised on a process that would be most fair to most voters, by giving equal voice to every voter in every state, based on population, as measured by the number of representatives in Congress. It should stay, so that each vote in states like Iowa & Montana will have the same weight as each vote in NY and CA.
Over 91% of presidential elections have resulted in "fair" outcomes where the President won both the electoral college and the popular vote.
53
/
58
