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 no longer works as it was intended by the founding fathers. The fact that it no longer serves this purpose suggests that it is no longer necessary.
Pros
Cons
When the Electoral College was created, the ratio of populations of the most populous state (New York) and the least populous state (Rhode Island) was 4 to 1. If we assume that the authors of the Constitution struck the right balance between the Senate and the House under these conditions, how can we claim that that balance is still correct when the ratio is now 80 (California) to 1 (Wyoming)? The apportionment of ECs is derived from the number of Senators and Congressmen and is therefore wrong.
The Founders established the electoral college process to prevent a charismatic tyrant from fooling the public and attracting a majority of the popular vote. We know how that worked out.
The electoral college is an anachronism. It was created as a comprise to get small states to ratify the constitution and the founders themselves did not believe it would operate because there were no political parties at that time. Without parties, it was believed each state would nominate their own "favorite son" leading to throwing elections to the House and Senate.
The EC HAD been set up so that all states could have a say even when many residents couldn't get to a place to vote, but these days, essentially everyone can, with mail votes and the internet. Now, no one has to walk for many hours or days to get to a town to vote. With computers so powerful these days, the question of voter tampering has been raised. Has another country broken into our computers and fouled the votes? That would be hard with a popular vote, as there would be many more to change.
Though not its stated purpose, the electoral college was created because the founders were afraid that the ignorant masses would be unable to make an intelligent choice. In the information age, this is no longer a valid reason. Well, at least until the last election. Maybe the founders had a point.
A main problem solved at the Constitutional Convention was inducing slave states, wary of domination by Abolitionist-oriented, higher- (white) population states, to ratify.
The 2nd Amendment
,
3/5 Compromise
,
and the EC
were all solutions that gave lower-populated slave states more power than their (white) populations merited. Retaining solutions to a non-existent problem now empowers a minority to abuse the majority through unmerited, unfair, power over the Executive Branch and US Senate.
The electoral college does not work as it was intended, because of the amendment that restricts the House of Representatives to 435 seats. The whole game theory of the government was designed for a by-gone era of technology and sophistication, anyway.
The Electoral College was created to ensure the wealthy, land owning class maintained their political domination because at the time they were largely the only educated group. Now, education is more widely available as is information. This gives all citizens access to what the founders wanted: an informed electorate. The Electoral College perpuates the two party system which reduces the incentive to become informed.
The original purpose of the EC was so, if the majority elected an unfit demagogue, electors would be able to instead choose a qualified candidate. In the 2016 election, the exact opposite happened - the majority favored Hillary Clinton, but the EC installed Donald Trump. So the EC had the opposite effect of its original purpose.
The framers of the constitution didn't account for extreme disparity in population density. The President is supposed to be a servant of all the people not just the minority. When we are approaching a future where two thirds or more of the population are going to be living in city centers, the President can not be beholden to such a small portion of the population. Let the minority keep their weighted vote in the Senate. They can still override a veto there.
The EC was made to assuage the slaveowning states where the citizenry (then only land-owning white men) was very small. As the fundamental belief of democracy - one person, one vote - has grown more completely accepted, we gave it to not just all men, but to all genders and all races. If this belief was completely accepted at the country's inception, there would be no EC. The president should represent everyone equally, and no one's vote should count less just because of where they live.
The electoral college should be abolished. It was created when the populace was uneducated and "couldn't be trusted" to make an informed choice. Those days are long gone. Let the majority rule.
Supporters argue that the electoral college format prevents candidates from targeting specific groups and regions, instead forcing them to seek votes across the country.
But that’s not the way it has worked in recent presidential contests.
Several states
require by law, or by ejection from the electoral college and replacement, that their electors vote according to the state popular vote. This undermines the independence the founding fathers intended the electoral college to have.
The actual purpose of the EC was to prevent a demagogue partnered/traitor with a foreign power (ex., GB, France, Spain).
The original purpose of the electoral college was to prevent an uninformed populace from making an uninformed decision.
The electoral college is an outdated process. When it was created, it was meant to save time due to the slow means of communication. Modern society is capable of processes that fit better with the speed and other capabilities of modern technologies. For instance, platforms like "kialo"are a much more effective and constructive means for anybody to participate in a democratic process, and thus creating the capacity for all votes to count equally.
A key reason for the electoral college was the fear that each state would vote for a local favorite and no national figure would emerge. This was shown to be false in the first competitive election. The electoral college has been outdated from its creation.
The EC today does not resemble the EC the founding fathers designed. At the end of the 18th century the House of Representatives was still directly proportional to population (not capped at 435, giving sparsely populated states higher proportional representation) and electoral votes were not awarded on a winner-take-all basis. Small states having more power is a side effect of many different things that have happened during the past 250 years, not a design of the EC.
Even if the electoral college no longer accomplishes its initial purpose, it might still serve other valuable purposes.
The electoral college works as it was intended by the Founding Fathers, our interpretation of the electoral college is what has changed. The U.S. is a constitutional republic made up of 50 individual states; the General Election for President is not a single election but 50 separate elections that must be won. If anything, the individual states should be forced to adopt a similar system to allow for equal representation among their residents instead of the current winner take all models.
The initial statement: that the electoral college is not performing as designed is inaccurate. It worked perfectly. It prevents a small highly-populated area having more control than the rest of the country. It was designed to keep the tyranny of the many from running rough-shod over the few. Should there be changes - that is a state's right issue. It is up to the states to decide if it is a winner-take-all or proportional division of the votes.
The Electoral College performs as the founders expected, stopping"factions". It is the difference between a messy democracy, and a Democratic Republic. Look to California, New York or Chicago to see the dangers of "one man, one vote". Jefferson saw factions as any group which by social status, wealth, power or fraud take over the government to the detriment of the people. (Political parties would be factions.) The Electoral College's value is borne out by the Bush/Dole & Trump/Clinton elections.
The Electoral College reflects the Founders intention that the States have primacy over the Federal Government. We elect Presidents by State by State, not individually.
The president does not represent the people, his job is to enforces the laws equally for all states. The electoral college was designed to ensure the selection of that chief magistrate was done by fairly among the whole of the states. Electors are numbered based on congressional representation so all states get 2 electors for their senate seats and the same number as their congressional delegation. (Source - See Federalist Paper 68)
avalon.law.yale.edu
Not all of the original intent has been altered. State representation in the college equal to the state's representation in Congress is unchanged since the founders' day.
The electoral college is part of the Constitution and serves as a historical monument from our country's founding, which is a legitimate reason to keep it.
The electoral college to this day works exactly as the framers of the Constitution wanted. As evidenced by the most recent electoral map, the EC prevents the election of a candidate with little national appeal. If you could win the presidency by winning southern California then you could ignore the needs of the rest of the counry and remain in power. The prospect of being ruled by S. Cali does not appeal to this Ohioan.
