Should the US Abolish the Electoral College

Started by Kohai ·

Sign in to follow

The United States is unique among democratic nations in that we elect the President indirectly through an electoral college. According to Article II, Section I, Clause 3 of the Constitution: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. In theory the electoral college would level the playing field between large states and smaller states; however, in practice most states are solidly red or blue and only a handful of states are "swing" states. The result is that those "swing" states often have bigger influence than other safe states. In addition to this, one does not have to win the popular vote to become President. In 2000 and 2016 the person who won the Presidency lost the popular vote. \

Where do you stand?

Sign in to share your stance.

Your stance can change. Your earlier arguments stay where you posted them.

For 75% · 6 Undecided 0% · 0 Against 25% · 2

8 participating members

Arguments for (3)

SavantEdited

Does a worse job of representing the country

Basing representation on states seems largely arbitrary since states are not homogeneous and state members don't tend to all share the same interests. And even if states did share similar interests, the size of the state doesn't represent the size of the group. If California was five states, should it have more representation? If there's some minority faction being protected by the EC, basing their representation on the way the borders of their administrative district are drawn up seems arbitrary and doesn't accomplish that goal. We could run a hundred simulations where we divide states arbitrarily, and the results will average out to the popular vote. All the electoral college does is add variability, which makes representation worse and not better. The EC helps represent some minorities more, like members of Delaware. But it makes others be represented worse, like members of a Delaware-sized section in California. May as well make a voting system based on dividing people into random clumps, or based on splitting people up by the color of their hat.

1 like
SavantEdited

This actually isn't strictly true. Due to winner take all and the way states work geographically, randomly drawing states will consistently increase representation of rural voters. But there are likely still more straightforward and less arbitrary ways to do this, like just weighting rural votes more. Even so, this is trading over representation of some minorities for under representation of others. The EC under represents ethnic minorities such as Black voters, as well as other minority factions that live more in urban and suburban areas.

0 likes
RemyBrown

Why I don't like the EC.

The electoral college is just Affirmative Action for bum states that couldn't attract as many people to live there.

0 likes
SomeDebatePerson

We could replace it with something else (not popular vote)

If you don't like the EC, are you just going to make it the popular vote?


Think of a third alternative.

0 likes

Arguments against (2)

ShoresyEdited

Bold strategy, Cotton.

Might as well abolish States if it's going to be a plurality vote. Bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if the Union endures.

0 likes
Savant

The US could treat states as administrative districts but still use the popular vote as many other countries do.

0 likes
Shoresy

Replying to Savant

Let's get real. How long would the USA last under the tyranny of California and New York?

0 likes
Savant

Replying to Shoresy

California and New York are only 17.8% of the population. And if the idea is we can pick some group of states that represents the majority of the vote and call that tyranny, can we not do the same thing with the electoral college?

0 likes
Shoresy

Replying to Savant

Smaller States will leave the union. Guaranteed. Especially if California and New York use the popular vote to elect Communists at the federal level.

0 likes
SomeDebatePerson

It makes it harder to rig

Even though some may criticize the EC for its complexity. The complexity makes it harder to rig.


In a popularity contest, the goal would just be to get (whether legitimately or illegitimately) as many vote as possible. The EC creates more strategy.

0 likes
Savant

How does the complexity make it harder to rig? If the strategy is appealing to just people in swing states and ignoring voters elsewhere, I don't see how that makes rigging more difficult or avoids similar issues to those that come with a popularity contest.

0 likes
SomeDebatePerson

Replying to Savant

I mean, rigging can be done it large scales if you don't get caught. It might be easy to just throw tons of fake votes into an entire country. If you have to rig multiple states and travel to each of them and team up with others, it becomes much harder to put off.


How about this analogy?: You might be able to steal a lot of money if you only need to rob one bank, but if the money is split around the whole country, it become much harder.

0 likes
Savant

Replying to SomeDebatePerson

You'd have to throw fake votes into multiple states anyway, since throwing them all into one or two creates a pretty big anomaly and probably exposes the plan.

0 likes
Shoresy

Replying to Savant

Because states make their own laws, rigging elections. A candidate just needs to get a plurality of a few rigged states

0 likes
Savant

Replying to Shoresy

That's true anyway with swing states. I don't think it would be more difficult with the EC. Heck, even with the EC, both sides have accused each other of rigging elections.

0 likes