Get Rid of the Electoral College

Jim Siverly October 20, 2012 at 02:05 pm

The electoral college may not be the best system, but the popular vote is worse. Too many people are not well enough informed. Although I can't prove it, I would suggest the most populated states have the higher percentage of uninformed voters. The electoral college won't prevent populist presidents, but it makes it more difficult for them. I like that.

Ann Knipfer October 20, 2012 at 09:17 pm

Not that I know much about the "green party" but where was Jill Stein during the presidential debate? What happened there? Anyone?

Pirmigrin October 20, 2012 at 09:21 pm

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were not allowed anywhere near the debate.....and the two party machine continues rolling.

Mike October 21, 2012 at 03:46 pm

All the 3rd party candidates were excluded from the presidential and vp debates. The Dems and Repubs signed a secret agreement with the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) to exclude all other candidates, and Obama and Romney are not allowed to participate in any debate not sponsored by the CPD. Green candidates Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala were arrested trying to get into the debates last week (says a lot about our great democracy).
Democracy Now will be having an expanded debate this Monday, Oct 22, at http://www.democracynow.org/. Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson will have an opportunity to answer the same questions posed to Obama and Romney in real time. Also there will be a 3rd-party candidates debate on Oct 23 with Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, at http://freeandequal.org/updates/larry-king-to-moderate-third-party-presidential-debate/.

Mike October 21, 2012 at 03:52 pm

The electoral college is an undemocratic way of electing a president, which gives more weight to people from less populous states. To improve our democracy all votes should be equally weighted. In essence, one person, one vote. Thus the electoral college should be eliminated and we should elect a president by the popular vote.

Mike October 21, 2012 at 04:02 pm

Mike, you said "The one thing the Electoral College offers - that most people choose to disregard when they bring up the issue - is a Voice to the middle (or fly-over) sections of the country."
My response...These people in the middle of the country would still have a voice with the "popular" vote if the electoral college were eliminated. Their voice would be equal to every other voter with one person/one vote. In addition, the less populous states have disproportional representation in the US Senate because every state has 2 Senators regardless of population. Further, you argue that the less populous states can be ignored with the popular vote. Isnt that what happens with the electoral college? The race is not competitive in about 40 of the 50 states. The other 10 that can go either way are the focus of the campaigns.

VICTORIA MILLER October 21, 2012 at 04:53 pm

i agree the college has got to go.

Mike Shortall October 22, 2012 at 01:41 am

There already is "one person, one vote". It just goes towards deciding the Electoral vote for your respective state.
The Electoral College will never go away, because the less populous states will never go for it. And why should they? Presidential candidates will NEVER step foot in any of the "fly-over states" nor pay attention to their issues or needs without the EC. Keep it, because it's the only way those states will ever matter in the national conversation.

Wayne Schissler October 22, 2012 at 02:27 am

The concept is based on us being "The United States of America" and not the 50 administrative districts of America. We are 50 states with proportional representation in the electoral college. To change that would be to further erode state rights and have the most populated areas lord it over the rest. It has nothing to do with restricting 3rd parties.

Andrew Geissinger October 22, 2012 at 07:17 am

Agreed. The electoral college is undemocratic, but that isn't necessarily a reason to get rid of it. Our governmental system wasn't intended to be a democracy, and there are many aspects of the federal constitution that aren't democratic as a result. The idea that we have a bicameral legislature isn't democratic. Neither is the fact that the president has a veto over proposed legislation or that the states have equal representation in the senate. Many of the amendments are undemocratic as well. This is an example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Well, what if a majority of congress wants to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? They are prohibited from doing so. Since the amendment restricts what majorities can do, it is undemocratic. That's not a bad thing. It might be better if you worried less about improving our democracy and more about improving our freedom.

Joe October 22, 2012 at 09:56 am

@ANDREW: Well stated. Civics is no longer taught in schools.

Joseph Finnick October 22, 2012 at 11:27 am

Civics actually is taught in schools and will be a part of the Keystone exams that will replace the PSSAS.

Joseph Finnick October 22, 2012 at 11:29 am

Andrew, your post reflects a deep misunderstanding of the American system of government.

Jim Siverly October 22, 2012 at 12:58 pm

I think Andrew explained fairly well how we operate as a republic, not a democracy. However, Joseph did not explain anything about our system of government or add anything to this discussion on the electoral college.

Joseph Finnick October 22, 2012 at 01:15 pm

We exist as a republic for a reason. This is so that the majority does not overrun politics. This explains a good deal of what Andrew complained of.
Attacking the system of checks and balances and the Bill of Rights? This is just too silly to bother with an explanation of. The end.

Tim Lewis October 22, 2012 at 01:32 pm

Joseph - who attacked the system of checks and balances and Bills of Rights? And your statement about the majority is entirely compatible with Andrew's summary; it was called the tyranny of the majority, and much of our system was set up to limit the power of the majority over the minority, and to limit government in general. We simply do not live in a Democracy.
The End.

Mike Shortall October 22, 2012 at 07:19 pm

@Mike: Facts are the concentration of population in this country are along the coasts, especially east and west, along the Great Lakes, etc. If one wants to win a "popular vote", all they need do is concentrate their efforts - including policy discussions and program preferences - towards those areas to garner the biggest bang for their Election bucks.
Insofar as your comment about 40 of the 50 states being essentially decided well before the election has more to do with the politics of those individual states (i.e. are the Red or Blue), not the number of people living there.

Mike Shortall October 22, 2012 at 07:22 pm

great explanation ... and much more succinct than mine! ; ^ /

Sharpie October 22, 2012 at 07:34 pm

That a third party needs grassroots state endorsement and money is a false argument. All they need is fair and equal debates on national television. The entire idea that someone isn't qualified because their party is not big at the state level, or that they don't have massive amounts of money is a bogus. Just let them talk to the people, for heaven's sake, on an equal stage. That is all they need to win an election.

Jack Minster October 22, 2012 at 07:53 pm

Sharpie, I truly admire your energy. It's obvious you are no longer content to leave the direction of our nation up to others without trying to assert yourself and make a difference.
It is however a two-party system, with a Constitutionally-mandated Electoral College. A third party could win the popular vote (Ross Perot's 18.9% percent of the take wasn't too shabby). However it cannot ever place a candidate in the White House. The Electors will not support it. And, it draws votes away from one of the two-party candidates whom you may sort of like, more or less. The best thing you can do is to do what I did. Pick an existing party, run for office, knock on a lot of doors, get yourself elected - and apply all of that energy to changing it from within. Work to oust the bad self-serving players and to elect good people. Romney-Ryan are a solid team. About them I have zero complaints.

Me loves me some Kenya October 22, 2012 at 07:55 pm

whatever obama wants, we should do. he is emperor, king, ruler of the food stamp

Mike Shortall October 22, 2012 at 09:13 pm

I think it's silly to think a third party can just show up in the "big elections" and think they will be able to garner the support AND the grassroots work that needs to be done in order to win an election. They MAY be able to affect an election, but win it? No way.
Any political organization needs boots on the ground ... A LOT of boots! My opinion is that a third-party alternative HAS to be grown from a regional "root" if you will before it will ever be able to challenge the Big Two. That's a pretty dark assessment; but the Ds and Rs have just been around too long. ANd they have the grassroot AND the National infrastructure to outperform any third alternative. There's just no way - IMO - that just getting them on-stage with the Big Boys is going to make much of a difference aside from possibly throwing the election to one or the other of the established parties. That's the REAL reason you don't see them in the debates.

Sharpie October 22, 2012 at 09:34 pm

Jack and Mike, I suggest you dream a little. Never is a long time. btw, I am not trying to assert myself, I am trying to get the debate to exist (as it should). If a candidate is on enough ballots to win an election, they deserve to be heard. Not one is preventing your candidate from being heard. Get a grip. It's a big world. Get over it.

Jack Minster October 22, 2012 at 09:59 pm

Mike, I will give you that those who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night. However you must give back that it's a fine line between active visionaries like our Founding Fathers - and daydreamers among us who walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.
Suggest you always question on which side of that line you fall.

Mike Shortall October 22, 2012 at 10:23 pm

I dream from time-to-time, but not as often as I used to; and I can honestly say I have NEVER dreamed about a third political party.

Sharpie October 22, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Some of us work in hidden ways. Count on it. Not everything visible is all there is to reality. All great ideas start as dreams whether daydreams or night dreams. Cynicism prevents dreaming; try some optimism. It is, and always will be, a choice.

Smedley October 22, 2012 at 11:35 pm

Mike you are full of it as usual. The reason they won't let anyone in the debates is because they don't want another candidate say something that makes sense, to say anything they don't want citizens to hear. When Ross Perot got 19% of the vote they decided that was it. Nobody can be in the debates unless they are getting 15% in popular polls. Chalk up another rule for the two party fascist state. Sorry, I won't go for it. Things really could get better but not until we get rid of the thugs. The two party system. Watch a real debate tonight and tomorrow.
On Monday October 22nd Jill Stein will join in the presidential discussion on a special international live broadcast with former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and host Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! It will be broadcast by Free Speech TV and Link TV and livestreamed at the Democracy Now Website. HTTP://WWW.DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG/ On Tuesday October 23rd Broadcast live - Free Equal's live online debate with Jill Stein and presidential candidates Gary Johnson (LP), Rocky Anderson (JP), and Virgil Goode (CP),with host Larry King accepting debate questions in advance on Reddit. http://freeandequal.org/

ted.dobracki October 28, 2012 at 10:25 pm

The potential effect of the frankenstorm on the 2012 presidential election demonstrates one of the reasons why the Electoral College is necessary for a national election. Suppose that the effects of the storm reduce the turnoat in NJ by half, and that the voters would have voted the same way as they did in 2008. Then, instead of winning by 600,000 as he did in 2008, Obama would win by only 300,000, which would reduce his national popular vote total by 300,000. That could be disasterous for Obama. Ditto in NY, where Obama's margin of 2,100,000 would be cut in half to 1,050,000. Add in Delaware and Obama could lose a 1.5 million of his 3 million in those three states, while the turnout in the rest of the country would be unaffected.
On the other hand, with the electoral college, Obama will still get the NJ, NY, and DE's full contigent of Electoral College votes, even if the voter turnout was depressed by the storm.

fsa fdsa October 31, 2012 at 02:08 am

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++
Best online store WATCHES | POLO TSHIRTS | TRUE RELIGION JEANS | COACH HANDBAGS | UGG BOOTS SALE | DISCOUNT Rolex Watches, Cheap Gucci Shoes,Wholesale, Buy Really Cheap Ed Hardy Clothing, Discount Chanel Handbags,cheap Christian Louboutin shoes For Sale, Ugg Boots ON SALE. wholesale nike sports shoes,nike jordan shoes,paypal accept,dropshipping accept,,nike sneakers air jordan sneakers air max AF1 shox gucci adidas puma dunk kobe trainers and NFL jerseys jeans t-shirts hoody clothes Air Jordan (1-24) shoes UGG BOOT Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi) Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini) New era cap ATO shoes Gucci shoes ,prada shoes NBA jerseys ,NHL jerseys YSL shoes Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) Westernunion,bank transfer(Wire),Credit card,Paypal and other safe way YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!! welcome to ++++ mineokmalls.com ++++++++++ 09-

John B October 31, 2012 at 05:56 pm

If you understood the electorial process you would never write this article. For example lets say 100% of the voters in our 10 largest states voted for candidate A. And the rest of the country voted for candidate B. A would win because of the populare vote while 80% of the other states voted for someone else. THis keeps one candidate winning with only regional support. Why don't you write about something that you know about.