What's the point of the Electoral College?

[Deleted]

Why not just cut through all the red-tape bullshit and have a direct popular vote?

[Skizo]

States having power directly equivalent to the population size and not the number of people who show up at the polls, as well as an easier way to aggregate votes over long distances in a short period of time
Not really an issue now that the states are so unified.
So at this point, tradition
Silly, I know

[Powerogue]

Wasn't it originally that the electoral college could overwrite the popular vote's choice under certain circumstances, and that was eventually abolished because it devalued the popular vote?

As far as I know it was just left over after that, I don't know why they kept it either.

[Deleted]

Wasn't it originally that the electoral college could overwrite the popular vote's choice under certain circumstances, and that was eventually abolished because it devalued the popular vote?

As far as I know it was just left over after that, I don't know why they kept it either.

As far as I know; whoever wins the electoral college vote also wins the election. Regardless of the outcome of the popular vote.

[Strakha]

The election of 1876 shows a clear design for why it was implemented. You can lose the popular vote and still win the election. Now that's democracy.

[Fuzzzie]

This video explains things well and why it's bad.

[muto]

Nothing. It's a stupid outdated system that needs to go. Everyone's vote should count. Al Gore was the true president (popular vote) in 2000, but because of the electoral college George W. Bush won.

[semaphore]

Wasn't it originally that the electoral college could overwrite the popular vote's choice under certain circumstances, and that was eventually abolished because it devalued the popular vote?

No, the Electoral College was supposed to choose the President and Vice President independently. But then political parties appeared and people started voting for their own party's electors, which became the popular vote as we know it today.

[Dhurn]

This video explains things well and why it's bad.

Awesome video. It won't be abolished anytime soon, because whichever party does not control the popular vote at the time would never allow that legislation to pass. For example, right now because the Democrats control New York and California vs Texas, Republicans would be foolish to abolish the EC.

[sylune]

This website has some of the main pros and cons for the electoral college.

uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php (first post so I can post a link, sorry!)

The reason that it will be very hard to abolish is that states with a large population would then have much more pull for candidates and less populated states would not be given much consideration and probably wouldn't see many nominees visit them anymore.

[smegdawg]

Alright. I don't know if this was a fact or not so don't quote me on this. But I heard or read somewhere that part of the reason for the Electoral college sticking around was around the civil war when slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person. You know what screw it I am gonna go look this up so I don't sound like an ass.

"Before the Civil War, the "three-fifths compromise" in the Constitution meant that slaves counted (as three-fifths of a person) towards a state's representation in Congress and thus in the Electoral College. Had the president been elected by a popular vote, Southern influence would have shrunk sharply, limited to the number of votes actually cast.

"This system operated even more perniciously during the Jim Crow era (extending into the 1960s), when the white South benefited from what could be called the "five fifths" clause: African Americans counted fully towards representation in Congress and the Electoral College, but they still could not vote. The number of votes actually cast in the South between 1900 and 1960 was tiny in comparison to the size of its electoral vote. A popular election for president, thus, would have dramatically reduced the political power of the South while creating pressure for Southern states to expand the franchise..."

[someotherguy]

If Romney wins popular vote, but loses electoral college, the system will probably change.

[Puremallace]

If Romney wins popular vote, but loses electoral college, the system will probably change.

Same shit Dems like me said in 2000 and it never happened. If it went by popular vote Obama and Romney would only campaign in California and Florida.

Sit back and look at a map of where the people are.

[Symphonic]

Hamilton wrote:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

(that means basically they were afraid of a tyrant manipulating people and becoming president - so they didn't want direct election) They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the people.

They also made the electoral college to give smaller states with less population a voice.

There are problems with the electoral college now that we really only have a 2 party system, but popular vote is not a great idea seeing as it would make only the large states matter.

[Sole-Warrior]

This video explains things well and why it's bad.

Pretty much this.
Electoral colleges are a pretty damn outdated relic. Problem with this system is that individuals in more rural states, an individual vote in a lower populous state like North Dakota or Alaska will have more power than an individual in a more populated state like Texas or California.

[Mnevis]

Same shit Dems like me said in 2000 and it never happened. If it went by popular vote Obama and Romney would only campaign in California and Florida.

Sit back and look at a map of where the people are.

And why would that be worse than everything being about Ohio?

[Someudontno]

Haha, kind of funny, one of the essay questions on my test today was on the pros and cons of the Electoral College's winner-take-all system. The original intent of the Electoral College was to let the common man have a voice, but filter that voice through the more educated, who then elected the President. The framers had a fear of the tyranny of the majority as well as the uneducated common man having a say in what is best for the country. Obviously that fear does not necessarily apply today, as the masses are better educated and involved in political matters because of said education. I agree with you OP that we should have direct election of our President, or at least reform the Electoral College to proportionally distribute electors based on the popular vote in the different districts of a state (e.g. Maine and Nebraska); this way general elections are more democratic, which is one of the things that our founders desired our government to be, in addition to giving all parties a fair chance.
However, some believe that the Electoral College is perfectly fine the way it is, because it still represents the majority of United States citizens if you think about it in a broad perspective. These people, I think, also tend to think retrospectively, as they believe that our Electoral College has worked fairly in the past, so there should be no need to change it.

[Dhurn]

And why would that be worse than everything being about Ohio?

I don't think it would be worse. I think it would actually have the potential to cause more grassroots movements in the smaller states even if the candidate never visits there. If everyone felt like their vote actually mattered it would increase enthusiasm quite a bit. Even a small state with 1-3 million could push it one way or another with a close election.

If the argument for the Electoral College is to empower the small states in the Presidential, I just don't see it in Maine. I'm only going to the polls for the local referendums and senatorial races.

[Puremallace]

The easiest thing to do honestly is what New Hampshire does. It goes by percentage. So the State has 4 and it gets divided up amung the districts, so Obama can get two or Romney can get 2 equaling 4

It sure as hell would mix things up because voting for Presidential elections in Louisiana would serve a purpose being a Democrat. Right now I get outvoted by the backwoods racist conservatives we have down here.

[Adam Jensen]

If Romney wins popular vote, but loses electoral college, the system will probably change.

Then why didn't that happen in 2000? I think there were as many people upset by that as there will be if what you predicted comes to pass.