The United States Electoral College is the mechanism established by the United States Constitution for the indirect election of the President of the United States and Vice President of the United States. Citizens of the United States vote in each state at a general election to choose a slate of “electors” pledged to vote for a party’s candidate. The Twelfth Amendment requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president. During the 2019 Democratic Presidential Primary 15 candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elisabeth Warren, called for the abolition of the electoral college.
Without the EC voting for the President will be a pure democracy, and pure democracies usually fail. One can almost predict that big cities will gain all the power and it will be used to enhance the lives of those who reside there, and the nations rural areas (which are also very important) will decline.
Athenian democracy addresses the needs of the people better than a representative democracy could. The standing electoral system in America contradicts my beliefs.
I remember visiting Athens a few years ago and being fascinated by the concept of Athenian democracy, where every citizen had a direct say in decision-making. It's interesting to think about how such a system might impact the U.S. today. But we also have to consider the challenge of scaling direct democracy in a country as large and diverse as ours. Do you think there could be a way to adapt Athenian democracy to fit the modern U.S.?
Rural areas that supposedly benefit from the EC do not actually benefit from it, and quality of life in rural communities—alongside social mobility—is actually in decline. Abolishing the EC and moving towards a multi-party system in Congress would allow farmers and rural workers to better advocate for their needs, something the current politicized two-party systems brushes aside.
Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.
As recent as the 2016 election, the EC went against the majority vote and allowed Trump to become president. About 1/3-1/2 of Us citizens don't vote which I think is because they believe their vote doesn't matter.
If someone is unhappy with their representation then they should be more educated on who they make their elected officials. If your state does not give you the representation you want, then move to a different one.
Rural areas would easily have no voice in government if it were entirely population based and rural areas take up more more space and function on an entirely different industry and lifestyle that needs to be represented as much as the people in the city need it.
Yes, and switch to a ranked voting system
This country is intended to have a small federal government with very limited powers - that are granted by the states/people to the federal government. Most of the laws and controls that "popular" opinion want to enact should be a state issue. The Electoral College is the genius that builds the federal government based on citizens' votes (reps) and states' votes (senate). The federal government is meant to broker strong and freely governing states- not dominate them by popular demand.
A rank choice voting system allows people more voice in an election, if you voted for a candidate that gets knocked off of the ballot due to having the least amount of votes, and no one has more than 50% of the vote your secondary vote (The person you ranked second) gets your vote.
Indeed, ranked choice voting can amplify voters' voices in a unique way. However, it also brings its own set of challenges. For instance, it could potentially lead to strategic voting, where voters don't necessarily rank candidates based on their true preferences, but rather to manipulate the outcome of the election. Let's look at the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont. The candidate who initially led in first-choice votes ended up losing after the second and third choices were taken into account. This resulted in a backlash from voters who felt the system was unfair. How do you propose we address the potential for strategic voting in a ranked choice system?
This depends on how many candidates are on the ballot. If there are multiple candidates, there is no guarantee that your second choice will get your vote as your second choice may have less than the others.
Ranked voting gives voters flexibility and confidence in choosing who to support. Voters no longer need to fear a vote not mattering when their first preferred candidate is unpopular as their next choices still count.
The Electoral College should be replaced by Ranked Choice Voting to break the endless cycle of partisan party politics. All viable candidates should have an equal chance at being elected, not just the party strongholds.
Yes, and switch to a representative democracy (popular vote) system
The electoral college is an ancient system used for when people were more patriotic towards their state than their country. Those times are over and now a loud minority is abusing the system to try to win the election. People vote, not land.
The most representative of what we the people want is a popular vote. For decades, both parties have gerrymandered, which can and has impacted the results of the election. for example, in the 2016 election, Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won the electoral vote because of right-wing gerrymandering.
The popular vote might not always be what some people want, or what I agree with, but it is without a doubt the most fair to the public and people, as long as we get MORE PEOPLE to vote, instead of only the people with agendas.
No, the electoral college ensures representation of the whole country instead of just major cities
The electoral college takes away the right of the American people to choose their president by placing it in a arcane system that has chosen the loser of the popular vote twice in the last 20 years.
We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic. The Electoral College ensures that heavily populated states do not override the will of the less populated states. You would feel differently about the popular vote if you lives in those less populated states.
First of all, the fact that we aren't a democracy is exactly the problem, because we should be a genuine democracy. Secondly, there is no good reason why anyone's votes should be disparaged just because they live in a more populated area; if more people vote for A than B, then A is what should be chosen. If people in more rural areas have the minority opinion, then that's what local elections are for. Those areas within the minority can elect their own local representatives to reflect their own beliefs for themselves, but the entire nation as a whole should not be subjected to the disproportionate decisions of a minority opinion. The nation as a whole should be decided by the majority, and if those in the minority don't like it then that's what their own local elections are for.
It overly compensates for landmass rather than actual population. As evidenced by presidential candidates losing the popular vote and winning the electoral college
I feel that the electoral college is set up to look as if we vote but they really have the overall power of who gets elected.
The Electoral College has a history of going against the majority. The EC was also just made because we couldn't count each vote independently
The Electoral College has been an important part of American democracy for over 200 years. Changing it would mean altering a system that has been part of American history and tradition.
Just because it has existed for a long time does not mean that it has been good or even useful for that entire time, if at all. If "being a part of American history and tradition" is the only thing it has going for it (and there are definitely no other benefits to our garbage, outdated voting system) then it absolutely need changing. Tradition is worthless on its own...
The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States. If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily populated areas or specific regions. By providing clear and decisive victories, the Electoral College contributes to political stability. It encourages a two-party system and rewards candidates who have broad, nationwide support. The Electoral College recognizes the importance of states in the American federal system. As a federation, the balance of power is important… Read more
These are terrible arguments.
First of all, ANY national voting system "ensures that all parts of the country are involved" because any system that involves the entire country fundamentally does that, not just the Electoral College; a popular vote system would also "ensure that all parts of the country are involved", so that argument doesn't even make sense, much less in the Electoral College's favor.
Secondly, the Electoral College already limits campaigning to specific regions: swing states. That's why current campaigners can effectively ignore any states that always vote for the same party, and instead focus on just the states that they have a chance of flipping (which is why they're also called "battleground states", because those are the states where candidates fight over). A voting system withoutRead more
No, but the balance of votes by population should be updated
The balance of votes is already updated every 10 years in the Census. Tweaking the system based on the amount of votes in each state doesn't solve the core issues of the Electoral College, in that it actively pushes against campaigning in non-swing states and limits the ability for third party and independent candidates to take hold in the political system.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion