Electoral College - Why? - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Homo Erectus · 01-15-2008, 08:31 PM

Why do we still vote for the president of our country through the electoral college, and not a popular vote? Are there any advantages, or rational arguments for the current system, as opposed to a popular vote? Call me crazy, but I think it'd be nice if my presidential vote actually meant something.

il Padrino Ute · 01-15-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

Why do we still vote for the president of our country through the electoral college, and not a popular vote? Are there any advantages, or rational arguments for the current system, as opposed to a popular vote? Call me crazy, but I think it'd be nice if my presidential vote actually meant something.

Simple. It's to give each state a say in the election. Without the electoral college, the states with huge populations (like California, NY, etc.) could force their will on the smaller states (like Utah, WY, etc.)

The candidates are running to represent all the citizens from each state and therefore, are running in 50 separate elections.

It really is the best way to do it.

And your vote really does count in the state in which you cast it. Yours could be the one that makes the difference in the candidate of your choice winning the state in which you live.

UtahDan · 01-15-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homo Erectus

Why do we still vote for the president of our country through the electoral college, and not a popular vote? Are there any advantages, or rational arguments for the current system, as opposed to a popular vote? Call me crazy, but I think it'd be nice if my presidential vote actually meant something.

Its the same reason each state gets two Senators. If it were purely popular vote, your vote would only really count if you lived in Texas or California. A President could be elected without broad national support and win by carrying only the most populous states.

Indy Coug · 01-15-2008, 08:42 PM

To keep Hillary Clinton out of office.

Homo Erectus · 01-15-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Simple. It's to give each state a say in the election. Without the electoral college, the states with huge populations (like California, NY, etc.) could force their will on the smaller states (like Utah, WY, etc.)

The candidates are running to represent all the citizens from each state and therefore, are running in 50 separate elections.

It really is the best way to do it.

And your vote really does count in the state in which you cast it. Yours could be the one that makes the difference in the candidate of your choice winning the state in which you live.

Interesting. I see it differently. If candidate A wins the election in California by one vote, doesn't that then render all the votes for candidate B null and void? It seems to me that if a candidate was able to win close votes in CA, NY, TX, FL, and IL, he (hopefully not she) could then lose by a landslide in all other states, but still be the president at the end of the day. Therefore, a candidate can limit himself (hopefully not herself) to campaigning in big states and swing states, and states like Utah get left out in the cold, since our meager five votes are virtually meaningless.

woot · 01-15-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Simple. It's to give each state a say in the election. Without the electoral college, the states with huge populations (like California, NY, etc.) could force their will on the smaller states (like Utah, WY, etc.)

The candidates are running to represent all the citizens from each state and therefore, are running in 50 separate elections.

It really is the best way to do it.

And your vote really does count in the state in which you cast it. Yours could be the one that makes the difference in the candidate of your choice winning the state in which you live.

That's the theory behind it, but the theory is absolutely wrong. As it is, 75% of people live in states that vote the same way every time, so issues that those people care about are rarely discussed. Inner-city issues are ignored entirely, since they always vote democratic anyway so nobody cares about appealing to them.

A straight general election would actually give more power to more states. As it is, residents of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and a few other states decide the election every time, while residents in most states have no ability to make a difference.

UtahDan · 01-15-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woot

That's the theory behind it, but the theory is absolutely wrong. As it is, 75% of people live in states that vote the same way every time, so issues that those people care about are rarely discussed. Inner-city issues are ignored entirely, since they always vote democratic anyway so nobody cares about appealing to them.

A straight general election would actually give more power to more states. As it is, residents of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and a few other states decide the election every time, while residents in most states have no ability to make a difference.

That is the 47 chromosome view, to be sure.

Tex · 01-15-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woot

Inner-city issues are ignored entirely, since they always vote democratic anyway so nobody cares about appealing to them.

Is this really a problem of the electoral college?

Indy Coug · 01-15-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Is this really a problem of the electoral college?

Cali Coug · 01-15-2008, 09:16 PM

There are advantages to the electoral college (and disadvantages).

The first reason the college was created was so that electors would be elected from each state who, theoretically, would be wiser than the general population in choosing the president. There is no constitutional rule that the electors must vote the same way the state votes. Under the constitution, the electors are free to disregard completely the votes of the majority of the population of their state. Most states have established their own rules that require the electors to follow the majority vote of the state, but not all have.

The second was to protect the small states by giving each state at a minimum 3 electors (2 for each senator the state has and one for each representative). The actual effect has been over-representation of small states (due to giving each of them 2 additional electors for their senators which is the same number given to large states).

There are benefits to the system. For example: it is harder to defraud a system based on electors than it is a system based on national voting. Additionally, imagine a scenario like in 2000 where, rather than recounting just ballots cast in Florida, the entire nation had to recount the votes. It wouldn't make sense to only recount Florida, since a vote in Florida has equal impact on the race as a vote cast in North Dakota. As it was in 2000, a bad voting system in Florida only impacted Florida and its votes.

I totally disagree with Woot about giving more power to more states by eliminating the electoral college. Elimination would vest total control in states with huge populations, and the bonus of 2 extra votes for the smaller states would disappear.

01-15-2008, 08:31 PM	#1
Homo Erectus Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 21	Electoral College - Why? Why do we still vote for the president of our country through the electoral college, and not a popular vote? Are there any advantages, or rational arguments for the current system, as opposed to a popular vote? Call me crazy, but I think it'd be nice if my presidential vote actually meant something.

01-15-2008, 08:42 PM	#4
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	To keep Hillary Clinton out of office.

01-15-2008, 09:16 PM	#10
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	There are advantages to the electoral college (and disadvantages). The first reason the college was created was so that electors would be elected from each state who, theoretically, would be wiser than the general population in choosing the president. There is no constitutional rule that the electors must vote the same way the state votes. Under the constitution, the electors are free to disregard completely the votes of the majority of the population of their state. Most states have established their own rules that require the electors to follow the majority vote of the state, but not all have. The second was to protect the small states by giving each state at a minimum 3 electors (2 for each senator the state has and one for each representative). The actual effect has been over-representation of small states (due to giving each of them 2 additional electors for their senators which is the same number given to large states). There are benefits to the system. For example: it is harder to defraud a system based on electors than it is a system based on national voting. Additionally, imagine a scenario like in 2000 where, rather than recounting just ballots cast in Florida, the entire nation had to recount the votes. It wouldn't make sense to only recount Florida, since a vote in Florida has equal impact on the race as a vote cast in North Dakota. As it was in 2000, a bad voting system in Florida only impacted Florida and its votes. I totally disagree with Woot about giving more power to more states by eliminating the electoral college. Elimination would vest total control in states with huge populations, and the bonus of 2 extra votes for the smaller states would disappear.