Dropout of the Electoral College

While there are plenty of things I would like to change in this world (many have already been covered), I’m going to go with abolish the electoral college in this post.

The electoral college was implemented back when it was not feasible to necessarily have a full popular vote.  In today’s modern information society, this is obviously possible.  We do not need states to “elect” a president to represent them, the people do.

I know electoral college proponents claim that people living outside the major metropolitan areas will be ignored by the candidates.  As the graphic below shows that happens currently.  As a resident of Ohio and student in Pennsylvania, I’ve thankfully had a chance to have a meaningful vote in my one presidential election, but what about a Democrat in the Sunbelt?  Or a Republican in California?

This graphic shows the amount of visits and money spent by presidential (and VP) candidates  in the final 5 weeks per state for the 2008 election

States get plenty of chances to influence national politics through the Senate and House, they do not need a seemingly symbolic influence on the presidential race.  Also, electoral rules and enforcement for voters and the EC vary from state to state.  Two states, Nebraska and Maine, split up their electoral vote!  Unlike any other state.

As a closing thought, the logistics are possible today (and we would avoid the fiascoes from Florida and Ohio in the ’00 and ’04 elections).  Put the power of the most powerful office in the world in the people, not the states.   Oh and as the links below show, it’s what Americans want.

Related articles
This entry was posted in Cases (Real World), Equality, Government and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Dropout of the Electoral College

  1. mvymvy says:

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing a constitutional amendment.

    To abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.


  2. Jordi says:

    I totally agree. However, there is a deeper constitutional problem. The constitution set up the senate on purpose to keep small states from being over ruled by big ones, as we all know. Each state=2 senators. The electoral college is in the constitution, and a constitutional amendment is hard and the small states would never adopt it.

    TO me, the EC awards votes to LAND over people. Wyoming gets two votes cuz it is Wyoming.

    I don’t understand your other commenter’s idea. But, I’d like to know more about it.

    Proportional assigning of EC votes may also help allow more people to be involved since every EC vote is in play in every state. Even if 52% of California’s EC votes will go to a D, the R candidate will want 48% of California. I don’t know if that holds for Vermont and Wyoming, though.

  3. Pingback: Winners of the Solutions/60 Second Idea to Change the World | Biz Gov Soc

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s