I can honestly say that even if Bush wins the popular vote [shudder!], that I think we should do away with the electoral college. I can't see any reason to have it in place. The person that the majority of American voters wants in office should be in office.

A baby step might be for states to do away with the "winner take all" approach. Nothing devalues an individual's vote like this policy, which nullifies the millions of votes cast for the minority candidate in a particular state. It doesn't feel good to cast a vote and have your state say that because you didn't vote with the majority that it's not going to even count.

In fact, after the Florida 2000 debacle, everyone was saying, "See, every vote DOES count." And I was thinking, "No it doesn't." If every individual vote counted to determine the winner, then Gore wouldn't have "lost the election by 500 votes," which is what effectively happened. He would have won by 500,000. Statistically, half of Florida voted for Gore, but he ended up with none of their electoral votes. So how did every vote really count? Seems to me that *half* of them didn't count.

Get rid of the electoral college. The American people should be the only ones deciding who is our president.

BTW, I did some research on the electoral college some time after the last election while debating its merits/lack thereof with a friend.

Here's the source I used to draw my conclusion that we should get rid of it.

Here's a clip from it, which puts some context around how/why our founding fathers chose this method:

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is
essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the
Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of
how to elect a president in a nation that:

* was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own
rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government

* contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of
Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication
(so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been
thought desirable)

* believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry
St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not
downright evil, and

* felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying
was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the
office.").

[snip]

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones.

Since we now have 50 states and 280,000,000 residents, I don't think we have to worry about the president being selected by the most populous two or three states. Also, thanks to Al Gore and W., we now have the Internets, so people all over this large nation have access to just about any [dis]information they want. Or they can just plug in to the tee-vee. And, for good or bad, candidates do tend to campaign a little.

The electoral college is outdated and irrelevant. Just count all the people's votes and be done with it.

The design of the Electoral College gives added importance to the voters in small states. If it makes sense to eliminate the Electoral College, why not by the same argument also change to composition of the US Senate, which vastly over-represents the residents of small states?

Why not?

First, because giving extra influence to small states gives added value to a majority that is widespread rather than concentrated in a small region. Second, because the Electoral College is a part of the contract that the States signed when they formed a Union.

Look across the Atlantic, and you will see the EU wrestling today with the big state/small state issue, and having great difficulty.

Well, the 2-Senators-per-state issue is balanced by the representative count in the House. So I don't see why eliminating the electoral college has anything to do with Congress.

First, because giving extra influence to small states gives added value to a majority that is widespread rather than concentrated in a small region. Second, because the Electoral College is a part of the contract that the States signed when they formed a Union.

The first statement just makes no sense, period. By the second argument, slavery and the importation of slaves, denying suffrage to women, and the application of the Bill of Rights to the states are all unacceptable. Slavery, a male electoral franchise and allowing states to abuse individual rights were part of the contract when the states formed the Union.

There must be better arguments for not changing or eliminating the Electoral College than these.

Typo: Acceptable.

...four years of Democrats wailing...

puleeze. if the scenario had been reversed, the republicans would NOT have quietly accepted the result.

at the very least we should change the electoral system to be proportional instead of winner take all.

we're supposed to be the friggin' shining beacon of democracy and we've got things set up so that somebody can 'win' with a half a million less votes than the other guy.

it's embarassing.

I think that if you eliminate the Electoral College, all campaigning will take place only in the following states: California, Texas, New York, Florida; possibly Illinois, Pennsylvania, and a few others.

States that are currently battleground states are getting a lot of attention. If the EC were eliminated, do you really think that the candidates would have paid so much attention to New Mexico, Iowa, and Hawaii?

The downside to the focus on the battleground states is that Indiana, Utah, Maine, and other large lead states are ignored. No getting around that. But without an electoral college, the very possibility of Indiana, Utah, Maine, New Mexico, and Hawaii even being considered for candidate visits is nil.

I'm all in favor of a proportional system. It would greatly benefit the LP and other third parties. Alas, the Republicans and Democrats are very happy to have this system, which pretty much ensures that they and only they will elect Presidents. They'll win some and lose some, but in the end, they're in the game.

Candidates choose to campaign in the states that can help them. Right now, they campaign in states whose electoral college votes can help them. Without the electoral college, then candidates will choose different states.

It sounds like you're arguing for a process that gives artificial "importance" [for lack of a better word] to some states.

Plus, there are many other ways for voters to learn about candidates without them visiting the states. Bush hasn't campaigned in MA, yet I've heard a rumor that one or two people might still vote for him.

personally, i'd be happy to have less candidate hootenanny in new hampshire.

i don't watch all that much tv, but when i do i get bombed with wall-to-wall nasty ads from both sides. it's kinda disheartening.

George W. Bush: "Mandate? I don't need no stinking mandate!"

This post must be the first time I've ever seen the word "honorable" associated with Richard Nixon.

Oh goody; Questions!

1) I'm a Gemini; so I don't believe in astrology.

2) Turn ons: tequila, The Dixie Chicks on the juke-box, and cowgirls in skin-tight jeans.

3) Favorite "last meal": chicken-fried steak, fried okra, mashed potatoes, cream gravy, cornbread, and a cold Shiner.

4) What I will tell Satan when I meet Him in Hell: "Please don't seat me near the Bush family..."


--whoops! Sorry, wrong thread!


1. Democrats would now say that the process works and is fair?

The process is NOT fair, and hasn't been fair in decades; it will never be fair as long as it costs up to two to three hundred million dollars to run for President.

It favors liars, manipulators, and the prick with the most hand-outs to special interests.

Take yer pick: the puppet on the Left or the puppet on the Right.


2. Republicans would keep their mouths shut after four years of telling Democrats that it was fair in 2000?

Ha.

When "God" speaks directly to your side, you have no choice but to round up your opponents and crank up the divine de-lousing centers.

I predict that the Right will soon abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for that dreaded "Law & Order" thingy.

"We are all Jews."

Get out while you can.

BHW- Arguing for artifical importance? Perhaps, but in this, the land of bad political choices, we get either the artificial importance of a New Hampshire or New Mexico, or the sort of non-importance those states would have without the Electoral College.

The visit isn't the only way to find out about a candidate, you're right. Again, bad choices- there are the TV ads and the spin-o-rama shows on Fox, CNBC, and CNN.

I guess it's better than no choices, or one choice.

What Bush mandate? Heh heh heh... Caution: Put down your coffee before clicking on the link....