Is it time to eliminate the Electoral College?
Related Stories
It’s time to consider getting rid of the Electoral College, according to columnist Todd Dorman.
“Sure, we’re no Ohio. But, according to New York Times polling cruncher Nate Silver, Iowa has a 6.8 percent chance of delivering the decisive votes to an Electoral College winner tonight,” Dorman wrote in a column published Tuesday. “Yes, hopefully, tonight. A better chance than 45 other states. Iowa posts the third-highest state score in Silver’s Return on Investment Index, which measures ‘the relative likelihood that an individual voter would determine the Electoral College winner.’”
As a result, Dorman wrote, Iowa may have an more heavily weighted impact on the election outcome than a state our size should have.
“Instead of national campaigns intended to appeal to a broad array of voters, we get campaigns designed to stoke passionate partisan bases in tossup states, and snatch electoral votes by razor-thin margins,” he wrote. “Those aren’t the sort of campaigns that lead to building a consensus on solving big problems. This landscape also vastly magnifies the power of unfettered money and the impact of any local shenanigans.”
“I used to think the Electoral College was swell,” he concluded. “But I’ve changed my mind. I think it’s time to seriously consider a constitutional remedy. Every American should be electing a president today.”
What do you think? Is it time to consider eliminating the Electoral College?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
It will be interesting to see if any one understands the purpose of the EC while proffering an opinion advocating for its elimination.
The purpose of the Electoral College, Mr Williamson, is to ensure that the People do not elect the President.
Article II Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors. . . ”
Amendment XII still refers to Electors as appointed.
Now what do you understand to be the purpose of the EC?
” to ensure that the People do not elect the President.”
Just as I suspected. That is the result, but not the reason. Being ignorant of the purpose of the EC, just eliminating it out of raw ignorance is a sure way to create even larger issues. Unintended consequences, if you will.
History is a great thing, learn it, so we dont have to make the same mistakes repeatedly.
So, are you ever going to tell us what you think the reason for the EC is?
The only real problem with the Electoral College system is the “winner take all” rule that is in place in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes based on the results in each congressional district. In each state 2 electoral votes are based on state wide results and the rest are based on individual congressional district results.
A shift to this allocation system in every state would greatly change our election process for the better.
You saved me writing a post Rich. I totally agree.
I know that this change could be made by each state on a voluntary basis and I think (but I am not certain) that it could be forced by the federal government without a constitution amendment. Regardless, it is a fundamentally good idea that should be taken seriously.
First we should learn how to have a fair and accurate election where everyone gets to vote without fear and intimidation. Where everyone uses the same rules.
No, the electoral college should remain in place in our elections.
The Electoral College is the product of compromise. The Electoral College is consistant in a founding philosophy of avoiding direct democracy, The Electoral College is but one mechanism protecting against mob rule. This is the over arching governing principles that our entire government structure is based on. So why eliminate it? No one has given a single reason that supports the notion that the Electoral College has out lived its usefulness. I might argue that the Electoral College is more pertinent today than it was at its inception.
In short the Electoral College was a compromise to the small less populous states that make up the 13 original states. Those less populous had no desire to join in a union of States where the most populous could vote their local, state interests and control those lesser states that could not compete at the ballot box. The Electoral College was a compromise to somewhat lessen the power of New York City, Boston, and Philidephia.
Today, if we eliminate the Electoral college the President is elected by that same metropolitan corridor, plus Chicago, Dallas/Ft Worth, and Los Angeles.
Is that good for the entirety of the Nation? To have one Branch of the federal government beholden to city dwellers at the expense of the rest of the Nation?
Maybe, but until somebody can address these issues, I say not.
Williamson,
You posted “The Electoral College is consistant in a founding philosophy of avoiding direct democracy,”
which means you agree that the purpose of the EC is to ensure that the People do not elect the President
You also posted “Is that good for the entirety of the Nation? To have one Branch of the federal government beholden to city dwellers at the expense of the rest of the Nation?”
You need to be aware that over 80% of the people who live in this country live in urban areas. We hit the 50%/50% mark nearly a century ago. Which means you think it ok that 20% of the people have more say than 80% of the people
In your responses to Iowa’s judicial retention option, you put great emphasis on the power and the authority of the People, that the people, not judges, had the final authority when it came to determining the constitutionality of our laws. Yet here, you seem to be perfectly comfortable with denying the people the authority to elect the president