The Electoral College is the term given to the 538 “electors” who meet every 4 years to cast their vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. (Yes, they vote independently for the parties, and it doesn’t appear that, at least per the US Constitution, they are required to follow the ticket.)

It seems to be a cumbersome process and I’m looking for a single reason why it is better than allowing the total of the popular vote to select the POTUS.

The Constitution gives each state legislature the power to choose the electors to represent the state in the Electoral College. The number of “electors” for each state is determined by the population of that state. So far, fair enough.

Then there is election day, when we vote, and there is the Electorial College vote day. The former is a process hopefully each of us participate in, the latter is somewhat different. The Electors never meet as a national body. At the 51 separate meetings, typically held in the respective state capitals.

The Presidential Electors of each state, and Washington, D.C., meet to cast their electoral votes 41 days following Election Day. The electors ballot first for President, then for Vice President. The US Constitution does not require the electors to vote as pledged, but many states have enacted laws that require their electors to do so. On rare occasions, an elector does not cast the electoral vote for the party's national ticket, usually as a political statement; these people are called faithless electors.

Each elector signs a document entitled the Certificate of Vote which sets forth the electoral vote of the state (or district). One original Certificate of Vote is sent by certified mail to the Office of the Vice President.

The number of electoral votes of each state is the sum of its number of U.S. Senators and its U.S. Representatives to which that state is entitled. California has 55, Texas 37 etc. Some states, Montana, North Dakota have as few as three.

This is an issue that was briefly looked at in 2000, where you may remember, Democratic candidate Al Gore received the plurality of the national vote, but failed to win the majority of the Electoral College. I.E. more people voted for him and yet he lost.

I see the Electoral College process as a weakness in the process in that it provides a middleman with the power of veto over the voice of the people.

The primary reason the Democrats are in such a mess right now, is because they decided to allocate delegates proportionally, instead of winner-take-all. Sometimes, it's beneficial to exaggerate wins.

I think this is a lesson for the Electoral College issue. It's counter-intuitive, but it's really better than straight popular vote. For one thing, many many States would be essentially left out of the process if we eliminated the EC system - only the largest population densities would matter - rural, "heartland" America would be ignored.

Besides, now that racial segregation is long over, I'd like to see a return to stronger State's rights. I prefer the Federal model - a Union of individual States. It would give us all more freedom, more choices in the way we choose to live. If Massachusetts wants to license gay marriage, so be it. If Utah wants to outlaw abortion - fine.

Individual States should each choose the President, not one national popular vote.

96Qowner wrote:Individual States should each choose the President, not one national popular vote.

How would that work? Would each state have the same vote, I.E. 1/50th of the total say?

No, just keep the Electoral College. The principle is that each State has a blended voice - just like the Senator/Representative thing - the Reps are proportional, but each State gets 2 Senators, no matter the population.

I agree that popular vote sounds better, but, there was always a good reason for the EC. Sheesh, look at what happened to the Dems this year in the nomination process - and the national vote has been way too close lately, anyway. Close elections aren't that great - we need better consensus.

Popular vote is how it should be...it's how our forefathers intended it. Dump it!

joe603 wrote:Popular vote is how it should be...it's how our forefathers intended it. Dump it!

The Diebold equipment also needs to go.

joe603 wrote:Popular vote is how it should be...it's how our forefathers intended it.

Heheh, better reread the Constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...llege

"The election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is indirect. The constitutional theory is that, while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[5] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states."

I thought that was an amendment...

1unar3clipse wrote:


The Diebold equipment also needs to go.

Christ, I'm with you on that one. Electronic voting - what an idiotic idea!

especially since the Diebold equipment is already known to be easy access to malicious software, and the multiple states/counties who don't even have the equipment tested for accuracy before usage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZws98jw67g Princeton PWNs diebold.

WoW!!!

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness.

If you think about it, back in the 18th century, there really wasn't much available to citizenry to familiarize them with the candidates and their views. There were occasional newspaper, but reading wasn't a skill possessed by the majority. Lacking the modern news mediums such as CNN and the Internet, the deciding factors was probably what state or county the candidate came from.

Possibly the Electoral system was better then, but not now, not with the exposure the candidates receive from the modern mediums in this electronic age.

I still want to change it.

We need it for a number of reasons, one important one being that, the average voter is a total idiot when it comes to politics....

We dont need people like that electing our leader.

That Rick, is the classic slippery slope. Define the "average voter."

Rick Damone Jr wrote:We need it for a number of reasons, one important one being that, the average voter is a total idiot when it comes to politics....

We dont need people like that electing our leader.

Who determines who the idiots are?

THere are some very well-educated and well-informed people whose leader I'd be terrified to have in office.