Is the electoral college still useful in the twenty-first century?

[Kay Henderson]

As I watch the presidential candidates necessarily concentrate their efforts on swing states, I can't help but wonder if the institution set in place by our founding fathers for electing our presidents may have outlived its usefulness.

Argument I have heard in favor of keeping the electoral college

The number of electors from each state is the number of senators plus the number of representatives. By giving small states and less populated areas of our country greater clout, this protects them from being run over roughshod by the larger, more populated states.

Observations which make me wonder

As a resident of a state solidly in one camp, I feel like my vote is being taken for granted; that neither candidate (in ANY presidential election, not just this one) has any motivation to find out my thinking or that of fellow residents of my state. Probably more important, by spending so much time in the swing states, the future president (whoever he is) will not have a sense of the concerns of the people in the majority of the United States -- the non-swing states.

What do you think? I am interested in hearing arguments on both sides of this issue.

Kay

[ajowen]

In some states, the electoral delegates are split according to the popular votes. In other states it is winner take all. If you were in a state such as the first example, would you be more or less in favor of the electoral college?

Similarly, in most states the electoral delegates are distributed according to the wishes of the popular vote in some fashion, but in many states it would be *legal* for the state legislators to go against the popular vote and select different delgates.

For what it's worth, the original logic behind the electoral college was that the general populous was too uninformed/un-educated to make a good choice about the president, so state representatives (who were popularly elected) chose the president (and also the Senators for that state! - only the House of Representatives was popularly elected) The rule about senators was removed with the 18th? Ammendment I think. The one for president remains.

Amanda

[Kerri]

All I know is as a Texas resident, it really doesn't matter who I vote for.

The good news, less campaign ads!! I have a seen a few Bush adds, but I guess Kerry figured it was useless.

[Kristilyn1]

Nobody in any state should consider their vote taken for granted, or not able to be counted. The reason why certain states overwhelmingly go one way may be because the "other side" figures their vote doesn't count. Polls can be wrong and often are.

If you want to know if your vote counts, just look at Florida.

My traditionally conservative state is said to be leaning heavily towards Kerry, I won't believe it until I see it.

Kristi

[Escher]

Some thoughts:

A) A swing state is a state in which the outcome is uncertain...ie, the votes are close within that state. Swing states are not the same as small states.

B) California has 55 votes. Montana has 3. Believe me, the candidates would be paying more attention to you IF

C) California wasn't such a "given" for the Democrats. Much like the black vote, your issues are being increasingly ignored because the state is so dependably one-sided.

D) Those who have their panties in a twist about the electoral college must REALLY despise the Senate. There, Montana and California carry equal weight.

E) It's all moot. Barring a revolution, it won't change.... nor should it, IMHO.

[Escher]

http://www.federalreview.com/images/ev-map-8-10-04.gif

As it stands now (after the Dem Convention, but before the Rep convention)

The white states are swing states. As small as Nevada and as large as Florida....

[gianttrev]

We now have the technology now for this.

With politics becoming more divided, and the possibility of close/extremely close elections (ie 2000) I think the following.

Electoral College... keep it intact the way it is.

If there is a tie because of one or more disputed state(s), the popular vote takes over. Not just the popular vote of the disputed state(s), but the popular vote of the nation.

Florida hanging/pregnant chad dragged out the results. Had a popular vote of the entire nation been counted, the amount of disputed ballots would not have been enough to overtake one or the other's position.

The nation would have decided.

This is just a quick/rough idea, fraught with many holes at this early stage, but it can be firmed up.

Electoral college in place, but a back up plan that doesn't include a partisan Supreme Court.

[Escher]

what is a disputed state?

Anyhow, now the reverse is true...

Bush leads the popular vote, and Kerry leads the electoral college:
http://www.federalreview.com/images/ev-map-8-31-04.gif