Suppose the Electoral College was abolished?

Bob001

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
16,613
Location
US of A
The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from being overwhelmed by more populous states at a time when the states were the primary organ of government, and the federal government was relatively limited. Those days ended long ago, and other interests are paramount now. Rhode Island and Wyoming, for example, have small populations, but they have much more in common with their immediate neighbors than with each other. And large states like New York and Texas don't have much in common with each other either.

If the President was selected entirely on the basis of the popular vote, Democrats in the red states and Republicans in the blue states would have equal voice in the national government. Every voter would have reason to go to the polls. What would be the impact of true popular election on the electoral process and the government?

Discuss.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Al Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.
Click to expand...

Probably. But it's at least possible that more Republicans would have voted in the blue states where their votes don't count for much now, especially if the Republicans had reason to campaign there. That's why I don't think the answer is immediately apparent.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Al Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.
Click to expand...


Impossible to know. Campaigns would have been run completely different. Perhaps more conservatives in California would have voted. As it stands, there is little reason for conservatives to vote for President (or at all) in Cali. I almost didn't bother voting because of it. I lean right, but I'm no Repub.

The few largest states would decide every Presidential election, that is what would change.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
Al Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 2016.
Click to expand...

Andrew Jackson in 1824, Samuel Tilden in 1876 and Grover Cleveland wins re-election in 1888 as well. Weird that the silliness took over a century off after that.
 
Bob001 said:
What would be the impact of true popular election on the electoral process and the government?
Click to expand...

My guess? Expansion of the power of the federal government and contraction of the role of state governments.
 
Bob001 said:
The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from being overwhelmed by more populous states at a time when the states were the primary organ of government, and the federal government was relatively limited.
Click to expand...
Not actually true. The principle aims of the designers/ratifiers/retainers of the electoral college were to express a snooty disregard for the popular will and to inflate the power of slave states.

Alexander Hamilton, from the Federalist Papers:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Pretty tough to read that in 2017 without wanting to invent a time machine to go back and strangle Hamilton in the crib. Right after killing Hitler, of course.

If the President was selected entirely on the basis of the popular vote, Democrats in the red states and Republicans in the blue states would have equal voice in the national government.
Click to expand...
Not just Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states, but Democrats in blue states and Republicans in red states. If you live in a stolid state, candidates don't care to try to win your vote, because they've already banked it.

What would be the impact of true popular election on the electoral process and the government?
Click to expand...
We no longer have the odd perverse outcome, the interests of people who don't happen to live in large swing states are better represented, and I no longer have to explain maps like this one to people outside the US:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
The few largest states would decide every Presidential election, that is what would change.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't because states would not be voting as units. Right now large states determine the winner because of the EC. Candidates aren't making huge promises to small states; they're wining and dining medium-to-large swing states. FL, PA, OH, and NC are the third, sixth, seventh and ninth most populous states in the Union.

One of the only almost half eighth decent arguments against the EC is that elections will probably become much more expensive. Another is that close elections will not come down to recounts in any particular state, but deal with the entire country.

The Founding Fathers didn't really know what the hell they were doing. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason said the EC would ensure that the House determined 19 out of 20 elections. The framers didn't count on highly polarized parties (or even contemplate their existence).
 
Last edited:
Although we haven't seen it the past few elections, the electoral college does give an exaggerated feeling of "landslide" to give a new president a powerful "mandate".

The only reason we are seeing any issues is because the elections are so divided and so close. I see no great wisdom in either side holding sway in the win. I'm happy with a muddled, do-nothing government.


In other words, with such a close election, there is no great wisdom of the people in making some decision here. The political philosophy fails. No great things should be attempted by the winner when they aren't much of a majority (or even a majority.)
 
Last edited:
Non slave states that did not have universal suffrage also benefited. But small states did not benefit . Early on the ratio of population to electoral votes was close.
 
mgidm86 said:
Impossible to know. Campaigns would have been run completely different. Perhaps more conservatives in California would have voted. As it stands, there is little reason for conservatives to vote for President (or at all) in Cali. I almost didn't bother voting because of it. I lean right, but I'm no Repub.

The few largest states would decide every Presidential election, that is what would change.
Click to expand...

Question: Would third-party candidates have a better chance to gain influence, if not actually win the WH? Today, third-party candidates have no real chance of winning electoral votes, so a vote for one is considered to be a wasted vote, or a vote that results in unintended consequences, as in 2016. But third parties would have a chance to build a base over time if every vote for one counted in every election.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
Alexander Hamilton, from the Federalist Papers:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Pretty tough to read that in 2017 without wanting to invent a time machine to go back and strangle Hamilton in the crib.
Click to expand...

Nah. Just bring him to 2017, show him the news, and he'll strangle himself.
 
Bob001 said:
The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from being overwhelmed by more populous states at a time when the states were the primary organ of government, and the federal government was relatively limited. Those days ended long ago, and other interests are paramount now. Rhode Island and Wyoming, for example, have small populations, but they have much more in common with their immediate neighbors than with each other. And large states like New York and Texas don't have much in common with each other either.

If the President was selected entirely on the basis of the popular vote, Democrats in the red states and Republicans in the blue states would have equal voice in the national government. Every voter would have reason to go to the polls. What would be the impact of true popular election on the electoral process and the government?

Discuss.
Click to expand...
I want that done asap. Damn the conservatives and that advantage they get!!!!!!!Take away the special treatment of the flyover lands!!!!!!!!!! Otherwise I have no problem with them.
 
mgidm86 said:
Impossible to know. Campaigns would have been run completely different. Perhaps more conservatives in California would have voted. As it stands, there is little reason for conservatives to vote for President (or at all) in Cali. I almost didn't bother voting because of it. I lean right, but I'm no Repub.

The few largest states would decide every Presidential election, that is what would change.
Click to expand...

One person, one vote.
 
mgidm86 said:
Impossible to know. Campaigns would have been run completely different. Perhaps more conservatives in California would have voted. As it stands, there is little reason for conservatives to vote for President (or at all) in Cali. I almost didn't bother voting because of it. I lean right, but I'm no Repub.

The few largest states would decide every Presidential election, that is what would change.
Click to expand...

Well, they could abolish the winner-take-all principle, replace it with a proportional electoral vote system and keep the relative "weights" of the states in the election.
 
The states aren't important anymore. They are just administrative districts really. We should embrace the reality that states just don't mean that much anymore and do away with the nonsense of letting them elect the president.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is not the same as "one person one vote" or "vote counted."
Click to expand...

I might find that compelling if the electoral will hadn't recently chosen the candidate who lost. A system that allows the loser (by a wide margin) to win is not democracy,
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
The Electoral College was created to prevent smaller states from being overwhelmed by more populous states...
Click to expand...


I know this isn't the topic of the thread, but I wonder how quickly certain groups would turn against the Electoral College concept if others started referring to it as "Affirmative Action for States".
 
Good luck convincing 3/4 of the states, which is most of the small ones, that they should give up more power to the giant states because they, the small ones, "voted the wrong way" according to the large ones.
 
Craig4 said:
I might find that compelling if the electoral will hadn't recently chosen the candidate who lost. A system that allows the loser (by a wide margin) to win is not democracy,
Click to expand...

The whole point is we are not a democracy. Democracies are bad.
 
timhau said:
Nah. Just bring him to 2017, show him the news, and he'll strangle himself.
Click to expand...
Not really, he'd point out that it would turn out this way if we hadn't turned over the electors to popular vote. If we'd left it up to the state governments as intended, it would be much harder for a demagogue to get elected.

Distracted1 said:
What form of governance is better?
Click to expand...
Liberal representative democratic republics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom