Originally Posted by SamInTheSouth

Many people opposed to the Electoral College are unaware of its history.

When this country was founded the American people did not elect the President and in a way today we still don't. The Founders did not feel that the American people were educated or informed enough to make that important of a decision and judging by many of the politicians we have in DC today, I think they were on to something. The people voted for their member in the House of Representatives. They did not vote for President nor did they vote for Senator.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President. Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution says, "The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided for the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were to be chosen by the Electors. The primary difference was that the Electors voted for two Persons for President, rather than one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. After the choosing of the President, whoever had the most Electoral Votes, among the remaining candidates, would become the Vice President.

The Founders were very much against Democracy because it turns into a tyranny by the majority. If we went to a popular vote then the candidates would be relying mostly on the major cities for their election and would pander to their issues and concerns while ignoring the folks in middle America, many of which have very different concerns than city dwellers. The point is to give every part of America a more equal footing in deciding who should lead the country.

It seems to be mostly the left that wants to rid us of the Electoral College and I have always found that rather amusing because these same people will stand up and defend affirmative action in the workplace, but decry the Electoral College, which is basically the same idea, but for minority states.

Originally Posted by Jaffas85

After the world has had to endure 8 years of George Bush in the White House I was wondering whether it would be a better concept if the candidate who receives the "popular vote", like Al Gore did in 2000, gets elected President?

Shouldn't the will of the majority of voters, regardless of where they live, be what decides who gets to govern America as the next President?

Thanks.

(Imagine how different America and the world at large would now be had Al Gore been President the last 8 years...).

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

We live in a Republic where both the interests of the People and the States are balanced in federal government. That is why we have both the House which represents the interests of the People and the Senate which represents the States. This duel interest is reflected in the apportionment of Electorial College members based upon the number of members in Congress.

In deciding on the election of the president you could have two different methods.

You could, for example, have the governor of each state vote for the President and this would reflect the interests of each State. The problem with this is that a State like Alaska would have just as much power in electing the President as California and that wouldn't be right.

You could also have a direct election of the president by popular vote of the People and this would reflect the interests of the People. The problem with this is that a city like Los Angeles would have more power in the election than the entire State of S. Dakota and that wouldn't be right.

The Electorial College balances both of these interests. The Electorial College members are apportioned with one for every House member to represent the interests of the people and one for each Senator to represent the interests of the State. This was an extremely wise solution in balancing the interests of both the People and the States in the election of the President.

Originally Posted by nerv14

I also thought up by myself that since presidential candidates will not spend very much effort in trying to win the electoral votes in states that they are unpopular that means that the people in that state will not as easily hear what the other candidate has to say on issues. i wrote that democrats in New Jersey will normally not hear Republican politics in their area from Republican campaigning and Republicans in Texas will not hear about the views of Democrats campaigning in their area. i think that the electoral college causes divisions in the country by harming the sharing of ideas.

if u disagree with that please tell me because almost everyone at my school is liberal so they normally agree with me on those issues

Originally Posted by nerv14

I wrote an editorial for my school newspaper when it was having a political themed edition and i wrote about why i thought the electoral college. i will just paraphrase parts of it.

the electoral college makes it so a candidate can only win all of a state's electoral votes or none of them which means that if a candidate wants to get the most amount of electoral college votes with a given amount of money then it only makes sense for them to campaign in the swing states.
In the final 5 weeks of presidential campaigning in 2004 more money was spent for advertisements in the swing state of Florida then in forty-five other states and the District of Columbia.

(FairVote - Who Picks the President?) (Image:2004CampaignAttention.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Normally only the votes in swing states actualy matter because most states will automatically vote republican or democrat. this causes the voter turnout of most non-swimg states to be very low because their votes don't really matter.

(Grandfather Presidential Election 2004 Report - by MWHodges) (StateMaster - 2004 Election > Total votes as percentage (most recent) by state)


I also thought up by myself that since presidential candidates will not spend very much effort in trying to win the electoral votes in states that they are unpopular that means that the people in that state will not as easily hear what the other candidate has to say on issues. i wrote that democrats in New Jersey will normally not hear Republican politics in their area from Republican campaigning and Republicans in Texas will not hear about the views of Democrats campaigning in their area. i think that the electoral college causes divisions in the country by harming the sharing of ideas.

if u disagree with that please tell me because almost everyone at my school is liberal so they normally agree with me on those issues

Originally Posted by Karl

The electoral college in its current form seems outdated to me. While it may have been useful 200 years ago when our constitution was written, the country that it serves today is a very different one. In general, people are much more informed about who is running and what they are running for then in the past, and I firmly believe that each person should be trusted with a direct vote for their leader.

As a democrat living in Texas, I am fully aware that neither my vote nor the vote of most of the DFW area will actually help elect our president this November. Some of the earlier posters said that the Electoral College protects the interests of minorities (e.g. Rural communities vs Urban ones) but the situation in Texas and most other non swing states appears to be the opposite to me with the minority party losing all say in the overall election.

Originally Posted by apawllo

What exactly does this partisan nonsense have to do with the electoral college? The point is, the "losing" candidate got more votes than the "winning" candidate.

I can't say that Al Gore would have been a better President than George W. Bush....although, it would be tough to do any worse - none of this even matters. When you have an election and the candidate who loses winds up somehow winning, something needs to change.

Originally Posted by AzTeK

I must admit I did not know that the US president wasn't even elected democratically...thanks for the explanation though.

Originally Posted by Karl

The electoral college in its current form seems outdated to me. While it may have been useful 200 years ago when our constitution was written, the country that it serves today is a very different one.

Originally Posted by apawllo

What exactly does this partisan nonsense have to do with the electoral college? The point is, the "losing" candidate got more votes than the "winning" candidate.