Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
The Electoral College Has Been Uniquely Successful
- From Evergreen Freedom Foundation
By Evergreen Freedom Foundation - ...because freedom matters
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Successful?
What is the definition of "successful" used here? That presidents have been elected? Can we determine with any hope of accuracy that every previous president was elected with a majority of the popular vote? Bush v. Gore proves that the electoral college system is, in fact, unsuccessful if we are serious about the "one man, one vote" principle. In 21st century America, where vote totals are available the instant the polls close, the need for an arcane and antidemocratic system has long passed. Let's find ways to get the vote to the people. We certainly should be clever enough to figure out a way.
- JackNYC September 3, 2008 4:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Our system works better
I encourage you to go and do some research, read the arguments here. It's not a question of getting the vote totals. If doing away with the Electoral College would, in fact, radicalize and sectionalize our politics, would you still want to go down that road?
We're talking about a fundamental change to our system of government. Citizens owe it to themselves and their posterity to really think this through, think about the long term consequences. Just because we don't understand something when we first look at it doesn't mean it doesn't actually make sense or isn't in fact a good idea. The Electoral College is one reason for America's success; we would do away with it at our peril.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 3:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Assertions vs. evidence
"If doing away with the Electoral College would, in fact, radicalize and sectionalize our politics, would you still want to go down that road?"
I don't see any basis for this statement. I could just as easily respond "If doing away with the Electoral College would, in fact, democratize and unify our politics, why would you resist going down that road?" There are "civilized" and "successful" nations around the world that elect their leaders through the popular vote. There is every likelihood that adopting a popular vote for the US president would have a positive impact on our political process; for example, increased voter participation.
Our system of presidential elections is broken. It costs too much, it takes too long, and it fails to attract the best candidates. I'm not laying all these problems at the feet of the Electoral College system. But understanding and accepting that our process isn't perfect and must be improved is the first step in searching for a better way. I would argue that renewing our commitment to democracy by giving the American voter a direct voice in electing the President is one of those steps.
- JackNYC September 9, 2008 4:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
NYC's Intellectual Social Class has spoken!
Jack, from NYC (go figure)... your statements that represent the polar opposite of an argument you just read, do very little to make a coherent point. Similar to nonsense rhetoric like "Our system of presidential elections is broken. It costs too much, it takes too long, and it fails to attract the best candidates." Talk about no basis for statements! While 2 out of the 3 points may be factual... you have no proof that a popular vote would be any cheaper or faster (still don't know why speed is a problem, but I'll play along)! In fact I would argue that when the 27 Presidential candidates have to go through 12 run offs before someone finally gets elected with 34% of the "popular vote"... it would take longer and we'd have a candidate less representative of the nation as a whole...
This all stems from 8 years of seething resentment for the Bush v. Gore decision. If the Supreme Court ruling had resulted in a Gore win, I doubt you would retain such meaningless hatred for a system that separates us from these supposed "civilized" and "successful" nations you speak of. I could go on and on as to what over-taxed pacifist human rights violators/neglectors you would put in that category but that's for another thread.
Since I'm from Blue NJ, I can easily see the tone the elitists have developed regarding "middle" or southern America. This is why some on the west coast and northeast are so quick to snuff out the voices of their fellow Americans by wanting to overhaul our entire system in the name of democracy... I won't understand or accept what you say that our process isn't perfect. Nothing is perfect... so that's another irrelevant point. The Electoral College is the best system that exists, currently, for the best country in the world!
- t88132
October 13, 2008 5:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No evidence in U.S. of proliferation of candidates
After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States.
Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.
Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.
- mvymvy
December 31, 2009 6:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Popularity Contest or Executive Ability.
Have you traveled to other countries? (Say Venezuela [Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías], Iraq [Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti] , 1930 Germany [Adolf Hitler], etc.) It was the popularity of tyrants (appealing to a certain group with great promises) that pushed them to office. If its not broke then dont fix it. Alexander Hamilton said (Federalist Paper n68) "The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence which has escaped without severe censure or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents… I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.” George Washington (called the father of our nation) said, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard"(1)
(1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
- SaintElmosFire
October 28, 2008 5:41PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
whyvote
I, along with countless others, will not be voting in this or any other election until MY vote is counted! What a sham this has turned out to be...this system was put in place with pen and paper technology. We can do better. WE THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE...just imagine where this country could be without the leadership (or lack thereof) of the last 8 years.
- whyvote
November 4, 2008 2:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You haven't actually said anything
I have not decided which side of this debate I support, but the fact is, EFF, your argument does not actually say anything. You stated the history of the EC and how it works, and you said it was "successful." I challenge you to define your terms of success, and show how the EC has fulfilled those terms. If "success" is not clearly defined you might as well show up to the fight and say, "Mission Accomplished."
- roy1167
September 9, 2008 11:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
just a crack at it.
Well to start I think people dont give the founding fathers the credit they deserve. I am for the electoral college based on each individual state. If the presidency was held based soley on the popular vote , then if I was running for the office of the presidency I would neglect any state which did not have a large population. Ohio would never get federal funding if i was elected president , in fact I probably wouldnt care less if a giant tornadoe whiped them off the map. not enough population to make a difference in my mind. I would be directing all federal funding to the 6 largest and most populace states , and making sure they knew where that money was comming from. heck Texas getting hit by hurricane Ike no problem , I would have luxury liners picking up my constituents there. with a strictly popular vote , and a state run system. Rhode Island needs something , well pan handling comes to mind, because with a population as low as theres they certainly wouldnt get any federal help without the electoral college. I would probably just use the state to store all my nuclear waste since there population would be easily ignorable in the grand scheme of things.
yes i know im taking this to an extreme, but the way it is set up , seems to allow all the states to have fair representation within the federal government. without the electoral college why even have state and local governments, because the largest 6 states would dictate all policy for all the states. If you think about it the presidential and the senate are based in balancing the states, while congress is the only branch that has any base on population.
And both parties want whatever is best for them at the time. in 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and therefore did not become president. while in 2004 when Kerry lost the popular vote by a land slide , he sure did fight awfully hard for recounts in Ohio so he could win the electoral vote.
- neontetra September 15, 2008 11:06AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, not at all.
The entire beginning of your argument is predicated on the notion that the individual state results would actually matter. Every state would matter because every state has people in it. The argument you want to make is that the most DENSELY populated states, like New Jersey, would matter more with a popular vote, because the candidates could address a lot of people at once. Focus on Texas and California would happen, because they have several large population centers. Candidates would also focus on Ohio, unlike what you said, because it also has large population centers (i.e. Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati). This still hasn't addressed the term "success" which is my real objection to this argument. I'm not saying that the EC is bad, I'm saying the original argument is foolish.
- roy1167
September 15, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Electoral College Working Corectly - Party System Broken
My 5th grader learned about the US Government last year. One of his lessons was on elections. The founding fathers invisioned four or more political parties,all having about equal membership (power). With only 2 major political parties, we the people don't have the choices needed for the system to work.
- kath September 15, 2008 10:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What 2000 Presidential Election?
We all know that the 2000 Presidential Election was not won fair and square. Al Gore did unofficially win, and would have been sitting in the Oval Office, if the Bush family and Supreme Court had not hijacked the correct procedures. The Electoral College is an original part of the main body of our U.S. Constitution , and it has done very well through time. To say that the Electoral College needs to be abolished or vastly overhauled is like saying we should get rid of trains and railroads altogether. Even though railroads have been around for more than 2 centuries, they are still one of the most efficient forms of transportation today, and in many parts of the world, they are high-speed performers that have withstood the sands of time. The Electoral College isn't broken — no need to fix it!
- camelcityman271
July 27, 2009 7:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not
Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections . Candidates have no reason to poll , visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
- mvymvy
December 23, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Smaller states get left out...
The smaller states get left out under a popular vote system. Should the states adopt a popular vote system, then about 7 population centers in the US will essentially determine the outcome of any national election or referendum. The electorial college provides several paths to election success without the major population centers, which provides a real voice for the more sparsely populated regions.
- Olderman
January 14, 2010 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.