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
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.