End the Electoral College?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the purpose of the system we have was to give states with lower populations power somewhat out of proportion to their size as an incentive to join and stay in the union. Maybe that justification is obsolete, but it will be extremely difficult to change.

At the same time, large populous states regain some of the power they lose by having only 2 Senators regardless of size. It restores some balance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

When it's a federal election the overall vote is counted, regardless of the state it came from.

For purely practical purposes, Electoral College outcomes are desirable because they are decisive. Can you imagine the turmoil of a nationwide recount or even a run-off election?

[abaris]

For purely practical purposes, Electoral College outcomes are desirable because they are decisive. Can you imagine the turmoil of a nationwide recount or even a run-off election?

No I can't, since we usually don't have that kind of trouble with a federal structure.

[Minimalist]

Population estimates from 1787 and the first federal census in 1790 demonstrate the issue.

http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/n...pEstim.pdf

In 1790 the difference between the largest "Free White Population" ( which really, is all that mattered back then) and the smallest was less than 400,000.  That disparity has grown to nearly 38 million.  And don't forget, Wyoming gets 1 house seat for its 586,000 people while Montana's 1 million+ citizens also get just one house seat.

[Doubting Thomas]

The president does not just represent the interest of the popular will. He or she also must represent the needs of diverse regions across the nation. A strong republic needs to respect that regional diversity. Without the Electoral College, a candidate would appeal only to the narrow self-interests of densely populated urban areas. There would be no reason for a president to consider the well-being or interests of people and industries prominent in rural areas – those responsible for providing the agricultural, energy needs of our country – ranchers, fisherman, farmers, oilmen, coal miners, and also military personnel.

And as we can see that worked out really well for Hillary.  Don't underestimate the rural areas.

[chimp3]

I like each state having 2 senators. That puts each state on equal footing. The house is based on population. The senate provides the balance in state power to the house. The electoral college is a combination of the two. Each state gets 2 electoral votes at a minimum and then the rest based on population. With California at 55 votes and N. Dakota at 3 subtracting 2 votes each does not seem to make a major difference. So, I don't see why I , as an individual, need to place the concerns of my state over my individual vote for president.

[Tiberius]

The president does not just represent the interest of the popular will. He or she also must represent the needs of diverse regions across the nation. A strong republic needs to respect that regional diversity. Without the Electoral College, a candidate would appeal only to the narrow self-interests of densely populated urban areas. There would be no reason for a president to consider the well-being or interests of people and industries prominent in rural areas – those responsible for providing the agricultural, energy needs of our country – ranchers, fisherman, farmers, oilmen, coal miners, and also military personnel.

I don't see how the electoral college helps this?

According to the US census, 80.7% of the population lives in "urban" areas, but an "urban" area is anywhere where there are at least 2,500 people.

Further, the top 100 cities in America only have about 20% of the population in them, and the city populations for numbers 101 - 200 start at around 215,000 people and slowly drop off to 135,000.

Even assuming that cities 101 - 300 had a population of 200,000 each, which they don't, that's only 40 million people. That's only 12.5% of the US population.

So, assuming that all people in those cities vote (they don't), and all those people vote the same way (they don't), that still wouldn't be nearly enough to get to the presidency.

[Tiberius]

Also, if the industries are important then any president should not and would not ignore them anyway.

The point of the president is to be the elected figurehead for the USA. I don't see why that person should be elected if they don't win the popular vote. If more people voted for your opponent than you, that doesn't make you an effective leader.

[abaris]

If more people voted for your opponent than you, that doesn't make you an effective leader.

Does it even make you an elected leader in the sense of democracy?

Effectiveness doesn't seem up for debate at the moment, since for many of his claims, this man has the legislative intruments at his disposal. I see very few issues a congress and senate led by republicans would oppose.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, I suppose that in theory every political decision could be made by referendum. Is that a good thing?