The Town Hall Archives

Jonathan

I used to be undecided. But now they're saying we might have to wait about two weeks to find out if the electoral debunks the popular vote with Bush leading by 3.5 million votes! Rawr! Evil or Very Mad

We don't need this every election. We shouldn't need to wait two weeks to find out if the popular vote rules. I'm slightly annoyed. Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, what one will it'll be in 2008?!?!?!?! Mad

Thoughts?

-Jonathan

Jared · Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:27 am Post subject:

No time to reply now -- exam day, plus I was up quite late waiting to see if Ohio would ever get called or if Kerry might actually do the right thing and concede (silly me to presume that he might -- so let me simply ask this for the present:

Were the whole thing reversed, with Kerry leading the popular vote and Bush the electoral (you know, like in 2000), would you still want it disbanded?

Anyway, I'll give my opinion on this matter at a later date.

Jonathan · Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:00 pm Post subject:

ok, I need to explain. I've changed my mind (again). When I started this thread it was when Ohio was in the air (b/c I was watching cnn) and not in a good mood simply b/c I didn't want a repeat of 2000 (36 days and what not). I guess what would be a better question is, is this worth the risk every four years?

-Jonathan

STRYPER · Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject:

I'll wait until Jared unloads the full answer but for now, I would say that there are so many ways voting could be manipulated and abused if it were simply by a popular vote. The College helps keep things balanced and in check. It could turn into a nightmare without it.

Eugene Blackgaard · Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:08 pm Post subject:

Ah man... waiting for a Jared answer is like waiting for a slow donwload... of something really awesome! It's definatley worth the wait. Wink

alwaysHis324 · Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:32 pm Post subject:

I guess my one thought is that a third party candidate has no chance under the electoral college system. At least thats how I see it.

If thats not true though... please let me know Very Happy

yeah... I can't wait to see what Jared says too.

Jonathan · Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:51 am Post subject:

Jared · Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:27 am Post subject:

Jared · Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:36 pm Post subject:

Well, I think I'll finally get around to responding to this. I have nothing all that important or exciting to say on the matter; I'd just like to provide a few thoughts.

The Electoral College serves a purpose -- several, actually. It wasn't created just because the framers were bored. I do not presuppose that every action the framers took is sacrosanct, but I do believe that the fact that they considered it important is enough to merit a look into the reasons for its existence.

The principle reason for the Electoral College is to insure that all states are adequately represented in the selection of the President. While the system is of course imperfect, it does skew somewhat favorably toward smaller states, giving them the ability to have some say in the outcome.

The Electoral College also localizes elections and forces candidates to address a wide range of issues. Were it abolished, other, more disconcerting strategies might be utilized. Rather than selling himself to the nation, say, a Democratic candidate might spend all his time in New York and California, trying to get turnout close to 100%, completely ignoring the other forty-eight states. Republicans, meanwhile, might campaign only in the south or west. It would become all about targeted turnout and not about appealing to the nation at large.

Needing only to turn out one's base in greater numbers, candidates wouldn't be required to address regional issues on the campaign trail or in office. They'd never have to take a position on issues important to specific segments of society, let alone implement them. This would do the nation a great disservice.

Such a change would also lead to a much narrower focus on urban areas. If it's all about turning out your party faithful, you won't want to waste people on going door to door in rural areas. Instead, you want 100% turnout in targeted areas.

There might be an upside: voters in states that are hardly considered swing states (New York, for example) suddenly have some meaning in addition to their clout. This, however, at the expense of smaller states which are no longer worth worrying about.

There are other reasons to be concerned about the abolition of the Electoral College. Consider, for example, the matter of recounts. Presently, if an election result is contested, a single state's ballots must be re-totaled. If we went to a more direct system, a recount would involve the entire nation!

Additionally, vote fraud would become much easier and more frequent, as inflated totals would become easier to hide in the vast numbers and much more important. If a candidate won a major metropolitan area by 79% when he was only polling at 70% there, would anyone notice? Probably not -- but an election could hinge on it!

And what of voting consistency? Every state sets its own rules about who can vote, how they vote, when they will vote. If we go to national elections, what will happen? What if a state which is expected to go heavily for Candidate A decides to allow people to register to vote on Election Day (which is done in some states), while in other states, you have to be registered by a month beforehand? Turnout will be larger in the former state... lending aid to Candidate A!

Or what if one state permits felons to vote and another does not? When each state's totals are independent of the other, this is a statewide matter with no bearing on the rest of the election. If these vote totals go toward a larger count, however, the situation changes significantly.

Not to mention states pouring lots of money into GOTV drives in states leaning heavily toward one candidate, or perhaps longer poll hours than other states have. Or maybe early voting, or different absentee balloting rules. The vote could be manipulated in any of a hundred ways.

The Electoral College accentuates groups in order to pit faction against faction. A popular vote tends to bury them instead. It forces the election to go national (or closer to national than it otherwise would). It makes it necessary for candidates to stake out positions. It makes sure that small states are still adequately represented.

For these reasons (which are articulated much more clearly by many others), I support the Electoral College system. It's far from perfect, but it's a lot better than turning the presidential race into an experiment in direct democracy.

Jonathan · Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:28 am Post subject:

Thanks, that helps me understand it more.

-Jonathan