jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (4 posts)

US Election - What are the pros and cons of abolishing the Electoral College?

  1. alexandriaruthk profile image77
    alexandriaruthkposted 5 years ago

    US Election - What are the pros and cons of abolishing the Electoral College?

    What is your opinion about this?

  2. LandmarkWealth profile image80
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    The Electoral College is controversial.  Yet I think it plays quite an important role.  If we used a purely popular vote, you could be sure that all the Federal Tax dollars that are collected and then redisbursed by the Federal Gov't would end up almost exclusively in the populations centers, since those are the places that would control the election. Politicians would simply ignore smaller states and rural areas.  The founders understood this and it was part of the reason they created an electoral college.  Hence if you lived in a small state by populaton, eventually there would be no need to remain part of a National Union of States that collects your money, yet you never benefit by it.  The electoral college promotes democracy, yet still binds the nation together as a union.

    However, my personal view is it should be altered to allocate electoral votes by county rather than state.  If you are a conservative living in NY, your vote currently means nothing as Romney has no chance in NY.  Yet there are some conservative counties in NY.   If you're more politically liberal and live in Texas, you also might wish to stay home as Obama has no chance.  Yet there are some strong democrat counties in Texas.

    It would be more complicated initially, yet I would like to see electoral votes allocated via county based on the population of that county.  This way regardless of what party you are affiliated with, every state would become more important, while still preserving the concept of a Republic as a form of Gov't. No state could be completely written off by either party.  There are a couple of states that do not have to award all their electoral votes to once candidate.  Technically the States have the right to allocate according to any means they wish.  Yet currently most do it as an all or none apporach.  I think county by county would be much more inclusive.

  3. RavenBiker profile image60
    RavenBikerposted 5 years ago

    Landmarkwealth makes a good points.  It is true that the Electorial College protects the interests of the small states and keeps the larger states in check.

    I don't necessarily see a problem with the Electorial College.  The popular vote exceeded the Electorial vote only three times in American History with the 2000 election being the latest incidence.  What was infuriating in Florida is that the Florida Supreme Court decided the vote instead of counting all the votes and taking the issue from there.  "Hanging Chads" was a smoke screen giving an "out" for the Florida Court.  Florida is perhaps the most dysfunctional state when it comes to election rules and laws.  Doubt me?  Check the Presidential ballot for 2012---it will infuriate you---it did me.  Florida cheapens national elections and in my humblest opinion---elections in Florida are farces.

    What I would like to see is that the 48 states legislate the division of Electorial College votes much like as they are done in Nebraska and Maine.  The only way I feel this can happen is whenthird party candidates start capturing Electorial votes and the imaginations of regular voters.

  4. nanderson500 profile image84
    nanderson500posted 5 years ago

    I think the Electoral College should be modified to ensure that the popular vote winner wins the election. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it. As other people have said, it makes the candidates pay more attention to the smaller states and rural areas. Also, let's face it, it makes following the presidential election way more entertaining. Without the EC there would be no swing states.