jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (8 posts)

Is the Electoral College obsolete in American elections?

  1. Marcy Goodfleisch profile image96
    Marcy Goodfleischposted 16 months ago

    Is the Electoral College obsolete in American elections?

    The popular votes and the electoral votes in the 2016 election differed. What do you think should happen to the electoral college?

  2. profile image0
    Copper Manposted 16 months ago

    Like it or not, the Electoral College promises to affect elections far into the future. Why? It will take a Constitutional amendment to effect a change, an event unlikely to occur anytime soon.

  3. Tom T profile image69
    Tom Tposted 16 months ago

    I hope so.  The US is a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.  Democracies tend to implode because of the self interest of the majority.  When popular vote is the means of decision, it is the old adage, of 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.   The tyranny of the majority is sometimes a bad thing. 

    The Electoral College is intended to give states a say in how our republic is run. If we went solely on popular vote, candidates would just go to the most populist cities and campaign, ignoring the suburb and rural areas of the country.  States like New Hampshire with 4 Electoral votes and Iowa with 6 got attention from both candidates because their votes count.

    This is important because It builds coalitions with differing constituencies. New Hampshire and Iowa have different interests.  Candidates went there and listened to those interests.  If we went strictly popular vote, candidates would just campaign in the urban areas of California, New York and Texas. 

    In short, the electoral college insures a broader collection of diverse interests is heard by candidate and makes our country less susceptible to tyrannies of the majority.

    1. Jackie Lynnley profile image89
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Very well said and certainly worked to the better this time for sure.

  4. ptosis profile image76
    ptosisposted 16 months ago


    The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.

    Since electors are determined by how many Congress members there are per state and since the number on Representatives was based on the 3/5 rule then the Electoral College can be thought of as a holdover  from slavery.

    USC Article II Section 1
    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    1787: 3/5,  the Three-Fifth Compromise has it's roots in the Continental Congress in 1783;
    Article I, Section 2, Clause 3
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    Thirteenth Amendment 1865 rendered the Three-Fifths Compromise  obsolete.
    1969 when the House of Representatives voted 338-70 to abolish the college and substitute a people's vote. President Nixon endorsed it, and opinion polls suggested that the required three-quarters of the states needed for constitutional amendment would agree. Died in the Senate
    Laughing at this :
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-re … l-college/
    Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

  5. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 16 months ago

    No, I would actually say the opposite so that the middle of the nation isn't steamrolled by the very different liberal elites on the coasts.

  6. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image59
    Dont Taze Me Broposted 16 months ago


    "The popular votes and the electoral votes in the 2016 election differed."

    Not exactly true because the election campaigns were both running to get electoral votes, not popular votes. Therefore it is really not an indication of what the popular vote would be if there was no electoral college at all and the winner was only based on the popular vote. So says the Washington Post a publication I assume "Lisavolraith" has no problem with.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … -election/ 

    So actually to say anyone won the popular vote is meaningless because neither candidate was campaigning for the popular vote nor was the election about the popular vote. The only way to actually know what the popular vote could be would have been to run an election based on the popular vote and not the electoral college and this video explains that the founders so feared such a tyranny of the majority.


  7. marcuscaine profile image92
    marcuscaineposted 14 months ago

    I think the Electoral College should stay. It was designed to protect the minority from the majority.