Anonymous asked this question on 11/15/2000:
I am doing reasearch on the pro's and con's of the electoral college. Could you please send me some pro's and con's Thank You!!!!!!!!
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/15/2000:
Pro's:
* Filters the vote so in case of regional antagonism there's a reasonable solution (which was the founders' intent).
* Gives small states a larger say; otherwise they'd be entirely ignored (also the founders' intent).
* Provides a framework for oganizing a campaign. Without it, candidates wouldn't have a focus like they do now.
Con's:
* Popular vote winner might lose.
* It's complicated.
* We no longer need the time-delay (etc., also the founders' intent) due to better communication and transportation.
Shouldn’t we change this outdated electoral system?
Not necessarily. That would require amending the Constitution, and there is unlikely to be enough support to do that (amending the Constitution is hard work). If Gore wins an electoral victory while Bush wins the popular vote, it’s possible there will be sufficient initiative to make an Amendment. A more likely result would be that Bush comes back again in 2004; that was the basis of Andrew Jackson’s victory in 1828, after losing the electoral vote while winning the popular vote in 1824. Rather than amend the Constitution, states could simply follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and decide electoral votes proportional to the popular vote instead of on a winner-takes-all basis. That would effectively remove the Electoral College without amending the Constitution.
See http://www.issues2000.org/recent.htm#ElectoralCollege
rfr6 asked this question on 11/8/2000:
What is it,Why do we have it and how does it work
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/8/2000:
How does the Electoral College work?
Basically, each state’s popular vote determines which candidate gets all of the state’s electoral votes; if a candidate wins by one vote or one million votes, he gets all of that state’s electoral votes. The electoral vote count equals the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators (which means the electoral vote is proportional to population for large states, with a minimum of 3 votes for small states). The Electoral College adds up the electoral votes in each state; if one candidate gets a majority (270 votes), he wins; if none do, the House of Representatives decides. To further complicate matters, Maine and Nebraska split their electoral vote, instead of the winner-takes-all system in the other states.
Which counts more, the electoral vote or the popular vote?
If Bush wins the electoral vote, Bush becomes President, even if Gore wins the popular vote, which it appears he has.
What if there’s an electoral vote tie?
In the unlikely event of a 269-to-269 tie in the electoral vote, the House of Representatives will decide who becomes President. In that case, Bush is sure to win, since each state gets one vote, and Bush leads in 31 states (with 26 needed to win). The House vote does not necessarily reflect the popular vote nor the electoral vote; each state will cast its single vote for whichever party has a majority in that state’s congressional delegation. A state-by-state prediction of the House votes can be surmised from the current House delegations. By that measure, Bush leads 26 states to 17, with 7 evenly split. These will also change in Tuesday’s election, but the current party representation is a good indicator of the expected results. At this point, an electoral tie is impossible; it all hinges on Florida.
If the popular vote doesn’t count, why should I vote?
The popular vote does count, since that is the means by which the electoral vote is determined in each state. The state-by-state popular vote is why the candidates are focusing on “battleground states” (those in which the popular vote is too close to call still, such as Florida, Oregon, and Arkansas). But since the overall popular vote isn’t relevant, states in which the electoral vote is a foregone conclusion have not been visited much by the candidates.
Shouldn’t we change this outdated electoral system?
Not necessarily. That would require amending the Constitution, and there is unlikely to be enough support to do that (amending the Constitution is hard work). If Gore wins an electoral victory while Bush wins the popular vote, it’s possible there will be sufficient initiative to make an Amendment. A more likely result would be that Bush comes back again in 2004; that was the basis of Andrew Jackson’s victory in 1828, after losing the electoral vote while winning the popular vote in 1824. Rather than amend the Constitution, states could simply follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and decide electoral votes proportional to the popular vote instead of on a winner-takes-all basis. That would effectively remove the Electoral College without amending the Constitution.
Source: http://issues2000.org/recent.htm#Electoral
terrynruth asked this question on 11/7/2000:
I live in a state where my vote very often does not count because of the Electoral College. I try to vote for the best man regardless of party but if my choice of presidential candidate is not a democrat I lose. Massachusetts was the only state carried by George McGovern! How can we get the congress to eliminate the Electoral College and have the Popular vote decide?
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/7/2000:
The first question is, "Is the system broken?" I'm not so sure it is -- the guy who wins the popular vote almost always DOES win the Electoral vote, after all. It would be a strange election indeed if it didn't come out that way -- but of course, it COULD (and iut might today!). So let's assume there is a POTENTIAL of it being "broken" so it should then be disbanded.
Then the second question is, "What does it cost to fix it?" The way to look at that question is to compare the costs saved (by removing the Electoral College) with the costs we'd have to spend to change it (via a Constitutional Amendment).
Neither of the costs here are very high in financial terms -- I think the Electors are volunteers, doing it as a duty of the Party Faithful. And the financial cost of an amendment aren't too high either -- people LOVE to volunteer for that sort of thing! So "disbanding" it wouldn't cost much in terms of dollars.
The real costs here are the political costs, which means this is a question of "political economy." The first rule of political economy is that you can only act when the time is ripe. You can't pass a constitutional amendment without a lot of dedicated people (and even then it's hard!) which means the political cost is very high. To muster up that political will, there has to be that hue and cry based on a BIG reason -- a crisis, or a candidate with a mission who gets a "mandate", or SOMETHING. Then this issue would be ripe for change.
The crisis in this case, I think, would have to be that the winner of the Electoral vote was the loser of the popular vote. People would be disillusioned; politicians would be screaming from soapboxes; the press would be full of the history of the Electoral College; and maybe an amendment would then pass. But not now; not without that sort of crisis -- it just has too high a political cost.
That's the only way Congress can do it -- via an Amendment. But there IS another way -- the states can do it themselves. The states can decide their own methods of sending electors to the electoral college. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, do NOT use the winner-take-all system -- they divide up the electors based partially on the popular vote count. The other 48 states could simply follow that lead, and the Electoral College would become a lot less important, without any need for Congressional action.
silviamartinez16 asked this question on 12/4/2000:
Describe the differences in intent of Framers for Electoral College and as practiced today.
JesseGordon gave this response on 12/5/2000:
Intent of Framers vs. today:
* The Framers wanted to limit the direct election of the president; preferring to have more educated, more experienced people make that decision. Today we trust ourselves to make this decision ourselves. This same debate came up with direct election of Senators; we originally did not have that right, and now we do.
* The Framers wanted to empower small states more, as part of the same great compromise that created a Senate with representation by state instead of by population. Today, a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the electoral vote seems unfair.
* The Framers wanted to allow time for the news of each state's election to reach the Capitol. That's the reason for the delay in the meeting of the Electoral College and the further delay before the inauguration. Today, modern communication and transportation makes that unneeded.
acsherry@..., a user from 4anything.com, asked this question on 10/2/2000:
How many US Presidential candidates lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote?
JesseGordon gave this response on 10/3/2000:
Presidents who were elected without an electoral majority (with percentage of popular vote in parentheses):
1. (48.0%) Rutherford B Hayes, 1876
2. (47.8%) Benjamin Harrison, 1888
3. (39.8%) Abraham Lincoln, 1860
4. (30.9%) John Quincy Adams, 1824
Details:
1. The Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, won more votes than Hayes but was one electoral vote short of a majority in the electoral college. There were twenty disputed electoral votes from four states. An Electoral Commission was appointed by Congress to consider the disputed votes and by a majority vote of 8 to 7 the Commission gave all of them to Hayes.
2. Grover Cleveland obtained 48.6% of the popular vote, but fewer electoral college votes than Harrison.
3. The Democrats' 47.6% share was split between two candidates, so Lincoln won with a plurality but not a majority.
4. Adams received fewer popular votes than Andrew Jackson (41.3%) but was elected by the House no candidate having had a majority of the elctoral college vote.
Source: http://www.issues2000.org/list_frm_pshare.htm
When there's not an electoral majority, the president is elected by the House; that has happened twice:
1. Thomas Jefferson February 17,1801
2. John Quincy Adams February 9, 1825
Details:
1. In the 1800 election the Electoral College was still required to vote for two candidates, the President to be the candidate with the most votes and the Vice-President the one with the next highest number. Jefferson and Aaron Burr both received 73 votes. There being a tie the election went to the House where Jefferson won on the 36th ballot, and Burr became Vice-President.
2. In the election of 1824 [following the first popular vote] no candidate had a majority in the electoral college. The House elected Adams over Andrew Jackson.
Source: http://www.issues2000.org/list_frm_byhouse.htm