[djacques]

Way to make the election super-boring.

[Adrian71]

I always thought it should be one state, one (electoral) vote. Puts every state into play as equally important. The first candidate to win 26 states (counting D.C., so there would never be a 25-25 tie) would win.

Obviously, the large states would never go for it.

[scorpio516]

Quite possibly, this is the dumbest American electoral idea, ever. It's anti-American even.
We have an electoral college because Americans are too dumb to make their own choices. Our lives are too busy to make all the decisions to run a country. That's why we elect representatives in the first place.
Now we want to not only scrap that BUT ALSO scrap the entire concept of states too? What's the point to have individual political separations in a state if it doesn't matter?

Besides, today electoral college voters can vote for who ever they want to - they don't have to follow the voters of the state. It has happened before, but almost never does.

Originally Posted by Adrian71

I always thought it should be one state, one (electoral) vote. Puts every state into play as equally important. The first candidate to win 26 states (counting D.C., so there would never be a 25-25 tie) would win.

Obviously, the large states would never go for it.

For good reason. It discredits the voice of the people. If each state had the same voice, it would mean the 2.5 million people in Wyoming, DC, VT, and ND are worth the same as the 104 million people in California, Texas, Florida, and New York. In other words, the residents of WY, DC, VT, ND lives are worth about 50x as much as a Texan, Floridian, New Yorker, and Californian. You can see the inherent problem with this...

[tuebor]

In light of the recent election, I wonder if there will be renewed interest in this proposal.

As I was rereading some of the posts on this thread, another idea occurred to me: what if the Great Lakes states made a pact just among themselves? What if all the states that border a Great Lake agreed to pool their electoral votes and and give them to the candidate who got the most votes, not nationwide, but just in those states? (Or maybe all except New York, since New York is already in the nationwide pool, and also probably has a different political agenda than the other GL states.)

[Coldjensens]

Why would we want to do that?

the first proposal was to essentially dissolve the republic and form a new country - some form of national democracy that woudl be run entirely by New York and California. No thank you.

the second idea wold be to ignore the vote of Michgian people and essentially give our electoral votes to Chicago. Again, no thank you. I like living in the Republic that has worked for over 200 years. I do not think we need a new country because some people are upset that their candidate did not win this time.

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Why would we want to do that?

the first proposal was to essentially dissolve the republic and form a new country - some form of national democracy that woudl be run entirely by New York and California. No thank you.

the second idea wold be to ignore the vote of Michgian people and essentially give our electoral votes to Chicago. Again, no thank you. I like living in the Republic that has worked for over 200 years. I do not think we need a new country because some people are upset that their candidate did not win this time.

Precisely. This is basically like the sport fans demanding to change the rules of the game because their team lost on an (important) technicality. And to do this retroactively, no less.

[tuebor]

Ummagumma -- I never said anything about applying it retroactively! I don't think anybody else did either.

Coldjensens -- Would the 2nd idea give the city of Chicago too much clout? Maybe, maybe not. Just winning Chicago would not be enough to carry the whole region.

The rest of what you are saying here is WAY overblown. It would not "dissolve the republic", though it would make it incrementally more democratic. Getting rid of the electoral college would still leave all the essential elements of the Constitution in place.

It's not just about this election; this thread was started a couple of years ago, and people have been debating the value of the electoral college for much longer than that.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by tuebor

In light of the recent election, I wonder if there will be renewed interest in this proposal.

As I was rereading some of the posts on this thread, another idea occurred to me: what if the Great Lakes states made a pact just among themselves? What if all the states that border a Great Lake agreed to pool their electoral votes and and give them to the candidate who got the most votes, not nationwide, but just in those states? (Or maybe all except New York, since New York is already in the nationwide pool, and also probably has a different political agenda than the other GL states.)

I think that's a bad idea.

I think this whole proposal is a bad idea. If Michigan voted for a particular candidate by popular vote, but awarded its electoral votes to the other candidate? Talk about starting a revolt.

I do however think the apportionment of electoral college votes should be based purely on population. Right now, it favors rural and small states. ie, someone living in a rural state has a lot more voting power than I do living in a populated state.

North Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes with less than a million people. Michigan gets 16 with 10 Million. A North Dakota voter is twice as powerful as me in the election.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by tuebor

Ummagumma -- I never said anything about applying it retroactively! I don't think anybody else did either.

Coldjensens -- Would the 2nd idea give the city of Chicago too much clout? Maybe, maybe not. Just winning Chicago would not be enough to carry the whole region.

The rest of what you are saying here is WAY overblown. It would not "dissolve the republic", though it would make it incrementally more democratic. Getting rid of the electoral college would still leave all the essential elements of the Constitution in place.

It's not just about this election; this thread was started a couple of years ago, and people have been debating the value of the electoral college for much longer than that.

Winning Chicago would be all that mattered for winning the region. There is always a relatively close split. Thus, Chicago would be all that matters.

What you are missing is our country is not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. The EC exists because the States elect the president, not the people. If you want a popular national democracy rather than a republic, you will need to make a new country. Maybe you want some sort of regional republic, I do not see any advantage in that. Basically we woudl be giving up whatever state sovereignty we have. No one would bother campaigning here or doing anything to benefit our state. Only Chicago woudl matter. In fact, under your scenario, if Ohio joined in, Chicago would potentially determine the national elections - period. Not that Chicago is the land of corruption or anything, but I am just not comfortable with that concept.

I like our republic. It does not always work to my satisfaction but I do not see handing control of the country to the few most populated areas as the solution I want. Frankly our system works fairly well and keeps the country zig zagging across the center rather than veering off to the extreme right or left.

[tuebor]

I am well aware that our country is not a democracy in the sense as James Madison understood that word. If you think removing the electoral college would turn us into a national democracy, then let me reacquaint you with the fundamentals of our Constitution that would remain in place if the electoral college were abolished:

Federalism
Separation of powers
Checks and balances
Bicameral legislature
Independent appointed federal judiciary
Civilian control of the military
Free press

There is far more to our system than just the presidency.

And now for some history (I'm sure you know all this but maybe not everyone does): our system was much less democratic at its inception. In 1787, only white male landowners over 21 could vote, there was no popular vote for president or senators, many states had established churches, slavery was explicitly allowed by the Constitution, and there was no bill of rights. All that has changed, but 229 years, one civil war, and 25 amendments later, we are still the USA. I like our republic too!

Would abolishing the electoral college effectively abolish states and make the country one big national state? No. See above.

Would abolishing the electoral college make our system too democratic for our own good? Maybe.

Would abolishing the electoral college allow a small number of major population centers to dominate the country? Maybe.

Those two "maybes" are why I find this question interesting. I don't have a firm position here. The problem has theoretical, practical, and mathematical aspects that I have not been able to untangle and sort out to my satisfaction.