For those who don't know: What are some thoughts on this institution? I personally think it is a bastardization of the idea of a Republic and true Democracy. The proof that it doesn't work is in the 2000 general election, when Al Gore won the popular vote and should have ascended to the Presidency, yet the electoral college failed to properly do their job and voted in instead George W. Bush. A failed institution if I ever saw one. INTELLIGENT POSTS ONLY, PLEASE.
I did a report on this from Hawaii's stand point. Here it is. James Terry Mr. Kogan American Government and Economics 27 February 2008 Electoral College in Hawaii There have been many ideas of reform for the Electoral College system however several stand out above the others: a direct popular election, proportional voting, congressional district voting, and the Humphrey compromise. In Hawaii and all other low populated, a direct popular vote would leave these states without much power and give all the power to large population centers. If the Electoral College is replaced with a proportional voting system, smaller states would have more power than the current system, because candidates would not be as worried since they will win some electoral votes and not have to worry about losing all the electoral votes in larger states. However, they would loses the ability to know that they will when all the votes from certain states and may campaign in those large states they normally would win. In addition to that, elections would have percentages of electoral votes, which could lead to some confusion. If the Humphrey compromise were used, small states like Hawaii would not be affected much. However people’s votes would be count more than they do now, since the rest of the electoral votes (the two that are not a bonus for the most popular in the state) would be proportional. This would allow smaller states to have more importance than only proportional voting because of the two bonus votes and then would have the benefits of proportional voting and not as many of it flaws. If the congressional district voting system were used, Hawaii and other small states would be up for grabs like they are currently, but would split up states and eliminate the winner-take-all system, but no allow direct popular vote. The congressional district method is a compromise between our current system and direct popular vote. However, from a small state’s view, our current system of election is the best for Hawaii and the other small states. These states hold little importance, and any reform would take away some of the importance. On the other hand, from the view of a citizen from any state, the proportional voting system would be the fairest system. All in all, the proportional voting system would be the best for Hawaii. It does maintain the second most importance as a state from all the reforms and is the second most fair of all the reforms. It is the compromise, the direct election takes away the state’s importance, the current system is not fair because of the winner-take-all, and the Humphrey compromise adds on two bonus votes for the most popular candidate, even if said candidate one by one vote. Hawaii has had several close elections, but not many. One of the few close election was the 1976 election. In this election James Carter beat Gerald Ford by 2.53% or 7372 popular votes out of the 291,301 popular votes in Hawaii. If we used the direct election system, these votes would mean even less than they do now. If we used the Humphrey compromise, Gerald Ford would have gotten about two electoral votes and James Carter would still have gotten about four votes (two votes because of the proportional system and two votes because of the bonus votes). If we were to use the proportional voting system both candidates would have gotten two votes, which would be the best since Hawaii would still have been as important and the votes would reflect all the people. The 1980 election was also close in Hawaii. James Carter would have gotten a little less than two votes, Ronald Reagan a little less than what James Carter got, and John Anderson would have gotten a little less than one vote if we were using the proportional system. If we were using the Humphrey compromise, James Carter would have gotten a little less than 4 electoral votes, and the rest would be the same as the proportional system. If we were using a direct election at the time, the 303,287 popular votes would not matter much among the (about) 86,500,000 popular votes. The proportional system would have fairly divided up votes between the candidates, especially when the election was close. 3PT - Electoral College Primer 3PT - Electoral College Primer CNN.com - Election 2000 – Results CNN.com - Election 2000 - Results Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections Electoral College Reform Options electoral college reform options Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary — Infoplease.com Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary — Infoplease.com Presidential Selection- A Guide to Reform Presidential Selection: A Guide to Reform The Electoral College - Reform Options The Electoral College - Reform Options
Good writing. Yes, that has been a good point and very valid criticism of the electoral college system. Were it removed, the states with the smaller populations would effectively have little to no say in any and all major elections. So here the argument is if it really would be worth sacrificing a "even" say to make our country a true Republic. It really is a good argument! Without the electoral college system in place...what would happen? Food for thought, for sure.