Electoral College

**JOEBIALEK** · 12 Jan 2005, 09:03 PM

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome.

If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

**cka** · 12 Jan 2005, 09:06 PM

right on

oh I forgot to ask, what exactly is the point of this explanation of the electoral college?

**Master** · 12 Jan 2005, 09:10 PM

Fuckin' A

**piku** · 12 Jan 2005, 10:05 PM

Or Bush won and stop crying about it.

**Josh** · 13 Jan 2005, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by cka

right on

oh I forgot to ask, what exactly is the point of this explanation of the electoral college?

Discussion.

Thats what this place is for.

**Diff-chan** · 13 Jan 2005, 01:20 AM

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count.

This doesnt need a Constitutional Amendment. The states can slice up their electoral votes in any way they see fit. It just so happens that they chose the all or nothing system.

And also keep in mind that the "winner take all" system will still stand in the end. Because we're only voting in one guy, a single member district so to speak. Theres always going to be a high degree of disproportionality in the end. Nearly half the electorate is always gonna lose. Its part of the Presidential system, no matter how that President ends up being picked.

**Anthony** · 13 Jan 2005, 01:32 AM

I THINK The electorates were originally not bound to vote for any specific candidate, so I think it was another degree of seperation for the lower intelligence of the population, who would not know enough about national issues to vote in a way favorable to the advancing of the country. So they would vote for someone more knowledgeable on national issues who has similar morals ect. to them, the electorate. I could care less which way it went.

**Diff-chan** · 13 Jan 2005, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Destin

I THINK The electorates were originally not bound to vote for any specific candidate, so I think it was another degree of seperation for the lower intelligence of the population, who would not know enough about national issues to vote in a way favorable to the advancing of the country. So they would vote for someone more knowledgeable on national issues who has similar morals ect. to them, the electorate. I could care less which way it went.

I highly doubt this. The American government was not put in place to lord over a group of idiots, the framers had full confidence in the intelligence and ability of the people.