Continuing with the political posts…

My main qualm with the Electoral College is that technically the electoral voters vote any way they want. They are supposed to vote the way of their constiuents, yet they don’t have to.

For example in 1958 an alabama elector voted forJones (President) and Talmadge (Vice-President), two people who were not on the ticket. In 1976, a washington elector voted for Ronald Regan, he wasn’t on the ticket then either. In 1988 a west virginia elector voted for the Vice-President as the President and the President as the Vice-President.

Another problem is that there have been times when electoral votes aren’t even cast, thus making all the votes that that elector represented moot. This happened in 1820 when three electors died before casting votes. In 1832, 2 electoral votes from Maryland weren’t cast.

Finally, the electoral votes aren’t representitive of the people. In 1892 the People’s party candidate got 1,027,329 popular votes for President, yet no electoral votes. The winner, Grover Cleveland, got 5,556,918 popular votes and 227 electoral votes. In 1912, Republican Party candidate Taft received 3,483,922 popular votes for President and only got 8 electoral votes. The winner, Wilson, got 6,293,454 popular votes and 435 electoral votes. 1924, Progressive Party candidate LaFollette received 4,822,856 popular votes for President and a mere 13 electoral votes. The winner, Calvin Coolidge, got 15,725,016 poular votes and 382 electoral votes. Coolidge’s main opponent got 8,386,503 popular votes and 136 electoral votes. In 1980, Independent candidate John B. Anderson received 5,719,437 popular votes for President, but no electoral votes. Winner, Reagan, had 43,901,812 popular votes and 489 electorals. Lastly, the most recent example is Ross Perot. He’s on this list twice. In 1992, Ross, as an Indepedent, received 19,741,065 popular votes for President, but no electoral votes. Bill Clinton got 44,908,254 popular votes and 370 electorals. Then in 1996, Ross also received no elctorals, though he got 7,866,284 popular votes. Bill Clinton, this time, got 45,590,703 popular votes and 379 electorals.

In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote and the electoral vote, however because neither had a majority, the choice went to the House of Representitives and John Q. Adams won over Andrew Jackson. Also in 1876, Rutheford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samual J. Tilden, yet won the electoral. And as well know, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore, yet won the electoral. So not only does the electoral votes not always match up with the popular. But people who have won neither the electoral, nor the popular, have become preseident.

What is the point of all those statistics? The electoral college isn’t representitive of the American people’s will and should be removed in favor of a straight popular vote.

5 Responses to “Begone With The Electoral College”

  1. Kris Says:

    Eliminating the electoral college would force the administration of elections into the hands of the federal government. By allowing states to cast electoral votes, you’re allowing states to run elections how they deem fit. This also allows a state to come together within itself and decide on a canidate and give its full support to that candidate (through rewarding all electoral votes). If you think every person’s vote should directly matter, why don’t we all just vote on every piece of legislation that goes through congress? When our senators cast a vote in congress, they’re casting a vote for the whole state, and there’s no reason the presidential election should be different.

    One of the most important features of this country is the limited role of the federal government, and that should not be changed.

  2. James Says:

    What does the administration of the elections have anything to do with the actual election of president, senators, etc.? I’m under the assumption that people who count votes and what not, i.e. administer the election aren’t miscounting votes for their own motives. If we are to assume that is not the case, then why vote at all if they’re just going to alter it to their own choices.

    And as for “allowing states to come together within itself”, uh, who cares. Everything I posted in the original post here shows why that isn’t necessarily the best case. The problem is that not all of the state supports a particular candidate. You force a vote upon everyone when the will of the people, as a whole, isn’t just that candidate, it is only the will of the majority, and sometimes not even that is the case, as shown in the original post. So explain to me what I’m missing.

    And you say that everyone voting a piece of legislation is a bad thing. The problem is that, that particular situation – everyone voting for every piece of legislation – is not an ideal situation. People have lives, it’s simply impossible for everyone to keep up on everything. Hence, this is why we have congressmen and the other associated political folk. It will be their job to keep up on it, assuming they get elected. The president, however, is the symbol of the american people. Electing a president once every four years isn’t that much to ask out of the american people. See the difference? Once every four years vs. arguably every minute of the day. One is practical where the other is completely not.

    The other problem with your arguement is that you think that there is (or so it seems, at least) that there is only state or federal government. Do you not see that there is more to it than that. Although I’m not limiting to it, there are at least individual, state, and federal. You neglect the individual category. If everyone voted then it would be the ultimate limitation of the federal government. They would have no effect whatsoever. If anything by allowing the popular vote to dictate the president you completely limit the role fo the government.

    ( Sidenote, if any of this doesn’t sound coherent, I’ve been drinking, so, I don’t know, deal with it :-) )

  3. Richard Says:

    Without the electorial college, the votes of almost all states would not matter. The major population center, LA, New York, Chicago, ect would elect the president. Regardless of how the rest of the country, states like Kansas, Montana, and Ohio felt.

  4. James Says:

    How many states did Kerry win this year? Nothing near the amount that Bush got. I think my biggest qualm is simply that the popular vote doesn’t technically matter one bit. That is wrong.

  5. Dominic Atibil Says:

    I agree with this article because why should the common people vote when a group of less people will just make the ultimate desicion for us. This is one of the dumbest things I believe in the voting process, besides the fact that people still have to go to work on voting day and by the time most people come home they are too tired to even get up, let alone stand in line for hours to vote when their vote really doen’t count.
    Peace out!!!!!

Drop Some Knowledge On Us…