Election Question - Electoral College

[SoonerinSECland]

Okay, we seem to have several folks in here who appear educated on the US Government's steps, policies, and procedures much more than I am. That being said, I'd like to get opinions on the Electoral College system of elections.

My question is this: "why do we still need the electoral college for presidential elections?". Why does a popular vote not suffice for ensuring that every, single vote counts? Not trying to stir the pot here, really just trying to understand.

Gracias!

[Serenity Now]

My wife and I were discussing this in the car this weekend. My interpretation (sans any research) is that I like it because, much like the Senate/House makeup, it gives smaller states relatively more power. I think there's a very slippery slope where a small state gets almost no power as far as the election of the President goes. Oklahoma will get no more than flyovers from any of the Presidential players after primary season.

[SoonerinSECland]

But why does it matter on a state-by-state basis? Who cares if Rhode Island is as influential as Texas or California? It should be the overall will of the people regardless of where they choose to take up residence. Let's say, for example, that we saw a trend of liberals largely move to densely populated areas and a migration of conservatives to more rural areas (or vice versa). In the end, it's your largely populated areas that win, not necessarily the overall people's choice. You know that California will go Democrat, so all of the Republican votes are wasted and that Oklahoma will go Republican, so every Democrat vote is wasted. I just can't understand why the popular vote isn't used and that every, single vote matters.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't see the electoral college going away anytime soon. The reason is that the powers in the political parties think they can use it to game the system and allow their candidate to win w/o having a majority of votes. Who the process favors will vary on an election by election basis, but political lifers think on a much longer term scale. They feel comfortable with the way the system is now and don't want to give up a tool from their arsenal on some election down the road.

[Serenity Now]

But why does it matter on a state-by-state basis? Who cares if Rhode Island is as influential as Texas or California? It should be the overall will of the people regardless of where they choose to take up residence. Let's say, for example, that we saw a trend of liberals largely move to densely populated areas and a migration of conservatives to more rural areas (or vice versa). In the end, it's your largely populated areas that win, not necessarily the overall people's choice. You know that California will go Democrat, so all of the Republican votes are wasted and that Oklahoma will go Republican, so every Democrat vote is wasted. I just can't understand why the popular vote isn't used and that every, single vote matters.

I could see a system that toyed with giving out electoral college votes by state voter %. I think something more important than this would be campaign finance reform.

[okie52]

But why does it matter on a state-by-state basis? Who cares if Rhode Island is as influential as Texas or California? It should be the overall will of the people regardless of where they choose to take up residence. Let's say, for example, that we saw a trend of liberals largely move to densely populated areas and a migration of conservatives to more rural areas (or vice versa). In the end, it's your largely populated areas that win, not necessarily the overall people's choice. You know that California will go Democrat, so all of the Republican votes are wasted and that Oklahoma will go Republican, so every Democrat vote is wasted. I just can't understand why the popular vote isn't used and that every, single vote matters.

Until recently I was fine with the electoral college even with the occasional hiccup. But, as I've discovered, not only is the electoral college skewed by illegal immigration but so is our house of representatives.

The house of representatives is based on populations by each state rather than on populations of citizens in each state. Hence, states with large illegal immigrant populations are given greater weight than those with higher percentage citizen populations. If reps and the electoral college were to be based on citizen populations then high illegal immigrant states like CA, TX AZ, NJ and Fl would all lose reps.

RESULT OF THE CITIZEN-ONLY SCENARIO
However, if apportionment were done on the basis of equal
proportion representation of U.S. citizens in 2010, the results
would be very different. The states that would gain seats then
would be:
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Missouri
• Montana
• Ohio
• Oregon
• South Carolina

Those nine seats gained would be lost by the following states:
• Arizona
• California (4)
• Florida
• New Jersey
• Texas (2)

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer...pdf?docID=2061

Oklahoma also wouldn't have lost a rep in 2000 had this system been in place. W would have won in 2004 by 5 more electoral votes. Federal money is allocated based on the census for total populations rather than citizen populations.

Popular vote would reduce the vote to citizens only and diminish the impact of false representation in places like CA, TX, FL, AZ, & NJ.

[SoonerorLater]

But why does it matter on a state-by-state basis? Who cares if Rhode Island is as influential as Texas or California? It should be the overall will of the people regardless of where they choose to take up residence. Let's say, for example, that we saw a trend of liberals largely move to densely populated areas and a migration of conservatives to more rural areas (or vice versa). In the end, it's your largely populated areas that win, not necessarily the overall people's choice. You know that California will go Democrat, so all of the Republican votes are wasted and that Oklahoma will go Republican, so every Democrat vote is wasted. I just can't understand why the popular vote isn't used and that every, single vote matters.

Because as envisioned by the founding fathers, we are a union of individual states, even though the courts have trampled the 10th Amendment through the years. This was one of the safeguards that was inserted to prevent the ugly specter of pure democracy.

[Serenity Now]

Okie: that makes sense to me.

[okie52]

Okie: that makes sense to me.

Unfortunately there is very little awareness by the public of this problem although I'm surprised the states that have been losing reps like Michigan, Ohio, et al haven't been making more of a stink about it.

[Serenity Now]

the ugly specter of pure democracy.

I think that's what we've been spreading freely in the middle east. I think we all long for the days of dictatorships.

[SoonerorLater]

I think that's what we've been spreading freely in the middle east. I think we all long for the days of dictatorships.

Pure democracy is not much better than mob rule.