The Electoral College

[Xzion]

I have come to the conclusion that the Electoral College is indirectly responsible for several political problems in the country. Because of the Electoral College, a 3rd party can never flourish in this country. Certain members of the country (gays, the Christian right, the NRA, minorities in general) hold such bitter partisanship because two parties hold a monopoly over the country due to the system (democrats and republicans). People choose to vote for one of these two parties based on views that one is passionate about, (gay rights, the right to bare arms, abortion, etc.) yet, the candidate representing such party may not hold the same views, so the individual is forced to choose the lesser of two evils, being that with the electoral college, ONLY two parties can flourish, and these two parties have total power to manipulate certain groups and regions of the country.

The Electoral College is also responsible for a low voter turn out (bush supporters in California stay home, Kerry supporters in Texas stay home as an example).

[Adex_Xeda]

To properly poll this question, it necessary to understand the original purpose of the electoral college. Why did they implement it? What administrative issue was it designed to address.

I'm not sure where to look.

[Etasi]

Because of the Electoral College, a 3rd party can never flourish in this country.

I don't think this is true. Even if the Electoral College were done away with, we'd still have a "winner take all" (pluralist - I think) system for all of our elections from the federal level and downwards. Logically it makes sense that you're going to wind up with a two party system when you have a pluralist rather than proportional system of representation. Of course, there are other factors that affect what kind of party system we have, but at any rate, I think the Electoral College is, at the very most, a minor factor.

At any rate, my personal feeling is that the Electoral College was originally instituted for reasons that don't really make sense anymore, and it's not really possible for it to serve it's original purpose at this point, either. It doesn't protect the country from anything; rather, it's basically irrelevant except in a very small number of cases, at which point it serves only to divide public opinion.

I'd love to argue that we should do away with the Electoral College because it would increase voter participation (not because I hate the institution but rather because anything that makes more people vote is great), but sadly I don't think that's the case. The Electoral College only affects one election. What of all the other elections with very low turnout that have no such excuse?

[Etasi]

To properly poll this question, it necessary to understand the original purpose of the electoral college. Why did they implement it? What administrative issue was it designed to address.

I'm not sure where to look.

Sorry to double post, but this (warning, pdf!) seems to be decent source. To quote from it:

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

And to summarize this source's take on the pros and cons of the Electoral College:

Arguments Against the Electoral College
Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election of the president generally do so on four grounds:
- the possibility of electing a minority president
- the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
- the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and
- its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Arguments for the Electoral College
Proponents of the Electoral College system normally defend it on the philosophical grounds that it:
- contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
- enhances the status of minority interests,
- contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a twoparty system, and
- maintains a federal system of government and representation.

[Krurk]

An advantage to the EC is that it provides small states with leverage in the election process.

Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate give a shit about small states like Vermont, Idaho and Montana when their votes would be only a small percentage of the overall election?

Instead you would have candidates focusing on the large states only and the small states would be completely ignored.

Does the EC have flaws? Absolutely.

[kyoukan]

communications and the media has progressed to the point where the electoral college is virtually meaningless anyway. in fact the opposite is true now where politicians can campaign in key states that technically be virtually irrelevant in the democratic process.

the electoral college had its uses back when the only way you'd get to hear a president speak is if you actually went down to the local train station or town square and listen to him speak. people have instant access every time the president or a candidate lifts his leg and farts now; there's no point to focussing on individual states all with equal power. it's counterproductive to democracy, and you get farcical shit happening like execution-happy, hypocritical, bible beating drug abusers and draft dodgers winning elections when they didn't get as many votes.

[Animale]

In my opinion the main drawback of the electoral college is the disenfranchismement of U.S. citizens who do not happen to live in a state. This includes U.S. citizens in the territories (Guam, Virgin Islands, Samoa) and the commonwealths (Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas). The system, as its set up now, creates a lower class of citizen based entirely upon where you live... which is a shame.

Animale

[Sueven]

This is basically a reiteration of what Etasi said, but Xzion, I think you're focusing your anger in the wrong place. What you've talked about in the past is an issue with our system of individual, pluralistic elections, not with the electoral college specifically. The presidency is certainly no place to start a third party anyhow. It seems to me that you'd better meet your goals by arguing for a proportional election system, where you vote for a party instead of particular candidates, and positions are filled by different parties depending on their percentage of the vote. While this system also has it's merits, I'd hate to be pigeonholed into voting for only one party instead of voting based on my beliefs. I would also like to see the two party system done away with, but I don't think the electoral college has a major impact on it, and I don't like proportional election, so it makes the whole process kind of complex.

Edit: Good lord that was incoherent. Let me know if you can't understand it.

[archeiron]

I applaud the psychological experiment added to this thread. I suggest that we try the same poll in six months with Yes on top and No on bottom to see how the outcome varies. Well done, Xzion.

I have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion. The Electoral College exists; that is enough.

[Etasi]

... I don't like proportional election, so it makes the whole process kind of complex.

Just curious, because I've never really heard any arguments against it (haven't debated it much period aside from the occasional "maybe that would be nice" comment), why do you dislike proportional representation?

I'd apologize for derailing the thread but it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere.

[Sueven]

I don't like the idea of voting for a party. I like to think that I have relatively diverse and complex political views, and I doubt that a single party could encompass those views to the extent that a slate of candidates that I select based on my own research and opinions would. I would feel uncomfortable throwing my support to an organization instead of a person. Plus, generally in such a system, the party doesn't even have to reveal who they're assigning to what job until after the election results. I would hate to vote for the republicans and watch them assign Rick Santorum to a position that I was hoping Olympia Snowe would fill.

[Chmee]

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-04.html

An article that points to some recent research indicating that winner take all systems may typically result in less government spending. I would take this with a grain of salt. Correlation doesn't prove causation and something like this would be very hard to control for other factors. Still kind of interesting.