Should the American Electoral College System be abolished?

[Big Jim P]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

[Uiiop]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

Which is why we should let political minorities in those and other states to actually have an say in who picks the president. No?

The current system is the one that gives populous state the sole power. You're just in denial that NY and CA by themselves aren't actually that powerful.

[New Democratic Republic of Russia]

Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.

[San Lumen]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

That is not why the electoral college was created. Stop rewriting history to suit a narrative.

[Uiiop]

Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.

Pennsylvania is part of those "major population centers".

NY and CA don't actually outnumber other states. The other states just have an shit ton of people who agree with the majority of NY/CA.

[San Lumen]

Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.

Not why the electoral college was created.

California didn’t become a state till 1850. Washington became a state in 1889.

[Uiiop]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

That is not why the electoral college was created. Stop rewriting history to suit a narrative.

People care more about what they think are the practical results right now more than the reasoning on why they first did it.

You're just barking the wrong tree.

[Big Jim P]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

That is not why the electoral college was created. Stop rewriting history to suit a narrative.

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

[Uiiop]

That is not why the electoral college was created. Stop rewriting history to suit a narrative.

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

Yes, and it can be achieved via democratic states passing laws saying they will give their electors to the winner of the popular vote when the total number of states doing so reaches the number needed 270.

History Lesson

The origin of the electoral college starts at the constitutional convention, it wasn't a stroke of genius, it wasn't planned, it wasn't even wanted, it simply came to be because the large states wanted a popular vote and or the house to elect the president and the small states wanted each state to have one vote for the president. Well that wasn't going to work, so they decided that each state would get the same number of electors as reps and senators and that the state governments would decide how they wanted the election of the president to happen. That's it they literally punted the issue. Same with the supreme court lol.

This is incorrect.

The compromise brought about by disputes over the ability of larger states to outvote smaller states on the basis of population led to the Great Compromise of 1787, whereby each state was granted two senators regardless of population.

The intent of the Electoral College is clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers, notably Papers 10 and 68, whereby the College is supposed to protect the republic from both party factionalism and the risk of uninformed voters giving rise to popular demagoguery by placing the final selection of president in the hands of a disinterested elite.

It's true that Madison also argued in Federalist Paper 39 that the Electoral College allowed for combining the state-based electoral system of the Senate with the popular vote-based system of the House, but this was retrospective rather than initial intent.

Essentially, you've confused the Great Compromise with the rationale for the existence of the College. If it makes you feel better, it's a common enough error.

[San Lumen]

That is not why the electoral college was created. Stop rewriting history to suit a narrative.

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

No it wasn’t. It was so neither the slave nor free states could dominate the other. Plus if was meant to serve as a check on the people not to be a rubber stamp.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

This is incorrect.

The compromise brought about by disputes over the ability of larger states to outvote smaller states on the basis of population led to the Great Compromise of 1787, whereby each state was granted two senators regardless of population.

The intent of the Electoral College is clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers, notably Papers 10 and 68, whereby the College is supposed to protect the republic from both party factionalism and the risk of uninformed voters giving rise to popular demagoguery by placing the final selection of president in the hands of a disinterested elite.

It's true that Madison also argued in Federalist Paper 39 that the Electoral College allowed for combining the state-based electoral system of the Senate with the popular vote-based system of the House, but this was retrospective rather than initial intent.

Essentially, you've confused the Great Compromise with the rationale for the existence of the College. If it makes you feel better, it's a common enough error.

The rise of Trump also clearly shows the College failed at its stated goal.

[San Lumen]

The rise of Trump also clearly shows the College failed at its stated goal.

Yes. They should have overturned the result and caused a constitutional crisis.

[Reverend Norv]

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

This is incorrect.

The compromise brought about by disputes over the ability of larger states to outvote smaller states on the basis of population led to the Great Compromise of 1787, whereby each state was granted two senators regardless of population.

The intent of the Electoral College is clearly laid out in the Federalist Papers, notably Papers 10 and 68, whereby the College is supposed to protect the republic from both party factionalism and the risk of uninformed voters giving rise to popular demagoguery by placing the final selection of president in the hands of a disinterested elite.

It's true that Madison also argued in Federalist Paper 39 that the Electoral College allowed for combining the state-based electoral system of the Senate with the popular vote-based system of the House, but this was retrospective rather than initial intent.

Essentially, you've confused the Great Compromise with the rationale for the existence of the College. If it makes you feel better, it's a common enough error.

This is exactly right. It should also be noted that it's an open question among American constitutional scholars whether, and to what extent, the original rationales for our federal arrangements remained relevant after the adoption of the Reconstruction amendments. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments created a baseline of national citizenship, guaranteed by the national government, that had never existed before. Before the Civil War, the Constitution arguably regulated a union of and for the states; after the Civil War, the Constitution required a government of and for its citizens. There's a reason why this period is often called the Second Founding.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, more yes, even more yes, yet more yes, absolutely yes, 100% yes, YES.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

they don’t. states don’t. they shouldn’t. people should decide, not states. the electoral college is one of the stupidest electoral systems ever.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

That is not why the electoral college was created. Stop rewriting history to suit a narrative.

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

why should smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power? why should a wyoming citizen’s vote be worth so much more than a californian’s?

[San Lumen]

No. This is the United STATES of American. Cali and NY don't get to decide who is President.

they don’t. states don’t. they shouldn’t. people should decide, not states. the electoral college is one of the stupidest electoral systems ever.

Not having it would have given us Jackson four years earlier, Tilden would have won in 1876, Cleveland would have won in 1888, Gore in 2000 and no Trump.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.

No, they have to vie for power of a few swing states. the actual size doesn’t really matter.

[Forsher]

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

why should smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power? why should a wyoming citizen’s vote be worth so much more than a californian’s?

Compensation for living in Wyoming.

[San Lumen]

Absolutely not. If the Electoral College was abolished and based on just straight popularity vote, then presidential elections would be decided by California, New York, and Washington, with the rest of the states rendered pointless. With the Electoral College, a presidential candidate has to win over most of the country, not just a couple of major population centers.

No, they have to vie for power of a few swing states. the actual size doesn’t really matter.

exactly. No one campaigns in Wyoming in a general election.

[Forsher]

No, they have to vie for power of a few swing states. the actual size doesn’t really matter.

exactly. No one campaigns in Wyoming in a general election.

Shh, you're letting reality get in the way of the just so story.

[Uiiop]

It was created to give the STATES equal power, so that states with higher populations wouldn't dominate those with lower populations. I am rewriting nothing.

why should smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power? why should a wyoming citizen’s vote be worth so much more than a californian’s?

Oh yes an chance to determine 3 electoral votes is really disproportionate. /s

This rhetoric obscures the fact the EC actually does what people says it avoids. They just think minority voters in PA and GA don't count.

[Reverend Norv]

why should smaller states have a disproportionate amount of power? why should a wyoming citizen’s vote be worth so much more than a californian’s?

Compensation for living in Wyoming.

Truly an unspeakable hardship.

[Forsher]

Compensation for living in Wyoming.

Truly an unspeakable hardship.

My man, they can't afford a fence.

[Existential Cats]

The fact that many states have laws against faithless electors destroys the point.

Either way, as 2016 (and 1872 in the wake of Greeley's death) has shown, faithless electors probably couldn't rally around an alternative candidate anyways. So their best hope, if they dislike both parties' choices, is to prevent anyone from reaching a majority, but this just kicks the can down to the House.