Dissolve Electoral College

Well, it'll really marginalize small states like Rhode Island, Delaware and Alaska (small in terms of population, not size), because candidates will stop caring at all about their votes -- and the candidates don't care too much about these 3-electoral vote states, anyway.

Campaigns will be held only in very large states, like California, NY, Florida and Texas. I've lived in both Rhode Island and Delaware and it's tough enough getting respect for those places as it is.

It has often been claimed that the electoral college is a relic of the mistrust for the judgment of the common man by the framers of the constitution. This many have been a significant factor in the thinking of the delegates, but Jespah has pointed to the sovereignty issue which motivated them, at least to the extent to which correspondence and other private papers make clear the discussion of the method of election. It was never explicitly claimed by any participant at the time of the convention that their purpose was to dilute the popular vote; many did, however make such comments after the fact.

Jespah has pointed to Rhode Island, Delaware and Alaska. I would also point out that these states do not represent another aspect--Rhode Island and Delware are both a part of the densely populated East, and their local economies are heavily involved in commerce and manufacturing. Delaware does have a significant amount of agriculture, but it is not an agricultural state per se, and neither is Alaska. Other states for whom agriculture is the significant industry, and which consequently have a much lower population density, would also be marginalized by a direct popular vote method. This is especially the case for western states in which livestock production is the paramont agricultural activity, such as Wyoming and Montana.

In our times, with the civil war more than a century behind us, it is easy to forget or ignore that the nation is a union, and that the thirteen orginal states were making a document which did not simply describe the method of government and assign rights and responsibilities, but also one which unified those states. In that each state at that time considered itself sovereign in certain matters, which would still be the attitude of most or all states in the present day if the issues involved were debated, the Senate and the Electoral College were the two significant creations of the constitution to reassure smaller states (which at that time meant New York, New Jersey, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, Delaware and New Hampshire). Although the Carolinas and Georgia also had small populations at the time, slavery was the axe they were grinding, and the aspect of their sovereignty they were most anxious to protect. The states with the largest populations densities at that time were, in order, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maryland. Although regrettable, it is reality that any group will seek to preserve their political advantages, and they favored a unicameral legislature, the seats for which would be apportioned by population--which would have effectively put the government of the nation in their hands. The Virginia plan, the only plan submitted at the beginning of the convention, also envisioned a plural executive (not a single president, but a "board") appointed by the unicameral legislature. That would effectively have put all areas of government into the hands of the most populous states. The need for the compromises which created the Senate and the Electoral College should be obvious.

Re: Dissolve Electoral College


Yes. I think marginalizing small states is not a bad exchange for a more straight forward system.

One man one vote should be the law of the land. The electoral college makes the vote of an individual living in a small state worth more one living in a more populous one. IMO the small states have enough of an advantage in the senate where all states big and small have the same number of senators.

I don't understand the argument re small states being marginalized if the EC is eliminated. One vote in Wyoming = one vote in NY, no? As for as politicians showing up to campaign, that almost seems like a relic from another era. It's all TV now. How many people attend rallies?

One vote in NY or Florida or Mass or any populous state does not equal one vote in Wyoming or a small in population state. Therein lies the inequity of the electoral college.

Allocation of electoral votes is the method of avoiding the "tyranny of the majority", not to mention that some states considered the arrangement to be an element of the contract they accepted in joining the union.

Tyranny of the majority is inevitable.

So it would seem, but we needn't surrender what little we have.

Under the current system, yes, you're right,au. My point was that if there were no electoral college, a vote in one state = a vote in another.

...and the bulk of the elec tion is played over mass-media anyway, so the smaller states get just as much bombast as the larger...

I don't get why not. Lots of people defend the E.C. saying that the populous states would dominate. What's wrong with that?

Not a thing - if you are a member of a populist state.

Yeah, but then again one of democracy's downsides is that if you are among the minority vote you do not get your way.

I agree that for the voters in the minority it is not as fun for those whose votes made up the majority. But isn't that intristic to democracy?

Electoral college means that the "one man, one vote" principle is broken. It's rather "one state, several electoral votes".

I have often wondered how does the average Democrat in Alaska or Idaho feel about the worthiness of his/her presidential vote; or the average Republican in Hawaii or Washington D.C., for that matter.

Actually, they gave away their vote in federal elections when they chose to live in Washington, D.C. I do kind of fancy my use of the word chose, by the way.

Great use of "chose" roger!

I think fbaezer hits the nail on the head with his question re the current EC system: Why should a Republican vote for Bush in state he can't win, and vice versa?

I think the EC is a relic from the early days of the US when the notion that the states were significant semi-autonomous entities had to be preserved.