The electoral college: Antiquated, misunderstood, or both?

There is recently new interest in the electoral college for a couple reasons:

1. Colorado is considering a referendum which would grant a proportional representation in the electoral college, rather than the present winner-take-all system

The Constitution leaves it to the States for their Legislatures to choose their electors in any manner they decide.

2. If the votes turn out just right, the electoral college vote could end in a tie: 269 to 269. Some experts say this year provides an opportunity for such a result.

Same could theoretically happen with any other vote.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

The President is the President of the United States, 50 individual and sovereign states, so the states elect him/her, not the aggregate of the people in all the states. The current system prevents the most populous states from having undue weight in the selection of the President.

I am not in favor of doing away with that system. [/quote]

How would this proportional representation in the electoral college be different from the present system?

Yes this year's election could very well be a tie. If so, how will the tie be broken?
Another election?
How frustrating this could be.

Democracy is hard work.

BTW, I am curious as to what the choice in the poll referring to the "original function" of the electoral college is. Reading the Constitution's establishment of it, I see no change in function from then to today.

Larry434 wrote:

BTW, I am curious as to what the choice in the poll referring to the "original function" of the electoral college is. Reading the Constitution's establishment of it, I see no change in function from then to today.

I wondered if someone would question that. Originally, the framers of the constitution expected local citizens to elect someone they trusted to attend the electoral college. As a result, through representation, each area would have at least a minor influence on who was elected president.

The framers also expected that after the election of George Washington, very few would carry a majority of the electoral college votes, and, therefore, the House would often choose the president, and the Senate would choose the Vice President. So the framers actually expected the "terrible" consequences that our more recent legislators sought to avoid by instituting the winner-take-all system.

gumby wrote:

How would this proportional representation in the electoral college be different from the present system?

Yes this year's election could very well be a tie. If so, how will the tie be broken?
Another election?
How frustrating this could be.

Democracy is hard work.

All 50 states currently give ALL their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority of the vote in that state. Under aportionment, the electors would be split in accordance with the percentage of the vote for each candidate.

bashtoreth wrote:

Larry434 wrote:

BTW, I am curious as to what the choice in the poll referring to the "original function" of the electoral college is. Reading the Constitution's establishment of it, I see no change in function from then to today.

I wondered if someone would question that. Originally, the framers of the constitution expected local citizens to elect someone they trusted to attend the electoral college. As a result, through representation, each area would have at least a minor influence on who was elected president.

The framers also expected that after the election of George Washington, very few would carry a majority of the electoral college votes, and, therefore, the House would often choose the president, and the Senate would choose the Vice President. So the framers actually expected the "terrible" consequences that our more recent legislators sought to avoid by instituting the winner-take-all system.

On what source do you base your premise, since it is not so stated in the Constitution?

bashtoreth wrote:

There is recently new interest in the electoral college for a couple reasons:

1. Colorado is considering a referendum which would grant a proportional representation in the electoral college, rather than the present winner-take-all system

The Constitution leaves it to the States for their Legislatures to choose their electors in any manner they decide.

2. If the votes turn out just right, the electoral college vote could end in a tie: 269 to 269. Some experts say this year provides an opportunity for such a result.

Same could theoretically happen with any other vote.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

The President is the President of the United States, 50 individual and sovereign states, so the states elect him/her, not the aggregate of the people in all the states. The current system prevents the most populous states from having undue weight in the selection of the President.

I am not in favor of doing away with that system. [/quote]

I agree, and the delegates to the convention purposely set the system up that way in order to pacify the small states, which thought that any other system would marginalize their influence.