Does The Electoral College No Longer Work And Should We Make Changes?

In 2000 we have had the closest presidential election in the history of the United States. Vice President Al Gore has won the popular vote and yet fell short of victory by less than a thousand certified votes in the pivotal state of Florida. This means that under the system of the two hundred-year-old Electoral College, Texas Governor George Bush overcame the popular opinion of the entire United States to win the Electoral Vote. Was this fair? Yes, because under the rules and laws established before this election was held the end result of Governor Bush winning the Electoral Vote is what determines the winner. As mandated in the United States Constitution and agreed upon by every state's legislative law one cannot change the rules after the fact just because the national popular vote winner lost. Unfortunately, that is not the shared opinion of so many others. Now we hear the rising echo of irate citizens and politicians calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College. In it's antiquated format the popular vote winner can be beaten and "it's not right". Yet in order to do that we will have to rid ourselves of the ONLY true way for these United States to reflect "the will of the people" nationwide. My suggestion is not to abolish the Electoral College and go solely with the popular vote. Rather, I suggest we need to tweak the system to better reflect the present and future structure of these United States. In order to do this we must first look at the history of the Electoral and why it appears to have become ill suited for our modern nation. Once that is accomplished I will humbly submit my suggestion for changes that need to be made. The need for an Electoral College of voters arose when our founding fathers realized that the more dominantly populated states could perhaps ban together and literally control all of the elections and in essence, determine many advantages for their own self interests. How could we be called a United States when just four of the thirteen states could always determine who got any and every thing that they wanted or needed? I suggest that they knew that "the will of the people" could never truly be reflected under a minority count of heavily populated states overwhelming the majority of states with less population but sharing an equal risk in governing this new republic. What they did was to allow each state to have Electors equal to their respective representatives within the Congress and Senate. In short, the states with less population were then equally more represented by their Electors during national elections. What this meant was that the ability of the major population centers banding together to capture national elections and benefits was brought down to an equality that hasn't been fully realized during the two hundred years since it was originally created. Yet even with such unprecedented wisdom as that that they exhibited two hundred years ago there was still this eventuality of our population centers growing large enough to force national election results and the future direction of these United States. I personally feel that the main reason for this is they never would have imagined that this country would grow from thirteen states and 3.5 million people into the monstrous proportions that it has grown to in just two centuries. In the two hundred years since the Electoral College was created the United States has blossomed from 13 states with just a little over 3.5 million people to 50 states with almost 300 million citizens. Currently there are twenty-six states, which have populations that exceed the entire combined population of all the thirteen original states. I suggest that our forefathers would not only be amazed at how well their fledgling Constitution has governed these United States but they would also in their unparalleled wisdom, recognize how out of proportion our population has grown. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, both Virginians, would probably be stunned to find that Virginia (the most populated of the thirteen original states) now ranks twelfth in rank among all the fifty states. This despite the fact that Virginia's population is ten times what it was when the Electoral College was first created. Currently there are eleven states with enough Electoral Votes to override all votes of the other thirty-nine states and Washington DC. As in 1780, where just four states could out vote the other nine through the popular vote, there is an Electoral Vote imbalance that is being created by the main population centers within these eleven states. The Vice President won the national popular vote by capturing just twenty states and Washington DC. That means that Governor Bush won the Electoral Vote by capturing the remaining thirty states and their Electors by a narrow margin. Yet the argument still persists with the wails and cries being trumpeted for a national popular vote to determine, "the will of the people". This is where we can actually see how out-of-whack the Electoral College has become. The large population centers are dictating the outcome of not only state totals but also the national results. Which is what the Electoral system was created to prevent. With just the proper prodding or gifts any candidate can win the major city(s) within a state and capture the entire state Electoral. In the 2000 Presidential Election this is evidenced in Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. All ten of these states were won by the margins of their largest populated county. Which was high enough to defeat all the other counties within their respective states. The question comes from this, how can just the largest most populated county shadow the will of all of the other counties within these states? It's the population, stupid! Yes, the same thing that compelled our founding fathers to create the Electoral College is now engulfing that same safeguard. I suggest that in all probability our population and growth alone is what may become the catalyst for the future failure of these United States. So what do we do to license the Electoral College to once again maintain balance in our national elections? We should again look to our founding fathers to find the solution. When they created the Constitution they empowered us, their future citizens, with the ability to make changes through ratification. If they had felt so certain that their work was binding and without peril they would have set our covenants in stone. That, they did not do. The most naked testimony to their wisdom is the fact that they knew that the United States would grow. They knew that changes would surely occur throughout time and a government would need to be able to adapt and reinvent itself when these changes came. Now is the time for changes to be made.



Article Source: http://articles-collections.com

About the Author
John DeJong is the lead creative designer for NotMeUSA. He has been writing humor for over twenty-five years. All of the statistical charts and data can be viewed by visiting: www.notmeusa.com and clicking on the Electoral College Changes.


Do you think this is going to be an issue in the next election??? Seems unfair when the popular vote does not reflect the electoral college.

I know I voted to change the electoral college here in CO but the majority voted to keep it.

What is your opinion???

Keep it!

The USA is not a Democracy(by design)...

This is a Federal Republic

Our founding fathers got it right!

Dump the electoral college. The US is intended to represent "rule of the majority with respect to the minority," but President Bush was elected my the minority. The majority of Americans never wanted him as President, and the reasons that were and remain manifold.

I guess my mind works by extremes. I think of absurd examples and allow that to help shape my opinion. I think that if 90% of the population moved to Southern California and 10% of the population inhabited the rest of the country agriculturally supporting the teeming masses of congested population I would want there to be some way of giving that 10 % of the population enough weight in elections that their concerns were addressed. The electoral college actually does just that, just not in as extreme a situation.

for the most part the elec college

is ok

but there should be a mandatory rule

if you area votes for someone then you

should have to follow that vote

but i think it should be reduced to districts

rather than states

for a more accurate representation

ohio has 20 or so votes

but not every district (one elec. vote)

voted for the same candidate

the way it is set up now

the candidate woes the high population areas

and does not worry much

about the country folks

I understand the reasons for the electoral college. Greeneyed, your scenerio is the reason it was created but considering the populous and distribution of people now if popular vote were instituted everyone should be properly represented IF everyone voted, as is the problem in this country now. People complain and wine about the government but if you ask them if they voted they say "No I don't vote cause my one vote don't count". GRRRRRRRRRRR. I always tell them them "don't say a word about the government to me, since you don't even participate in your government to have a say", man that makes me just furious. But back to subject, Popular vote now would not leave out anyone, or at least I don't believe so. If everyone moved to California, which I am one that would not, sceerreeeddd of the earthquakes, then electoral college could be instituted again, right????

Interesting points of view. I did vote to change it here but got out voted. I will continue to vote for a change there though as I do not believe popular vote should be discounted.

The Electoral College works, if administered properly. It wasn't administered properly during the '00 Elections, which is why it appeared to have failed. No, the Supreme Court failed in its' duty and allowed a circumspect electoral victory in Florida to stand, even though the decision was made by an obviously biased Secretary of State in Katherine Harris.

As it generally is, the problem isn't with the system, it's with the people executing the system that are the problem.

This is also true, I forgot about that little fiasco. But you believe it works even if popular vote is in anothers favor????

Banish the electoral vote. I do not trust them to vote as I do. It is a popular opinion that gets the vote. I think it should be all voters tallied. Not one man or woman voting what they believe is mine. Not a party either.
Put the vote to the PEOPLE!
Kat

Get rid of the electoral college and the early primaries, let the people decide the primary on one day and the general on another day.

so those tha want to ban electro; college

want to let calif and new york run the country

it should be kept and ran a s a district mandate

rather than a state wide one

I do not want someone assuming they know better then me what I want.
I am perfectly capable of making my own mind up and voting as I see fit. I do not trust SOME POLITICIAN to do it for me.
Politics is what is wrong with this country.

Kat

if you read my earlier post i did say they need mandated

to vote as their district says

United States Electoral College
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from U.S. Electoral College)

Electoral votes by state/federal district, for the elections of 2004 and 2008The United States Electoral College is a term used to describe the 538 President Electors who meet every 6 years to cast the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States; their votes represent the most important component of the presidential election. The Presidential Electors are elected by the popular vote on the day traditionally called election day. Presidential Electors meet in their respective state capitol buildings (or in the District of Columbia) on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (per 3 U.S.C. 7), never as a national body. At the 51 meetings, held on the same day, the Electors cast the electoral votes. The electoral college, like the national convention, is an indirect element in the process of electing the president.

Provisions for the mechanics of presidential elections were established by Article Two, Section 1, Sub-Section Three, of the United States Constitution. The 12th Amendment provided that each Elector vote separately for president and vice president. Today, the mechanics of the presidential election are administered by the National Archives and Records Administration via its Office of the Federal Register.

Electors are chosen in a series of state elections held on the same day (election day). The number of electoral votes of each state is the sum of its number of U.S. Senators (always two) and its U.S. Representatives; the District of Columbia has three electoral votes. In each state, voters vote for a slate of pre-selected candidates for Presidential Elector, representing the various candidates for President. State ballots, however, are designed to suggest that the voters are voting for actual candidates for President. Most states use what is termed the short ballot, in which a vote for one party (such as Democratic or Republican) is interpreted as a vote for the entire slate of Presidential Electors. In these states, with rare exceptions, one party wins the entire electoral vote of the state (by either plurality or majority). Maine and Nebraska choose Presidential Electors using what is termed the Maine Method, which makes it possible for the voters to choose Electors of different political parties and split the electoral vote of these two states.

The Presidential Electors of each state (and DC) meet 41 days following the popular vote to cast the electoral votes. The Electors ballot first for President, then for Vice President. On rare occasions, an Elector does not cast the electoral vote for the party's national ticket, usually as a political statement; these people are called faithless Electors. Each Elector signs a document entitled the Certificate of Vote which sets forth the electoral vote of the state (or DC). One original Certificate of Vote is sent by certified mail to the Office of the Vice President.

One month following the casting of the electoral votes, the U.S. Congress meets in joint session to declare the winner of the election. If a candidate for President receives the vote of 270 (as of 2007) or more Presidential Electors, the presiding officer (usually the sitting Vice President) declares that candidate to be the president-elect, and a candidate for vice president receiving 270 (as of 2007) or more electoral votes is similarly declared to be the vice president-elect.

The nature of the process and its complication have been critiqued, with its detractors raising several alternative means of electing the president. This issue was revisited following the Presidential Election of 2000 when Democratic candidate Al Gore won the plurality of the national vote, but failed to win the majority of the Electoral College. Advocates of the current system have similarly set forth arguments for its advantages.


Who are these people????? Why are they not known to us????

The Electors ballot first for President, then for Vice President. On rare occasions, an Elector does not cast the electoral vote for the party's national ticket, usually as a political statement; these people are called faithless Electors.

Do we know when this happens and how is it justified???????

interesting

here i thought it was the congress persons

if the case is they are not then yes

it should be done away with

thank you ma'am

you have a link

would help greatly if you pasted them when you post others material

yes do away with it

---------------------------

Makeup and operation of the electoral college itself are tightly defined by the Constitution, but the method of choosing electors is left to the states. In the beginning many states did not provide for popular election of the presidential electors. Today, however, electors are chosen by direct popular vote in every state. When voters vote for president, they are actually voting for the electors pledged to their presidential candidate. (Electors are named by state party organizations. Serving as an elector is considered an honor, a reward for faithful service.)

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html

paragraph 3

------------------------------

no wonder a third party never has a chance

adj, the information is posted where I got it from on the posts. I am not sure if the link is there but who it came from is there. Sorry, I will try to remember to catch the links.

thx you got mail

but i am of changed mind

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/members.html Here is the link to find out who our electoral voters are