Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[DeeDeeNY]

Without it, those in smaller states wouldn't have their voices heard. But keeping it as it is has led to situations where the candidate with the most votes loses. And the candidate with the most votes is almost always the Democrat. It happened in 2000 and 2016.

[SalamanderSleeps]

1. Yes!

[OLDMDDEM]

28. I second that.

[Charging Triceratops]

34. And they can start by eliminating the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act

that capped the House at 435 members, thereby limiting the number of electoral votes a state could get even as its population soars beyond the Wyomings and Dakotas.

[Trueblue1968]

73. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes !!! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!! !!!! !!!!

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Not only that

There should be more Senators in populous states. And judges should have a retirement age consistent with the judicial delusion they exhibit.

States were important in the 1800s. It's a nation-state world now. National decisions impact the planet. States are fiefdoms.

[wiseowljedi]

30. The Senate must be changed

A senator in Wyoming represents 300,000 people.
A Senator in California represents 20 million. This makes no sense? Many tiny red states with low population have 2 senators? District of Columbia has no senators. The Electoral College, The Senate, Gerrymandering, Voters Rights and the makeup of the Supreme Court all need reform? What am I missing?

[RainCaster]

82. add Daylight Savings Time to that list

[tinrobot]

3. It absolutely should be abolished, but good luck making it happen.

It's the most anti-democratic part of the constitution.

Unfortunately, our constitution also makes it nearly impossible to change it. Those small states would vote against it.

[thatdemguy]

47. Which is why it is set up that way.

If it was not set up like it is, those small states would get stomped on. What would prevent the larger states from saying the small states only get 1 senator and we move the extras to large state. Even further removing the voice of those in small states.

Also be careful what you ask for, as things we want sound great when we have the larger number of votes. But what happens when we dont, aka see judicial appointments.

Lastly we are not a direct democracy except at small levels, at national levels its a representative democracy. Its was written in a way to stop a minor majority ( or a large one ) from walking all over the minority. Imagine a time when the majority wanted to do some thing awful and minority was able to stop it. If we did not have it set up like it is conn, delaware, mass, NJ and vermont would have the same presidential vote as florida. But instead florida has 30 and those 5 states have 38. So the one state would have the same say as 5 other east coast states with out it set like it is. Yes I know this works both ways, but over all I think thats a good thing as balance of control stops any one group from stepping on the others as easily.

[themaguffin]

4. It's not true that "smaller states" wouldn't have their voices heard. Land doesn't vote. Their voters still vote.

[Lonestarblue]

27. And they have the same representation in the Senate as larger states.

[Ocelot II]

5. Yes, but it will have to be done by Constitutional amendment,

so don't hold your breath.

[Walleye]

6. It's strange we went through the whole 20th century without the electoral college and the popular vote not matching

We made a pretense of sticking to democracy back then. There used to be campaigning in all of the states, as I recall, now the Republicans have figured out they just need to ruin three or four of the so-called battleground states (I hate that term) and force us to accept them as our government. It is not the consent of the governed. I am in favor of abolishing electoral college and I am in a three electoral vote state, but I don’t feel like I’d be left out. One person one vote. Majority wins. Elections are, after all, to determine the will of the people Republicans have forgotten that. this is an important decision and we all need to be a part of it

[RedSpartan]

7. Yes. We have been working toward it for 20 years.

Still a tough road ahead, and of course the corrupt, unethical Supreme Court will strike it down, but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Think. Again.]

14. ⬆️⬆️⬆️THIS⬆️⬆️⬆️

[DeeDeeNY]

23. The reason the Supreme Court is now mostly unethical-

Is because of the Electoral College handing the victory to the loser of the popular vote in 2000 and 2016. And we are now stuck.

[Charging Triceratops]

35. Only extreme measures can end entrenched minority rule

We're in a corner and the remedies are not pleasant.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

80. Can't rec this enough

Wanted gore to fight like we may not have a country anymore after the SC shut him down and Florida cheated there arse off....and funny how it all turned out..we played along and they played along....3 repub attorneys from that specific case are now the SC and that can't be a coincidence....

[thatdemguy]

48. And imagine if your in a state

that is in the compact that votes a majority democrat, yet the other states in the compact have a popular vote that is replublican. The instate compact in a few ways basically silences votes in swing states.

[Bettie]

8. Those smaller states

hold outsized influence in the Senate, so no their voices wouldn't be silenced.

[SocialDemocrat61]

9. Yes!

[NNadir]

10. Yes, of course, but it will be challenging to make it happen.

It's the last relic of human slavery in the Constitution.

[Jerry2144]

54. 2nd amendment is also a relic of slavery

IT was there because of the Haitian slave revolt in the 1780s where all the slave owners were killed. Since there was no way of calling for help from the government and no way to get it quickly if they could (no, Donnie DIpshit, there were no airstrips in the Revolutionary War) the slave owners insisted on being able to have weapons so they could respond if their slaves or neighbor's slaves revolted. The secondary use was to protect against Native American uprising. The 2nd Amendment is a purely racist, white supremacist amendment with no need in our modern age. It should have been repealed as we cut out the other slavery bits.

Our Constitution needs a major rewrite and rework. But it cannot be done while we have people in this country who think the world is flat, the 2020 election was stolen, and Climate Change is a hoax.

[NNadir]

61. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense.

Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2024, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Overall, the constitution proved to be a surpringly successful document, especially given the very flawed culture in which it arose.

This is, of course a reflection on how awful those holders of "original intent" ideology really are.

I recall Thurgood Marshall's contemptuous remarks on "original intent" saying that he was never going to consent to being a slave.

[Ontheboundry]

70. That makes no sense T all

Since it was mostly northern states who even then were well on their way to abolishing slavery, who pushed for it more than the southern states.

I've done quite a bit of research on the 2nd and other than very obscure/fringe theories, can't find any real proof of that in any writings from the men who wrote it. Even George Washington wasn't a big fan of it in the current wording, and I'm fairly certain he owned other humans

[Faux pas]

11. YES

[In It to Win It]

12. Yes. Those in smaller states do get their voices heard via their vote, just like everyone else

[Think. Again.]

13. Of course people in smaller states will have their voices heard...

....we will ALL have our voices heard and the majority will choose the President, just like in a Democracy.

How would counting every vote result in voices not being heard in any size state???

[DeeDeeNY]

20. This is what the Founders thought

Without the Electoral College, candidates could just campaign in the states with the most popular votes and totally ignore the less-populated states.
But the situation we have now has gotten out of hand.

[travelingthrulife]

22. We have tons of info on candidates without them having to campaign anywhere

It's the electronic age.

Get rid of the electoral college. Just a way to keep the slavers in power.

[Think. Again.]

25. Any candidate would still have to reach as many voters....

....as possible, in any state, in order to get a majority.

If both candiates campaign in the heavy populated states, they could each gain an edge over the other by campaigning in less populated states.

No, the electoral college was put in place to reserve the final choice of President for hand-picked electors rather than the unpredictable population.

[misanthrope]

74. Is it really that much different than the current situation?

You don't see Harris spending a lot of time in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas or Utah. Nor is Trump beating the bushes in Washington, Vermont, or Massachusetts. They are concentrating resources in a handful of important "swing" states.

[DeeDeeNY]

15. I honestly feel that my vote doesn't count

But because I live in a Blue State, at least the votes of all the Maga idiots in my neighborhood don't count either.
And regardles, I will continue to vote in every election I'm eligible for.

[hawkeye21]

91. It's not just a feeling--it's a fact

Only those who live in a few counties in a few "swing" states elect the president. The rest of us are just along for the ride. What a pile of bullshit that is.

I vote too. I voted the first day I could in early voting. But as I stood there in line, I felt especially angry and frustrated knowing that this whole thing is a charade--an embarrassing waste of everyone's time and money.

What a mess.

[Emile]

16. It's outlived it usefulness for slave states years ago.

Time for the will of the people to have a say who wins the presidential election.

[DeepWinter]

17. No

It's funny, I'm an outlier on DU liking the EC, but my real life Democrat friends are all in favor of it too. (Or at least recognize it does have real benefits)

It forces Presidential candidate to campaign the entire country, not just the high density cities and states. If you wants just the popular vote you could stick to CA, TX, FL, NY, and IL and call it done and good.

The founding Fathers explicitly wanted to avoid “tyranny of the majority,” The 50.1% drowning out the 49.9%. With the EC you need to coalition build in a much broader and deeper sense than 50.1%.

We don't just have 2 parties. It's entirely possible with the Green Party, Libertarians, Constitution Party and Natural Law Party no one gets 50% and you're forced into run off elections. No clear outcome from a single election.

Yes, I know I'm going to get flamed and spammed with hate and opposition to the EC, and I'm not going to change any opinions on DU. I take solace that Democrats I live and work with also like the EC and I'll be happy with that. It's a big tent.

FYI - I'm at work and won't spend my day defending an opinion in a no-win internet contest that converts nobody.

[Charging Triceratops]

37. You're ignoring the tyranny of the minority

and how it's destroying the country.

[jcgoldie]

41. It does exactly the opposite of what you said

It absolutely doesn't force candidates to campaign through the entire country. It forces them to camp out in 5 or 6 states because those are the only ones where the outcome is in doubt.

[if..fish..had..wings]

18. absolutely

Change system so ONE senator per state (why have two?)
Change system so NON-GEOGRAPHIC representatives each have 280000 constituants
Change system so election day is National Holiday
Change system so elections are publically funded
Change system so campaigning STARTS two months before election
Change system to use rank voting

Pass a law that Drumpf cannot run in any election anywhere ever again forever

[Emile]

19. Republicans were ready to do away with it when

they thought George W. Bush may lose with the majority of votes.

[cloudbase]

21. Not eliminate, but reformulate the EC.

Apportion electors from each state in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote. Each state then becomes in play for the presidency, and each voter's vote will actually count.

[misanthrope]

76. Can't each state already do that on their own?

The catch would be that no one state wants to do it before the others for fear of somehow lessening their own value to the final tally.

[cloudbase]

83. That's why something like that would have to be imposed through federal legislation.

[CoopersDad]

24. "Winner take all" rules should be abolished, at a minimum.

People say their votes don't count and often, they are right.

Winner take all states devalue individual votes, this is not open to argument

[RubyRose]

85. I lived in NE for over 20 years and wondered why all states didn't award their EC

votes proportionally.

[walkingman]

26. Yes, no doubt.

[Voltaire2]

29. Absolutely.

Popular vote with a runoff system to guarantee a majority vote for the winner.

[Boomerproud]

31. Yes, and this is from the granddaughter of an Elector in 1936.

Voted for FDR-from Indiana delegation.

[BoomaofBandM]

32. Yes. I am from a smallsh state.

Some things that make sense in CA or TX do not make sense in my state. But I dislike tyranny of the few.

[WSHazel]

33. Abolishing the Electoral College will take decades, but the Maine/Nebraska model is not bad

Gives the small states a benefit, but takes away from winner-take-all. Each state gets 2 EVs for the winner, but split the rest of them up by Congressional district.

The way the ball could get rolling is for blue and red states with similar or the same number of EVs to pair up. So, for example, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland would match up with Indiana, Tennessee and Kansas. 3 states and 28 EVs on each side. The states benefit because their elevated profile in Presidential elections gives them much more leverage for government projects.

For this to work, the states would have to agree to manageable gerrymandering (effectively the other side would have to approve the maps), and states could not drop out within 6 months of a Presidential campaign. But this paired up, all in or all out approach, could lead to more states doing this, rather than trying to get the whole country to sign up, which will never happen.

[usonian]

36. How the Electoral College Was Nearly Abolished in 1970. (published in 2020)

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-nearly-abolished-thurmond

The House approved a constitutional amendment to dismantle the indirect voting system, but it was killed in the Senate by a filibuster.

(Of course, constitutional amendments have to be approved by 3/4 of states ... Who remembers prohibition? )

On September 18, 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 338 to 70 to send a constitutional amendment to the Senate that would have dismantled the Electoral College, the indirect system by which Americans elect the president and vice president.

“It was the only time in American history that a chamber of Congress actually approved an amendment to abolish the Electoral College,” says Jesse Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board and author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College.

The House vote, which came in the wake of an extraordinarily close presidential election, mirrored national sentiment about scrapping an electoral system that allowed a candidate to win the presidency even while losing the popular vote. A 1968 Gallup poll found that 80 percent of Americans believed it was time to elect the nation’s highest office by direct popular vote.

Yet just a year later, the Senate bill that would have ended the Electoral College was dead in the water, filibustered by a cadre of Southern lawmakers intent on preserving the majority’s grip on electoral power in their states. Despite widespread bipartisan support for the amendment in both large and small states, the Senate came five votes shy of breaking the filibuster.

Filibuster .... "We don't make good laws and constitutional amendments, but we sure can stop them"

Quote attributable to me.

[bdamomma]

45. Southern lawmakers

[Polybius]

69. Why bother with the 60-vote filibuster?

It takes 67 votes to pass a Constitutional Amendment anyway. Looks like they only 55 Senators wanted to break the filibuster.

[tritsofme]

71. In 1970, it would have been mostly a distinction without a difference, the threshold for cloture was 67

or 2/3 present and voting, until 1975.

[msfiddlestix]

38. Of course, and obviously. Been talking about it at least since 2000.

[jcgoldie]

39. wouldnt have their voices heard?

Everyone's vote would count equally... almost like a democracy.

[Beaverhausen]

40. As a Californian my voice is never heard. The Electoral College needs to go.

While we are at it, lets' get rid of the 60 vote rule in the senate. Again, smaller states should not have a bigger voice.

[DavidDvorkin]

42. It should never have existed in the first place.

[bdamomma]

43. Yes

nt

[SeanHG]

44. Find your State's National Popular Vote organization

and get involved. Once enough States have signed onto the referendum to equal 270 EC electors, the EC will be kneecapped, and all without a Constitutional Amendment (which we all know is impossible with the current Minority Rule we're living under).

[bdamomma]

46. attaching this article

https://harvardpolitics.com/abolishing-the-electoral-college-might-not-be-as-hard-as-you-think/#google_vignette

snip of article

Do you live in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, or Nevada? Great news! Your vote is incredibly important for the 2024 presidential election. Unfortunately, if you live anywhere else, your vote is practically meaningless when determining who will be inaugurated next January.

The Electoral College’s winner-take-all system has long been criticized for allowing candidates to focus on a few “swing states” while ignoring the rest of the country. In 2020, for example, six million Californians voted for former President Trump, the most votes a Republican has ever received in any state in any race since the country’s founding. Yet, all 55 of California’s electoral votes went to Joe Biden, a crucial element of his victory. Similar phenomena happen in nearly every “safe state”; only Nebraska and Maine have attempted to create more proportional systems by dividing their electoral votes by congressional district.

[bdjhawk]

49. It won't be changed until the Repugs

win the popular vote and lose the EC vote.

[Blue Full Moon]

50. It sure hasn't prevented what it was for.

[JT45242]

51. As long as the senate overrepresents small states they will be heard

Plus ..they will be heard.

Just the same one vote for one person as everyone else

[kimbutgar]

52. Yes I am sick of 3 years campaigns

Get rid of the electoral college and made the electioneering period limited to 9 months. I’m sick of the commercials, and the mailers. Every election year I keep all the election mailers and this year the stack is the highest. On Election Day I throw them out.

[moondust]

53. Yes.

Each eligible voter has an equal vote no matter where they live.

Today if campaign rallies aren't held near someone they can still see them on TeeVee or online and easily use those tools to find out who the candidates are and what they are proposing. There wasn't even radio when the Electoral College was established.

The first commercial radio broadcast was transmitted on 2 November 1920, when the live returns of the Harding-Cox presidential election were broadcast by Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company in Pittsburgh, under the call sign KDKA.

[bullimiami]

55. Virtually impossible to abolish. The popular vote compact would fix it though.

[kairos12]

56. Yes.

We currently live under the tyranny of the vile minority.

[NCDem47]

57. It's just awful minority rule.

and it becomes a glaring issue each presidential election.

[AmBlue]

58. YES

NO question. This country should no longer be subjected to minority rule

[Silent Type]

59. Yes. But a Constitutional convention to change it -- in this era -- might leave us worse off than we are.

[diane in sf]

60. The question is how to be able to do it.

[bif]

62. It was outdated a hundred years ago.

[J_William_Ryan]

63. 'Without it, those in smaller states wouldn't have their voices heard."

Disagree.

The people should elect a president, not the states.

And the people who reside in smaller state would have their voices heard along with every other American.

[BlueKota]

64. Yes

The intent with the electoral college as you say was so the minority have their say in the nation's government. The possibly unintended consequence was it now deprives the majority from having our voices heard.

Hillary should have President in 2016.

[1WorldHope]

65. YES!

[DeeDeeNY]

66. Tim Walz says yes

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/walz-says-the-electoral-college-needs-to-go-00182981

[republianmushroom]

67. Yes , by all means.

Popular vote should determine who represents the voters.

[Funtatlaguy]

68. Currently, only 7 states matter.

[Stargleamer]

72. Of course

Along with the filibuster and partisan gerrymandering and disproportionate allocation of Senators

[hawkeye21]

75. Hell,yes! Why should it matter where in the hell ya live? One person, one vote. Geography should have no say.

No other election in the United States--or in the known universe--is decided by anything like the Electoral College. The EC is beyond absurd. People who live in large states cast presidential votes that are worth about ten times what mine is worth. Why? The EC is the single most UNdemocratic feature in the US system, with the Senate right behind. You mean Montana and Wyoming should have the same say in national policy as California and New York? It would be funny if it weren't so tragically sad.

There is no logical, democratic reason to keep the EC or to keep the Senate as it is. Or the Supreme MAGA Court. It's all bullshit. And the rest of the world knows it, which is why no one else elects its leader the way we do. For everyone else, the person with the most votes wins. What a concept . . .

BTW: And the states award EC votes however they want. A few states award them on a percent basis, but most give ALL their electoral votes to the person who wins the most votes in the state. So, for instance, you could win a state by ONE vote but get 100 percent of its EC votes. The whole system is ludicrous, and anyone capable of objective analysis knows it.

[Zeitghost]

77. No

Our system is set up so that a party with a slim majority can not easily hold all three branches of government. And as frustrating as that can be when we are the slim majority, it's for the better.

[Brainstormy]

78. YES YES YES YES YES

[JCMach1]

79. ASAP... We have to stop making the same mistake only

Remembering how anti-democratic it is every 4 years and then conveniently forgetting.

Get rid of the electoral college and we literally force an opposition party to the middle. It's a quick way to slam dunk extremism in a permanent way. We also need to expand the Supreme counter to match Federal circuits and really push statehood for DC, PR and perhaps some of the Islands.

[Metaphorical]

81. The Senate is Too Heavily Embedded to change

In effect, the Senate represents geographic administrative centers. The best solution there, albeit not an easy one, would be to split the very large states into multiple states and consolidate the least populous states. Kansas and Iowa, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, etc., would be consolidated, while California, Texas, Florida, and New York would be broken into separate states. The arbitrary limit of 50 states would be expanded to about 64 or so. Will that happen? Not in my lifetime, but it's about the only way that the Senate could actually be made fair.

The president should be elected by total popular vote, however. That's a very easy fix, though it'll be fought heavily by those states that currently benefit from the existing system (or by the dominant party in those states). Keep the Senate as it is - it's an artefact, but a hard one to fix. Making the president a popular decision means that population, not land, determines who establishes a government, with the Senate acting as the check on that popular power. Without that decision, minority rule will become the de facto governing principle.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

84. Yes

[Dem4life1234]

86. Yes how many other developed countries have such a bullshit procedure?

Why does a tiny state with more land than people have more of a say?

On a side note some of those states like Montana hardly have anybody in them and yet DC and Puerto Rico with way more people can't even become a state! That's bullshit.

Furthermore, someone in the boondocks of Idaho can simply move anywhere he wants in the states. The popular vote should stand.
Ass backwards mentality, it should be abolished.

[pansypoo53219]

87. yes, after i learned it was for slave states.

[Skittles]

88. of course it should be abolished

it may have had a purpose back in the day but it's BULLSHIT now and has given us two nitwit presidents in recent history

[The Third Doctor]

89. Hell yeah

[Emile]

90. Whenever a Republican tells me we need term limits, I reply

the Electoral College needs to be eliminated. Crickets Everytime

[Polybius]

92. It would take the fun out of this:

"CNN now projects that Kamala Harris has won the state of Virginia."

Not saying I'd keep it, but I love the suspense of each individual state being called.

[Baggies]

93. Let's look at the last 32 years

White House (D) - 20 years
White House (R) - 12 years

The country is divided pretty much 50/50, so it works.

Besides, I’m of the opinion that from the beginning of the nation the number of dangerous people who were prevented from winning via the EC far outweighs those who slipped through the cracks.

[ArnoldLayne]

94. Yes as soon as it is possible