What Is The Alternative to the Electoral College?

Question

So my last question got mixed if not just right out negative feeback, and of course no one ever came up with a soulution, just more problems. I have started an organization called March For Democracy www.Marchfordemocracy.org one of the mission statements is to abolish the electoral college since it truly doesn't represent the WILL of the people, yet so many feel it makes more sense than a popular vote accross the entire united states. Why should politicians ignore small states, and concentrate only on larger states with more electoral votes then to concentrate on the will of the entire country? If you are pro Elcectoral College which is over 200 years old, and doesn't really represent the WILL of the people, please explain how you can justify why elected officals have more athority than any single American in deciding who our President will be? What bill will be passed? What laws will go into effect. No matter how negative the response, I welcome it, but I am really asking for support

Answer 1

The alternative to the electoral college is that we go back to having our elected representatives choose our president instead of us having any say in it. There is no constitutional right to actually vote for the President. According to the 12th Amendment:

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

So there's your alternative...

Answer 2

See http://www.nationalpopularvote.com and http://www.everyvoteequal.com

The National Popular Vote bill, if passed by enough states, would make the Electoral College irrelevant - and effectively have the country go to a popular vote system.  

So far it has been passed by  both houses of the legislature in seven states:

Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii,  Rhode Island, Vermont, and California.    

The bill was vetoed by the Republican governors of Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont and California - but it was enacted over the governor's veto in Hawaii - so it is now the law in 4 states.   California's Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it in 2006 - but  the California Senate and Assembly just passed slightly different versions of the bill again, so he will probably get another chance to veto it in the near future.

In 2004, if Kerry had received 60,000 of the votes that went to Bush in Ohio, he would be president, despite losing the popular vote by a large margin.  The question that should be on everybody's mind should be: Why are Republican Governor's afraid of going to a popular vote system?

A National Popular vote system would increase voter turnout, because every vote would be important .- not just the votes of  swing states.   My guess is that the Republican governors who have vetoed the bill are afraid that the Republicans would lose power if we went to a National Popular vote system, because Republicans tend to do better when voter turnout is low.

One thing is clear  - whether we should keep the Electoral College is not a big state - small state issue.  The governor of the largest state, California, vetoed the bill, as did the governors of 3 small states (Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii.).

Answer 3

the real truth is CHAOS ! democracy is mob rule,the minorities will be trampled.the will of the people is bullshit,how about every farm should have one slave......

Answer 4

It's not that simple...  I understand your frustration with the electoral college, but you can't just lobby congress to abolish the system.  It's more complicated than that.  First of all the electoral college is bias in favor of the states with small populations.  Think about it.  Every state gets one electoral vote for every representative they have in congress.  States like wyoming with very small populations get the minimum 3 electoral college votes (2 senators, one rep), even if they don't have big enough populations to technically qualify for 3 votes.  The electoral college is outlined in the 12th amendment to the constitution.  To change a constitutional amendment we have to completly repeal the old one and pass a new one, like we did in 18 and 21 (prohibition).  This requires a 3/4 vote from all the states.  The small states realize they have some political leverage with this system, and they are never going to give up this leverage.  It's politics, a struggle for power.  Sorry to tell you the electoral college system, though outdated, is going nowhere fast.

Answer 5

The Alternative is this: AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

The founding fathers, felt the Electoral College was so important it is the second item they considered for the Constitution of the United States.

That will of the people argument holds no water at all in a Democratic election.  Just look at Zimbabwe:  The will of the people was they would rather not be shot, so they voted for the most despicable piece of slug slime on the face of the earth ....

would you rather have a fascist dictator (hitler was elected by the "will of the people") or would you rather have checks and balances against the corrupt influence of billionaires and near trillionaires like George Soros and Empress Oprah?

Answer 6

q

Answer 7

I am 100% with you. We need to go back to the popular vote, majority rules. I have seen the electoral college go against the popular vote. Doesn't seem fair to me. If one gets more votes then that person should win.

Answer 8

"THEY" know better then WE do because they know more then we can ever know so know that a gun for oil is directed by someone who doesn't allow me to use my gun to know he/she doesn't know me.

Answer 9

No Electoral College would be good. Elections decided by popular vote would be good.

Answer 10

The electoral college protects the states with small populations from being governed by those with higher populations.  I don't know where you live, but I have no intention of letting states like California decide who gets to be President.

You are wrong.  The lightly populated midwest would have no say whatsoever in the President.  California has a higher electoral college vote based on its population - but if you go by popular vote it's pull in Presidential elections would be nearly tripled.  Dems only want popular vote because they can't win with electoral college - there aren't enough liberals in the midwest and south.

Answer 11

I think what your trying to do is find an answer that suits your

Ideas as opposed to the Ideas of the constitution. This

should never happen. Your wanting to change a system

that has worked since time one. and was designed to

work for our system of government no matter how big

we become. Get over Gore losing his ***, and get over

O-Bomb-A losing his ***.

Answer 12

If you can not figure out that approximately 25 metroplex areas would then elect the president no matter if every person in the nation voted for someone else. Thank you no.  It is not broke so stop trying to fix it.

Follow the KISS principal.