Electoral college poll by party

[zorkpolitics]

Keep the EC.   
It reenforces that we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.  It makes States an important part of the process and provides a reminder that Power must be shared between States and Federal Government, not concentrated further.
I would support reform to make EV automatic, to eliminate unfaithful electors.

[Bogart]

Keep it.  All the major reasons why have been mentioned, but the most compelling in my opinion is that direct popular vote would place the election in the hands of those who live in large urban areas.

[J. J.]

I agree with removing the physical electors.  I also don't disagree with ME/NE congressional system for awarding the electoral votes.

[Gustaf]

I think a nation-wide vote would be more democratic. On the other hand, the EC makes it more fun. :S I would support removing the senate EVs, to make the system more fair. That would be the best reform, probably.

[minionofmidas]

I think a nation-wide vote would be more democratic. On the other hand, the EC makes it more fun. :S I would support removing the senate EVs, to make the system more fair. That would be the best reform, probably.

Not at all. If that were done the bullsh!t complaint about large areas controlling the entire nation would actually gain an edge of truth. And I begrudge Republicans that. Seriously speaking, the EC's two BIG drawbacks (large state advantage and small state advantage, so to speak) more-or-less cancel each other out, so to remove one but not the other would make matters worse.

[Gustaf]

I think a nation-wide vote would be more democratic. On the other hand, the EC makes it more fun. :S I would support removing the senate EVs, to make the system more fair. That would be the best reform, probably.

Not at all. If that were done the bullsh!t complaint about large areas controlling the entire nation would actually gain an edge of truth. And I begrudge Republicans that. Seriously speaking, the EC's two BIG drawbacks (large state advantage and small state advantage, so to speak) more-or-less cancel each other out, so to remove one but not the other would make matters worse.

You have to consider the huge small-state advantage in the senate. That needs to be balanced.

[Nym90]

I'm ambivalent about the EC. Changing it might cause more harm than good if all potential changes that might result aren't taken into consideration. However, on principle, I oppose the EC. I believe that all votes nationwide should carry equal weight in determining the outcome.

The Presidency is the only office nationwide in which the candidate who gets the most votes doesn't win. Would it make sense to institute an EC style system for each state in electing its Governors or Senators, in which the candidate who won each county mattered rather than the overall statewide winner?

I disagree that the EC winner is the candidate with the broadest geographical appeal. I would actually argue that the opposite is true. If a candidate wins some states by large margins but loses others by narrow margins, why does that demonstrate a narrower geographic appeal than the candidate who wins several states by narrow margins and loses others by larger margins? In this instance, the first candidate at least was competitive in all of the states in question, whereas the second candidate really only had appeal in the states in which he won.

It's almost impossible to win the popular vote without at least being competitive nationwide, while a candidate could win the Electoral vote by concentrating on only 51 percent of the country and ignoring the other 49 percent.

Most people who analyze the EC seem to focus on the bias in favor of small states and against large ones, but this is very small compared to the bias in favor of close states and against lopsided ones. That bias is far more significant in the EC.

[YRABNNRM]

I'm pretty indifferent considering that usually the guy who gets the most votes wins.

[jerusalemcar5]

No, I don't favor replacement of the electoral college.

It forces candidates to appeal across a broader spectrum geographically and among interest groups than would be the case with a nationwide popular vote.

Realistically, the only time the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral vote is in a very tight election, essentially a tie.  In this case, the electoral college is meant to favor the candidate with broader geographical appeal, and it worked that way in 2000.

The electoral college does give more power in general to small rural states, but the idea of states as co-equal individual units, regardless of size, is enshrined in the constitution through the concept of the Senate as well as the requirement that 3/4 of individual states ratify constitutional amendments, a requirement that does not take into account the population of the states that have or have not ratified an amendment.

I disagree with Bush's broder geographic appeal.  Gore had states in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific, all across the country.  Bush had pretty much the west and the south.  He had more states, but I think Gore's wins were more expansive.

[Alcon]

I think it should be proportional...If you gets 60% in a state, you get 60% of the Electoral votes. Also, I think they should eliminate the limit to win. For instance..

Democrat - 265
Republican - 266
Independent - 7

The Republican still wins because he got a majority of the electorals.

The problem with that is that it effectively ruins the power of any state that institutes it - and good luck getting all states to at the same time.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think it should be proportional...If you gets 60% in a state, you get 60% of the Electoral votes. Also, I think they should eliminate the limit to win. For instance..

Democrat - 265
Republican - 266
Independent - 7

The Republican still wins because he got a majority of the electorals.

266 is not a majority, it is a pluarality.

[Reignman]

A solid majority of Americans think the EC should be repealed.

[DWPerry]

I favor direct election of individual Electors, not a bloc. Also, if the Congress was returned to it's Constitutional apportionment the EV would mirror the PV much better than it currently does.
Congress passed a law limiting the size of the House, the Constitution states one Representative for every 30,000 people.

[Joe Republic]

The poll results are certainly to be expected.

I wonder if things would be different had Bush been the PV winner and Gore the EC winner in 2000?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No (R)

[nclib]

The poll results are certainly to be expected.

I wonder if things would be different had Bush been the PV winner and Gore the EC winner in 2000?

I doubt it would be as lopsided since liberals are more likely to support individual rights.

[Nym90]

The poll results are certainly to be expected.

I wonder if things would be different had Bush been the PV winner and Gore the EC winner in 2000?

Quite possibly, although you have to remember that in 2004 the EC played to the advantage of the Democrats. Kerry only lost Ohio by 2.11% and lost the national popular vote by 2.46%. So Kerry winning Ohio and thus the election in the EC was more plausible than Kerry winning the national popular vote.

[ian]

YES!!!!!!

[Brandon H]

Keep the EC, but I wish all states would use a Nebraska / Maine system.

[jerusalemcar5]

I think it should be proportional...If you gets 60% in a state, you get 60% of the Electoral votes. Also, I think they should eliminate the limit to win. For instance..

Democrat - 265
Republican - 266
Independent - 7

The Republican still wins because he got a majority of the electorals.

The problem with that is that it effectively ruins the power of any state that institutes it - and good luck getting all states to at the same time.

Actually it would make California, New York, and Texas VERY competitive, while Ohio would become meaningless.  It depends state by state. It would really suck for swing states with an even number of electors (i.e. Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Maine) because their votes would always be negated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This forum appears to be much more in favor of keeping the electoral college than the country as a whole.

Remember, Republicans, a uniform swing of 2.1% to Kerry from Bush would have won the electoral college for Kerry.

Check this thread out on the 1860 election.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=24045.0

[Alcon]

This forum appears to be much more in favor of keeping the electoral college than the country as a whole.

That's not all that surprising, because this board is also more aware of how it came to be and why it is.  Could the average American really explain it?

(Not that I'm a fan.)

[SPC]

We we're meant to have a confederacy of states, so that is why we have an electoral college. It's an issue of state's rights, and the 9th and 10th amendments. It was never really meant for it to be our choice for who became president, that is why we had an electoral college.Originally, state assemblies would choose the electors.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a practical matter, the EC means that in a close race with a dispute about the outcome, the dispute is focused on just a State or two rather than the whole State.  While I would prefer to see the Maine and Nebraska formula of 1 per CD plus 2 for the whole State used in every State or even better, have each State apportioned into Collegial districts with 1 Elector per district as such would reduct the area of a dispute and possible recount to a manageable size.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This forum appears to be much more in favor of keeping the electoral college than the country as a whole.

That's not all that surprising, because this board is also more aware of how it came to be and why it is.  Could the average American really explain it?

(Not that I'm a fan.)

Why does that imply that?