Given the fact that public education is open to all, is the electoral college necessary?

The point of the electoral college was separation of power, leaving the House to be the only institution to be influenced by a by a direct popular vote, the appointees of the President to be approved by the Senate, senators voted in by state legislators, and the Senate to create legislation and so on. This is how it was then.

The fear was mob rule: majority infringing the rights on the minority. Do these practices still make sense today, despite our educational system? Are people still too ignorant to have that much power granted to them?

As for me, I'm not against it. Still encounter many adults that don't know how our system of government works, neither do they know the history behind constitution or just the basic. I'm not sure how other states do their education, but it seems like certain people aren't getting the memo.

A big reason the electoral college still exists is for states rights. It allows every state, no matter how small, to have a say in each presidential election, since what is important to a person in Los Angeles may not be important to a person in Topeka. States with larger populations get more electoral votes, so they will still have a bigger influence.

Obviously, people that hate the president wish that we went by the popular vote, since it would have resulted in Hillary Clinton being president now. However, that isn't the way we do it by the Constitution, and if people want to change it, then they need to get the laws changed.

Including the president himself.

Truth is, we can go back and forth for days on which way of voting is better, they each have their advantages and disadvantages. I think this election was just particularly bad for the electoral college because the popular vote was heavily in favor of the loser, more so than it has been the last few elections.

Electoral votes aren't proportional, so smaller states have more influence than big ones. California's population is almost 60 times larger than Wyoming's yet California doesn't even have 20 times the electoral votes. The vote of someone in a larger state matters less. How's that for states' rights?

The electoral college is not a problem in it itself, but the winner take all system is beyond retarded

Your last paragraph seems to indicate a support for literacy tests on voting which is independent of the reasoning behind the electoral system. You can still have a 'mob' vote for a representative which would in turn cast votes in an electoral manner, so the two ideas you're bringing up don't seem to aim for the same end result.

The Electoral College is set up so each state gets an electoral vote for each person they have in Congress. Each state has two senators regardless of population, but representatives are based on population, with each state entitled to at least one. Wyoming has one representative while California has 53.

As a result, yes, a vote from someone in Wyoming may end up having more of a say in picking their electors, since they are guaranteed at least three due to their representatives. It's the same amount of votes as seven other states (including Montana, with almost a million people) and Washington, DC.

President Trump got 304 electoral votes even though he only needed 270, so Wyoming made no difference in his victory. Maybe you can argue about it in regards to the 200 election when you consider that George W. Bush received 271 votes to Gore's 266.

How many times did Hillary Clinton or President Trump visit any of those three electoral vote states, versus the big states?

It's a stupid, antiquated system that once again demonstrates how backwards the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. In order for every vote to count, the electoral college needs to be abolished, or states at least need to pass laws requiring electors to vote for the popular vote winner. It's absurd.

With things such as...

...flat earth societies...

...the NRA making the most ironic, hypocritical, freedom-paradoxical video in the world...

...and people making less than six figures voting against healthcare acts...

...I don't think our education is at the point where we can trust the public unconditionally.

Yes electoral college still matters today, in fact the very reason for it has more meaning today then any other point in the last 100 years.

If there was not a electoral college, we would have California and New York with such huge populations that they would cancel out a lot of other states and be the only voices that is important. Meaning the country would become even more fractured and polarized then it is now.

Not to mention California is a liberal state with a huge L and is moving away from the rest of america with bigger steps..

No I hate the electoral college because it silences much of the country in favor of smaller demographics. It was instituted so slave owners had an equal say with the rest of the population.

Edit: As for states rights....that's what Congress is.

There is no reason the electoral college should exist now. Even other presidential democratic republics (like Taiwan, which is pretty much an anti-China, but it's sad THEY practice democracy better than even the US) don't have such a system.

somebody's gotta be dragging our stupid asses, kicking and screaming, forward...

LOL hopefully you don´t mean California.

If anything i bet that they will be thrown out of the union before the electoral college is changed.

.... The United States is a democratic republic.. It is also a wide variety of people stretched over a vast landscape.. To go direct democracy would basically have the candidates focus on and only on a handful of states due to their massive populations.. You are literally trading one set of problems for a completely different set of problems, this isn't a real solution, this is simply one that plays into the favor of your political leanings.. How do I know this? Because the House and Senate representation is decided in a very similar way and holds far more power than a electoral votes.. Yet you don't ever see any one bitching about that or wanting it changed.. I would be all in favor in changing how the electoral college works, if its actually better, going to direct democracy isn't better.. And this shit is clearly partisan cry baby crap because they can't handle who was elected, how about you guys come up with some actual eloquent solutions to the problem to address why the electoral college was put in place for instance.. While we are at it lets also talk on how you would fundamentally change our legislative branch whose representation operates in a similar matter.

People have been vocal against the electoral college for a long time. This isnt anything new.

And the notion of focusing only on a handful of states is a statement so full of shit it is almost funny. YOu should probably look at how many states are completely ignored in the current system.

Sorry but your strawman of why people oppose other states failed miserably.

But how many more states would be ignored with a direct democracy, you literally will see candidates in large population cities of the world and basically it.. You are trading one set of problems for literally another, for a clearly obvious partisan gain, than any kind of concern for democracy or solving the problem.. Which is yet again why I pointed out that if people are so concerned with democracy why haven't we went after the legislative? They operate the exact same way in representation and are far more powerful and impactful in American politics than the electoral college.

No where did I state the electoral college was perfect and did not have flaws.. I am just waiting for a actual intelligent solution/suggestion than what I have seen here, or really any other discussion with this.

Awesome, a candidate who connects with less than 10% of the US population. That will certainly win elections.

Right now, under the electoral college both the small states and big states are ignored. The overwhelming ammount of attention go to 4 purple states.

There is no perfect solution, but the electoral college was concieved in a time when political science did not exist. And is arguably one of the worst electoral systems I have seen. I think the massive voter apathy, is partially caused by the electoral college and how it is set up. Why would a republican living in New York or California vote, since his vote really wont count anyways.

Reform the electoral college so that it's no longer a "winner take all" system. (ex: instead of New York going fully blue, X goes to Democrats and Y goes to Republicans).

Also, make voting mandatory and have days designated just for voting. We have the lowest voter turnout, especially in state and local elections. As a result, the representatives that are suppose to represent us, don't. By increasing turnout, candidates have a reason to be more competitive and it's no longer about campaigning in certain states or districts.

That's my two cents.

You mean the liberal in California is against the electoral college. If people really was against the electoral college, how come noone has worked together with their elected officials to get it changed?

And don't give me the bs about it being hard, that is no excuse.

Also please stop your BS with states being overlooked, no state is being overlooked , they all have a voice and a certain amount of votes, but if you really want to go down the road of states being overlooked, then your precious popular vote system would make it so that 90% of the states would be overlooked and only the key states with the biggest populations like California would be important.

Oh, and if you look at the votes separating Trump and Clinton in some key states where if Clinton had won, she would have won the election, you could question your sides determination to get voters to vote. but again that would require actual work and we all know liberals and work.

Good, now you have a idea, you know what to do with that idea.

Or are you all talk and no actual work?

Such hostility. And I get accused of overreacting.

I simply stated my opinion regarding the antiquated electoral college, based on when the southern states wanted to maintain slavery.

If you don't like it, well, sucks to be you. ;)

I shouldn't have used the term "states rights," since while I was referring to the electoral college being used so each state has a voice, the actual term means something else. But my point still stands.

Tossing the electoral college will not solve all of our problems, but people call for it because it is the reason we don't have a second President Clinton in office trying to push her agenda through a Republican Congress. But when it comes down to it, after 58 presidential elections, only five of them resulted in a person that didn't win the popular vote assuming the presidency.

The electoral college isn't the main problem, Hillary Clinton not being a good candidate was the main problem, when other Democrats that were in the primaries probably would have won if they were nominated. Hollywood and others demonizing Trump and telling flyover states that their opinions are worthless, if not bigoted were a close second.

President Obama had no problem beating Senator McCain by almost ten million individual votes and 192 electoral votes, and this was a respected war veteran and former POW that was beaten by such a gap by a junior senator on his first term.

Yet, Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, couldn't beat a businessman and former reality star that not only never held a government or military position before being elected, but had a vulgar recording of him describing how his wealth and celebrity status would be an easy ticket into bed with women of his choosing a month before the election.

The funny thing is that some people blamed both misogyny and racism for her loss. Yet the country voted for a biracial president twice, and nobody accused Democrats of being misogynistic when they didn't vote for McCain, who if elected would have had the first female vice president.

@ad1x2: You missed the main point. We don't need an electoral college. All that does is allow smaller segments to dictate to the majority. We have Congress so states get equal say.

@drunk_pi: that would not work. Winner takes all is decided by the state it self. Most states choose that because it is the most inpactful in the election. To suddenly stop that is a violation of states rights.

@Jacanuk: notice he completely ignores the point that the legislative branch functions the same way with its representation and its far more impactful than a electoral vote... Thats when you know its partisan crap, they are purposefully ignoring a cornerstone of our government that works the exact same way.

No hostility at all,

But what do you suggest we do if no one wants to work for a change.

So what do you suggest we put instead?

Also what minority? last i checked Trump won a majority of states and no the popular vote is not viable since that would allow 2 states to control 90% of the country. and 2 states who political is far away from the rest of America.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-10-weeks-of-2016-campaign-stops-in-one-handy-gif/

If you look at the map there, you notice that most visits are located at few states whereas a very good chunk get completely ignored. While states like Florida dominate the attention.

I suggest we get rid of the electoral college. That way a minority of people doesn't dictate to the majority.

Sure, let´s entertain your idea.

What should we put in it´s place that do not just move the deciding voice onto a more likeable source for your side? What system would take all states and give them a voice.

Sure. but that is the candidate's decisions. Tho you have to credit Trump that he actually took time to visit more states. 106 visits to 71.

But if you have a popular vote, you know where those visits would be , any candidate would only visit 4 states, California, Florida, New York and Texas , particular California would be a main focus since it´s population is so big that it would invalidate pretty much all other states.

Not to mention that Cali´s liberal mind would force republicans to take on politics that is shit for the country but is favored by California. But maybe that is what democrats is hoping for? to strong arm republicans into their way of thinking.

And, as a result, the state overrides the voters. When California goes Democratic, the Republican vote didn't matter. When Texas goes Republican, the Democratic vote doesn't matter. The winner-takes-all system discourages voting and gives a false perception.

It isnt the candidate's decision, it is how the system works. There is no need to hold rallies in states that are guaranteed to vote for you anyways. It is a broken system.

Those 4 states would not make up nearly enough of what is necessary to win the popular vote. California makes up slighly more than 10% of the US population, and because there is no electoral college. All the states you mentioned combined makes up roughly a third of the US population, which is not enough to get elected. And because the system would probably no longer be winner takes all, that 33% may just translate to 20%. Even then, at most they did was to move the target 4 states to the most populous states rather than states that merely happen to have a partisan divide. That seems like an overall, utilitarian win to me. Especially since those states are some of the more educated ones.

Since you keep bringing up California... it is possible for conservatives and republicans to win that area. They just need someone who doesnt belong in a psychiatric hospital.

What are you on about? of course it´s the candidates decision, They decide what states is important and which aren't Maybe if Clinton had paid more attention to the "sure states" she could have pulled this election.

And as to the popular vote? did you miss that the only reason why Clinton landed the majority of votes, was because of California, without those she would have lost by a million votes, So what do you think that means? that if there was a popular vote, 1 single state would decide against the majority of the country.

And no it´s not possible for republicans/conservatives to win California, no republican has won there in the last 5 elections. And last time it was close was in 88 where most of California was high on the spirits of "life" now it´s more liberal than any other place in America.

Except it isnt. Candidates act in according to what is the "meta", the meta determines the tactics to getting elected.

What a feeble excuse. Shall we exclude republican states then? Since that is what it sounds like to me. You remind me of consolites who discount mmos and rts (and now mobas) to downplay the PC library. And states? It is people, not geography that is important.

Maybe if Republicans didnt have such an appalling message they would fare much better in California.

Personally I would say when 114,000 people's say > 3 million people something is wrong.

Each person has a voice. That is the most important.

Are you that dense? Lets say California sees a voter turnout of 51%. 1,000,000 vote Democratic and 959,931 vote Republican. Guess what happens? California's electoral points all go to the Democratic candidate? Is that fair to the 959,931 Republican voters whose voices have been silenced thanks to the arbitrary system placed during the 1780s because slave-owning states wanted to have a voice to fight against abolitionist efforts?

The electoral system is unfair to both voting blocs and discourages voting from either side. That is a fact. Whether it's "constitutional" or not doesn't make it morally right.

@Gaming-Planet: So... are you essentially asking if pure mob rule would be a good idea? No, it wouldn't.

It already exists in the form of the electoral college as states go fully Republican or Democrat regardless of how close the vote goes in those states.

It's enjoyable when people who defend the electoral college argue that it's all about state's rights or it's to avoid mob rule when the electoral college already does that and the fact that a, in our history, five presidents have been elected with the minority vote.

While this may not seem like a huge issue, those five presidents have been unpopular from the election to the end of their presidency.

Also in many states it's all or nothing further eroding the voice of the people.

That is some strange logic there.

You are for popular vote, but only when it suits you.

Let´s say America elected it´s president by popular vote, (we don´t look at the fact that the house is all popular vote and america clearly favor republicans) , how does that not "erode" the voice of the people? That is also "winner takes all" no matter how big a margin.

You should perhaps look at your own logic. As mentioned above you are for popular vote but seemingly only when it suits your world view, also not looking at the fact that 1 state would decide the election for the entire country, despite the country going in the opposite direction.

It´s some amazing mind gymnastics you are doing there to get it to fit in your narrow minded world view.

When it suits my world view? Seriously? Considering how you post, you might as well be just another troll.

I have always opposed the status quo with the electoral college. My opinion is that it's a broken system that rewards a candidate all the points from a certain state but ignores the minority vote, which is something you state that you oppose.

My suggestion is to reform it in that it's no longer a "winner-take-all" with the states. Instead of all 55 points of California going to a Democratic president, it's 40 points blue, 15 points Red as reflected by the population who voted. This way, it can encourage voting from both sides of the aisle and force our political parties to become more competitive in attracting voters.

It makes no sense that the votes from Republicans no longer count because a majority of Democrats won a state and vice-versa, then have a minority vote outweigh the majority vote.

Ok, i don´t know why i assumed you were for a popular vote. Maybe your post history.

But anyways your idea is not bad, but i think it would be hard to implement in reality not to mention that you would probably have a much higher chance of never reaching the magic mark by using that. And i assume you are thinking all states should split it like that.

Also what about the 3rd party candidates? they are already a sideshow circus act of nutjobs and bearded ladies, so would their be a lower % limit you need to reach before it counts as valid in a split.

Anyways good to see you are at least not "stupid" enough to be for a nation-wide "winner takes it all" popular vote.

Because it makes sense that 5,000,000 voters outweigh 6,000,000 voters, especially with a system that benefited slave-holding states who, by the way, weren't interested in maintaining state's rights but their own rights to maintain a system of slavery as well as forcing free states in returning escaped states. Sure thing, it's definitely not "stupid."

But the electoral college will never go away unless there is a drastic change. My viewpoint is that we should get rid of the "winner-takes-all" system with states. California's electoral points don't fully go Democratic and Texas's electoral points don't fully go Republican. California usually votes majority Democratic but a certain percentage goes Republican. Same with Texas. This way, it would encourage voters to actually vote and candidates are forced to become more competitive.

As for third parties, they're going to exist and honestly, we should have more political parties so that we have a competitive political system instead of having only two parties who are barely different from one another. In other words, instead of the Republican Party being a big tent, you have far-right evangelical Republicans, moderate Republicans. The same with Democrats: Socialist Democrats and moderate Democrats.

And while this viewpoint may be unpopular but I think we should make voting mandatory and make it a holiday. You're part of the democratic process and your voice does have a say in how your local, state, and federal government act. You can do a write-in if you want, I don't care. It's bullshit to see people complain how the president sucks only when they're asked, "did you vote" and their reply is, "no."

My point is, our political system is barely competitive. Make it competitive. Make them go out and talk and win voters over. It's no longer about relying on "safe" states, it's all about making your message appealing to communities.

But that's my opinion. Whether it's realistic or not, or better or not is irrelevant since it's just what it is: An opinion.

Are you having reading comprehension problems?

Only when you write completely nonsense like here.

Hmm, so only a opinion no actually plan.

So here is another one, just get rid of the election all together, and let the majority leader in the house be the president. That way no one will cry if they lose and every state has a equal vote..