Abolish Electoral College

  • Follow Letters

When I lived in “The Royal City of the Holy Faith” (Santa Fe, N.M.), there were only five people in the state of New Mexico who could vote for president of the United States of America.

The rest of us just pretended to vote for the highest office.

In a recent presidential campaign, the candidate who lost the popular vote by 544,683 votes was enthroned in the White House by the archaic and antiquated Electoral College.

At the present time, if a candidate for the presidency got just one more vote than the opposing candidate in each of the 11 most populous states, that candidate would not have to get a single vote in the other 39 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to become president.

All registered voters who vote for a presidential candidate should have their votes count.

In all fairness, the Electoral College should be abolished.

Richard Amundson

Augusta

Comments (41) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
28473
Points
carcraft 03/14/14 - 04:36 am
9
4
I love the Electoral College

I love the Electoral College because it gives voice to small states and changes elections from who carries the East and West Coast to a game of possibilities. Every one running for president understands this. We do not live in a Democracy, we live in a confederation of states in a Republic. I hope Mr. Amundson understands this!

Bodhisattva
7210
Points
Bodhisattva 03/14/14 - 05:48 am
4
11
Of course some people like

Of course some people like the electoral college. It takes control of the government away from the people. It gives the same nutcases that brought you the old Confederacy the chance to influence the Presidential election. They see the demographics slowly changing so, just like the old days, they're trying to bring back Jim Crow and strip minorities of as much voting rights as they can so they'll have even more control. They'd do the same to women if they could get away with it. The right wing knows they've lost the Presidency from here on out and voter suppression and the electoral college is their only hope. They're even talking about changing how electors are distributed to throw elections to the GOP. Just like they redistricted Texas in between the 10 year Census periods (and brought a lawsuit to change Georgia's districts), lie, cheat, steal, change the rules in the middle of the game, any underhanded trick they can come up with, whatever it takes, the GOP will do it to win. That's why Georgia, which Romney won 53.3% to 45.48%, has a Congressional delegation that's 64% to 36% GOP and if you throw in the Senators, it's 69% to 31%. SC was Romney 54.56% to 44.09%, with a delegation of 86% to 14 % GOP, and 89% to 11% counting the Senators. Not remotely representative of the states at large. Just the way the GOP likes it.

ymnbde
10669
Points
ymnbde 03/14/14 - 06:07 am
10
2
well, no national contest would campaign in New Mexico

without the electoral college
neither West Virginia, Montana...
politicians would just bestow tax money on the largest cities
cause that's where the votes are
Chicago and New York and Los Angeles and a few other large cities would decide our President
not that they don't now, but it would be worse
the electoral college is, in all fairness, the fairest method
and quite brilliant

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 03/14/14 - 07:40 am
10
3
Bod...the old worn race card
Unpublished

Bod...the old worn race card again? What's left of your credibility is fluttering away in the wind.

Let me guess.....you think minorities are too dumb to be able to get a free id card?

jimmymac
47688
Points
jimmymac 03/14/14 - 07:39 am
0
0
RACE
Unpublished

When will the race card stop being thrown around every time some lib can't think of a logical rebuttal to fact? It's way beyond tired an no longer effective. They've cried wolf way too much for it to have any impact any longer.

dsterling9
1255
Points
dsterling9 03/14/14 - 08:02 am
3
3
ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The one big flaw in the college system is there is no requirement for the party picked representative to vote the people's choice. On an election not long ago a representative stated that even though his state voted one way he HAD TO vote his party line. There needs to be a requirement for those delivering the state's choice to actually put that vote forward.

JB68
283
Points
JB68 03/14/14 - 08:51 am
6
2
If we are to use majority

If we are to use majority rule as Richard suggests then we should abolish obamacare as it has never at an time had majority support.

deestafford
31934
Points
deestafford 03/14/14 - 09:04 am
8
2
The electoral college shows the wisdom of the Founding...

The electoral college shows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers once again. Unlike those who clamor for direct elections the Founding Fathers studied history and the rise and fall of previous democracies throughout history and found that pure democracies failed because they became mob rule.

The knowledge that a pure democracy was mob rule led them to establish our system of government as a republic. I believe those who want to change to direct elections are ignorant of history and the consequences the Founders avoided by establishing the electoral college.

A electoral college delegate does not vote the party. He votes the way the people of the state voted. In most states the electors vote for the candidate who got the majority of the state's voters selected. The Founders did not include in the Constitution how the states must select their electors. They left that up to the states. As a result, some states are going to what's known as "proportional representation" which is a system where the electors are apportioned to the candidates based on the percentage of popular votes they received.

For example, if a state had ten electoral votes and Candidate A got 70% of the popular vote and Candidate B got 20% and Candidate C got 10%, they would get seven, two, and one electoral votes cast respectively.

The electoral college prevents mob rule and totalitarianism. When one reads history to include the debates of the Founding Fathers on this issue one will understand their wisdom.

localguy55
5477
Points
localguy55 03/14/14 - 09:08 am
4
4
Majority rule is mob rule,

Majority rule is mob rule, the electoral college process prevents mob rule. However, in my opinion, there is a flaw. There are a different number of electoral votes depending on the state. Some have more than others and I believe it is based upon population. So, in some ways we are back to majority rule.

I think there should be only one electoral vote for each state. That would insure that each state would have a dog in the fight.

crkgrdn
2287
Points
crkgrdn 03/14/14 - 09:20 am
5
2
So you slept through government class...

as so many have including the chief executive of the United States.
The Constitution was designed to protect those unalienable rights in addition to our civil liberties.

dichotomy
37484
Points
dichotomy 03/14/14 - 10:06 am
8
2
Must be terrible to be

Must be terrible to be Bod.....seeing the Klan lurking in every shadow. That would drive a person nuts. I rest my case.

Darby
29260
Points
Darby 03/14/14 - 10:24 am
5
6
I'm just SO HAPPY

that I don't live in the same weird space time continuum that Bod does. The paranoia alone is stifling. It must be difficult to even take a deep breath.

At the same time, I agree that the Electoral College is antiquated and should be put to death. Not because of the strange conspiracy theories that Bod espouses and wraps him/herself in, but simply out of fairness to the individual American voter.

Yes, in the year 2000, that would have given the presidency to that fool Al Gore, if that alone were the criteria by which elections were decided.

On the other hand, a popular election, minus the almost total control of the media by fanatic liberal zealots would have certainly resulted in a George Bush victory.

So, yes, in 2000 the American people were properly served by the system, even though the process was flawed.

I'd like to eliminate the Electoral College. Who knows, maybe with the waning influence of the biased media we could have truly free, fair AND HONEST elections.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 10:24 am
1
6
LTE

"there were only five people in the state of New Mexico who could vote for president of the United States of America."

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 10:29 am
1
7
LTE

"
"there were only five people in the state of New Mexico who could vote for president of the United States of America.""

I assume that the 5 people that the LTE writer is refering to the states number of US House Members!! This CRUDDY system MUST BE done away with NOW THAT the 21st century is here!! To continue this STUPID way of electing a president should have been done away with as soon as computers were made to count votes!!!!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 10:33 am
2
8
PL @ 8:40

"
Bod...the old worn race card again? What's left of your credibility is fluttering away in the wind.

Let me guess.....you think minorities are too dumb to be able to get a free id card?"

Yet another thing we will always disagree with. If conservatives would GET OFF OF THIS KNOWSION that DEAD people are voting, then we would have POPULAR VOTE system!!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 10:36 am
1
6
crkgrdn @ 10:20

"The Constitution was designed to protect those unalienable rights in addition to our civil liberties."

I say, "To HELL with the ELECTORIAL COLLEGE!!!!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 10:39 am
1
5
General comment

Sure seems to be a lot of "NEWBIES" commenting on this subject!!

deestafford
31934
Points
deestafford 03/14/14 - 10:56 am
6
2
A five minute conversation...

A five minute conversation with the average voter will prove to you why there should not be direct elections. Just look and listen to some of the "man on the street" interviews you see.

A republican form of government requires informed voters and we have too many uninformed and the number of them grows daily.

A democracy is when the mob votes its self interest in what it can get from the federal treasury as it sets itself to be moochers.

Please read history and see the outcome of "pure" democracies. That most likely won't happen because the left thinks that the only reason communism failed is because it didn't have people as smart as they are in charge. They always think they are smarter than anyone in history so that is why they don't study historical examples.

The left thinks they are the "Best and the Brightest" when in reality they are the "Worst and the Stupidest".

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 11:20 am
2
6
deestafford @ 11:56

"A republican form of government requires informed voters and we have too many uninformed and the number of them grows daily."

REALLY it should not matter as to the reason VOTERS choose their candidate!! The reason to be comfortable in is that the voter system is working!!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 11:28 am
2
5
PL @ 8:40

"Let me guess.....you think minorities are too dumb to be able to get a free id card?"

Even though I don't believe that dead people are voting, I do agree with the mandate the all voters MUST have a picture ID card!! Thers is TOO much of a possibility for written only voters' cards to be doctered!

KSL
143858
Points
KSL 03/14/14 - 11:38 am
7
3
Voter fraud is a lot more

Voter fraud is a lot more prevalent than Democrats would have you believe.

carcraft
28473
Points
carcraft 03/14/14 - 11:50 am
7
2
T3bledsoe- Very recently a

T3bledsoe- Very recently a women was found who had died years ago and was mumified. She has been voting long after she was dead! https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mu...

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 03/14/14 - 12:31 pm
5
2
PL @ 12:55

""Even though I don't believe that dead people are voting...."

How much proof do you require?"

This is why I agree with conservatives about the mandate of a picture ID! This knowtion that people can't travel to a place that issues picture ID's is stupid!!

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 03/14/14 - 12:36 pm
4
3
So do you NOW believe that
Unpublished

So do you NOW believe that dead people are voting?

kohler
36
Points
kohler 03/14/14 - 12:38 pm
0
0
Now 24 of the 27 Smallest States are Politically Irrelevant
Unpublished

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

NationalPopularVote

kohler
36
Points
kohler 03/14/14 - 12:40 pm
0
0
Now Just the 11 Biggest States Can Elect President
Unpublished

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

kohler
36
Points
kohler 03/14/14 - 12:42 pm
0
0
80% of US is Politically Irrelevant in Presidential Elections
Unpublished

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.
Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.
None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.
About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

States' partisanship is hardening.

kohler
36
Points
kohler 03/14/14 - 12:50 pm
0
0
National Popular Vote Elects Pres by EC and Preserves Republic
Unpublished

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

kohler
36
Points
kohler 03/14/14 - 12:53 pm
0
0
Big Cities Realities
Unpublished

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Census: Augusta young adults struggling

A new report shows that young adults in the area today are better educated and on average, earn more money than 30 years ago, but are far more likely to be unemployed, unmarried and living with ...
Search Augusta jobs