Why the hate for the Electoral College?

Actually, I don't find much hate anywhere for the electoral college. Frankly, I'm surprised that both parties haven't made it more of an issue after the last two elections. Everybody knows about 2000, but how many realize that in 2004 Bush won the popular vote in Ohio by only about 150,000 votes (which isn't much in a state that big). If only 80,000 votes had gone the other way, Kerry would have won the electoral college even though Bush would have beaten him by about three million in the total popular vote.

I am one of those who would like to see the end of the electoral college, and I disagree with you that I don't understand how it works. Let's see if I can convince you of that even if you still disagree with my opinion.

First of all, your main concern, that the most populous states could "hijack" the election if we went to a popular vote. But ironically, that is exactly what is happening now. Two of the most populous states, New York and California, are currently strongly Democratic though in fact there are millions and millions of Republican voters in both states. But because of the electoral college, none of those Republican votes count in the final outcome. It's winner-takes-all in the electoral college, so ALL the electoral votes in those two states go to the Democrats. If we went to a popular vote, ALL the voters' votes would count in the final tally. In a sense the concept of individual states would "disappear" for the sake of this most national of all elections.

Secondly, many smaller states are "red" or "blue" in the eyes of the major parties. That is, their popular vote, and therefore ALL their electoral votes, can be depended on. Consequently, the major parties and the candidates spend little or no time and money in these states. Trust me: I live in a very "red" state, and in years of presidential elections, we may as well not exist. Neither party pays any attention to us and candidates seldom campaign here. As a result, there is a significant general apathy throughout the state about national politics.

By contrast, there is a handful of "battleground" states, states which can go either way. The candidates spend an inordinate amount of time, money, and energy in these states. Frankly, I'm tired of watching Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, Illinois, and a few other states so strongly influence the national election.

Furthermore, going to a popular vote would be more democratic (with a small "d") in that it would go back to the concept of one man (or woman)--one vote. Right now things are terribly skewed to the smaller states. Since all states, regardless of size, have two Senators, those two electoral votes represent about a million voters in Wyoming and Alaska, but those two votes represent tens of millions of voters in New York, California, Illinois, Florida, Texas, etc. This just seems absurdly unfair to me. Maybe it made sense originally when all the colonies were roughly the same size, but I think we have outgrown the usefulness of this institution.

I say, let's quit thinking in terms of red and blue states and instead think of a purple country as a whole. Larger states with larger populations should have a proportionately larger say in who is President, but it shouldn't be an all-or-nothing say. And small states, such as mine, shouldn't have a disproportionate role to play in the election.

Why should the President be elected for the nation by a system different than the way that a Governor is elected for a state? In ever state, a person gets elected Governor by simply getting more votes than any other candidate. That's it. It has nothing to do with having more support in cities as compared to rural areas or vice versa. It is merely who gets the most votes within the entire state. The national election ought to work the same way from now on.

You say that if the system were changed, the big states would be able to overpower the small states. Haven't you ever looked at the electoral college map from the last 4 elections? Texas is currently the second largest state yet it has been consistantly voting differently than California, New York, and Illinois. Ohio and Florida have been swing states.

I agree with you that we shouldn't change the rules JUST so you can improve the chances for YOUR candidate. It would also be appropriate so say that if the system is unfair, it would be wrong to keep the rules the same JUST so you can continue to maintain an unfair advantage!

I can't tell whether or not there is enough of a popular movement at this time to push through a consitutional amendment. But I'll keep talking about it anyway, trying to build more of a momentum.

Why does that matter? I live in Ohio, and we get 21 votes in the Electoral College. That's a good sized number, but I don't think that it is fair that my vote doesn't count. Their vote does, not mine. The popular vote should not be seen as divided by states, but as the nation as a whole. It is not true that bigger stated will nullify other smaller states, because the bigger states are often very divided when it comes to the popular vote. If every vote counts then it won't matter who "wins" a state, because it won't mean that the entire state voted for that condidate.

The problem people find with the Electoral College is the serious possibility for corruption. If even a small number of these people were corrupt, they could destroy the entire process. Imagine a person winning the popular vote by seventy percent and losing because two people got paid to vote a certain way. The possibility of it happening or having happened in the past (corruption in all government has existed since the first government) is impossible to ignore.

I don't hate it, I'm just not crazy about it. The biggest fault with the electoral college is that whichever candidate wins the poplular vote of a particular state wins ALL of their electoral college votes. It's a winner takes all.

What needs to be done is to apportion the electoral college votes according to the popular vote. So, if a candidate wins 60 percent of the popular vote, (s)he should get only 60 percent of that state's electoral college votes.

This would be a better representation of how voters actually vote, not a winner takes all.

I suggest that you read Calhoun, and his defense of the rights of what he called the "concurrent majority." The gist of it is that, in a close election, the rights of a significant portion (nearly half, but not a plurality) of the population goes unrepresented, and what we have then is a tyranny of the numerical majority.

too many people in this country have no idea how the government works or anything about U.S. History.

If it were up to me stupid, uneducated and ill informed people would not be allowed to vote.

folks only hate it when they lose

yep i agree...