The Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics today. There have, in its 200 year history, been a number of critics and proposed reforms to the system - most of them trying to eliminate it. Even back then they saw how this election system is ruining our elections.
It creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. This is more than a theoretical possibility. It has happened at least four times out of the 56 presidential elections, or more than 7 percent of the time, which is not such a small percentage, and it created a hideous mess every time. The most recent occurrence was 2000. It was the bush/al gore election. Al gore won with over 48 percent of the popular vote and bush with 47 percent. But by some political miracle, or curse, bush won! How! He won by winning 9 more electoral votes. Does that sound right to you.
The electoral college defiles the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy that our country prides itself on. This causes severe overrepresentation of small states in the system. As an example, using 2010 Census and the new distribution of House seats, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than 3x the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to 4x than 3x. How can this possibly be a good thing?
Our country's political system is so far ahead of other countries yet also so far behind. It's virtually impossible for a third party member to be voted in as president.
The US electoral college is unfair to third parties, but so is the entire electoral system. It should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the electoral system here in the US that the only state with any viable third party presence is tiny, rural Vermont. Outside that, only a handful of states and cities have a third party presence. This is not good for democracy.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The current system punishes candidates whose support is broadly based.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
The election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed.
Most Americans don't care if their candidate wins or loses in their state . . . They care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes, and been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes – 50.4% of the 270 needed.
on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
The electoral college is supposed to work to mirror the popular vote. While all votes are cast for the person winning the popular vote in the state, it could be said that the electoral college should be more reflective of the popular vote. Meaning a split vote for each state based on the number of votes cast for each candidate. Until the third party has the support, there is no way that the third party can win. Electoral College or not.
Each state gets the same number of votes as they have representatives in the Congress. That way small population states have equal representation in one chamber (Senate) and proportional representation in the other (House of Rep)
The electoral college's function is to give each state that same kind of representation and so it is a VERY GOOD thing.
The states that implement "winner take all" laws are the problem, not the electoral college system.
The electoral college allows the States with small populations have a larger voice, just like the Senate and the Congress create a bicameral representation of both states and people. The electoral college gives one vote per representative in each house to the state and the state gets to decide how to cast those votes.
The real problem is the states' implementation. If the votes were awarded by district winner it would be completely fair, but all but a couple states give ALL the votes of their states to the popular winner in their state. This completely destroys any 3rd party's chances, the electoral college doesn't.
Considering the mathematically provable and self evidence of the discrimination against 3rd parties and favoring of a 2 party system these state election laws have created, I'm surprised a 3rd party Presidential candidate hasn't sued each state that has those laws.
The system is good, the implementation is discriminatory.
I view it as the "equal but separate" doctrine of elections.
The electoral college is based off the population and popular vote of each state. The only way the electoral college could ever be an issue to any party is if they won the national popular vote and lost the electoral collage. No third party has ever came close to wining the the popular vote. Third party candidates are just not getting the support they need.