Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 month ago

Should the United States do away with the electoral college or not? Why? What would the long term effects be if it was scrapped? ?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago
    Favourite answer

    The electoral college was initially put in place to ensure that states with a higher population would not be able to determine the destiny of the people living in states that have a lower population. In theory, it's actually a very good thing and it's done a lot of good, but of course, as it is with practically every measure that's implemented to prevent problems, it's caused problems of its own. 

    Back when it was adopted, the United States was a young nation with unbridled and indeterminable potential. No one could have foreseen the way things would go, so it made perfect sense for the people of Rhode Island to be concerned that Massachusetts or Virginia could dominate the politics of the country. But the founding fathers didn't foresee the growth and expansion of the country and they would have no way of knowing that states formed long after the implementation of the institution of the electoral college would be completely different in character and geography from those formed during Colonial times. 

    There were thirteen original colonies, and today only one ranks toward the top in terms of population. Many of the original colonies are relatively small in area and population compared to states that were formed later.California alone is far larger than the largest original colony - in fact, it's several times larger than a fair portion of them combined. One would think in theory that was the entire point - to safeguard against the dominance of the most populous states, but what's actually happened is that because the electoral college is in effect, many votes cast in the most populous US states are meaningless because the popular vote takes a backseat to the electoral college. 

    California and New York and Texas are the three largest states in terms of population, and they continue to determine election results despite the fact that the electoral college applies. The United States is a republic, and if the people truly had a voice, the popular vote would be the only vote that matters. But as we all know and as well have all seen, the majority is constantly and consistently being disenfranchised in the US because of the outdated institution of the electoral collage. It's highly unlikely that the most populous US states who wield the greatest number of electoral votes is going to change anytime soon, so we can expect that candidates vying for the presidency who win states like those are going to be in a better position than those who secure a larger percentage of the popular vote. 

    It's definitely something that should be eliminated from American politics.   

  • Prince
    Lv 5
    1 month ago

    Yes because things are never complicated. When you are told something's "complicated" that always means the person speaking to you is in the employ of a foreign dictator like the Saudi or Chinaman Square or Putin, Assad or some such. Never complicated, they're all corrupt. People who tell you that the Electoral College represents the large empty tracts of land owned by billionaires and populated by their serfs, just don't want places like New York and Los Angeles to be more represented because the People of the United States live in large population centres. That would mean rule by the People in accordance with the Founding Fathers who are completely out of step with contemporary political realities. The Electoral College ensures that empty real property owned privately can outvote an otherwise popular election. Hence it's a "complicated" issue which we, quite condescending, have "studied for years" and you would not understand it.

  • Jeff D
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    That's not likely to happen given that it would require a Constitutional amendment (which would require at least some of the small states who benefit the most from the electoral college to vote against it).

  • abdul
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    I don't think so. Doing away with it would simply turn our national elections over to the high population states disenfranchising the smaller states. The last election clearly shows that to be true. They claim Mrs. Clinton won 3 million more votes than Trump, thereby "winning" the popular vote. However, Trump took over 30 of 50 states, and a huge chunk of the counties in the states making his win a clear majority of the states and counties in the country. Without the electoral college, the 20 or less states that voted for Hillary would have won, making it minority rule. The EC works, we should leave it alone. IMHO.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Desire
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    No................

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    This argument will be become moot once the great shakeout redistributes the population from the coasts to the interior. Check out some San Francisco real estate right now. Prices dropping fast and a glut of properties on the market. People forced to work remotely are realizing they can trade their 2M 1 bdrm. in SFO for a 200K 4 bdrm. ranch style in a red state and still keep their lucrative tech job. They'll bring their coastal ethos with them and more states will become purple. Thus quelling the cries for doing away with the Electoral College. 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.