Should the electoral college be done away with?

The founding fathers created the electoral college so that big cities would not be the deciding factor in elections. They recognized that the needs and desires of rural communities might be drastically different then those of big city dwellers. For the vast majority of our history, the electoral vote has aligned with the popular vote with few exceptions. Those exceptions favored Republican candidates. It seems to me like the exceptions were more due to better campaigning by Republican candidates, who went after the electoral votes, rather than flaws or unfairness in the electoral system itself.

I’m shocked then, that the socialists running for high office are talking about abolishing the electoral college!!! Doing so would disenfranchise a majority of States as the votes of the citizens of those states would be nullified by just a small handful of big city states.

Does the results of the electoral votes that won the election for Republicans cause you to believe the electoral system should be done away with? If the results had gone the opposite way and won elections for Democrats, would your opinion be different?

1 Like

Electoral college should not be abolished.

I am glad we are back to “socialists” behind every corner.


Then why was the 3/5 compromise included in the constitution?

1 Like

I think the premise is entirely incorrect.

The founding fathers created the electoral college because they didn’t want the people choosing the president at all. They wanted the president chosen by political elites who aren’t as uninformed as the general populace.

No, they created the electoral college because it was a necessary compromise to convince smaller states to sign the constitution.


In part yes but providing more representation to low population states doesn’t require an electoral college. The entire premise of having electors make their independent judgement (as was initially intended) has nothing to do with state representation.

How did the 3/5 compromise factor into this compromise?

It didn’t, other than it was also a compromise to get northern states to sign on.

That’s interesting… slaves were counted as population which determined electors but were not allowed to vote. That seems to be a pretty big factor, in my opinion.

Do away with the electoral college? (D)epends on who wins . lol


How does that matter? They weren’t going to be allowed to vote if it was a popular vote were they?

Math… If they were not counted as population, the southern states would have fewer electors. Women and children were also not allowed to vote…

1 Like

Look at who supported the EC and who didn’t, the division wasn’t between free and slave states it was between large and small states.

If this was ever attempted to be done away with, for the first time in my life, I may just march on Washington?

I think that the states should divide electors between the candidates based on the popular vote of that state.

The winner take all system is failing and will continue to fail.

1 Like

Are you trying to argue that the northern states wanted to include slaves in the population count? When you say large and small, are you discussing population or area?

It shouldn’t be repealed, but the house should increase beyond the 435 members. As originally intended, the house was about representation.


I think that that is also a good idea.

If we do that, are they going to continue to vote pay raises for themselves, or will the people they represent actually have a say?

1 Like

Electors are proportional to population, so don’t large states still have the advantage over small states? That argument doesn’t quite follow.

As Dante’s pointed out, it was so the plebes didn’t pick the POTUS.