A criticism of the electoral college is that it gives too much prominence to the smaller states with its winner takes all electoral technology and warps the population's will such as the popular vote. The American founding fathers used the electoral college to protect against tyranny and usurpation by nobled tyrant, but also to try and balance the 'federal' and 'national' characters of the Washington system. (more)
ranomatic : There have been several occasion where an elector has not voted as pledged. The most recent was in 1976 when Mike Padden, a Republican elector from Washington, gave Ronald Reagan one electoral vote. He was pledged to Gerald Ford/Bob Dole, but since a Carter/Mondale election was assured, voted for Reagan instead as the candidate with the proper "pro-life" stance.
susan : What the U.S. Constitution says is "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."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
susan : The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
ranomatic : I should have read my own link. In 2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a DC elector pledged to Gore/Lieberman, did not vote for anyone in protest of DC's lack of congressional representation. There are some other problems since 1976, but they appear to be errors or some sort rather than breaking voting pledges. I think the process is interesting.
cam : The system was never intended as a purely national system. The electoral college was never intended to be sensitive to the popular vote. It is a mix of federal/national.
As to the winner takes all aspect at the state level, it is a trade off between legitimacy and a winner having a large majority of electors and hearing the federal voices of the states.
The purely national component of the US system is the House. Same as the Senate is the purely federal component. The executive is intended as a democratic mix of the two. In that it succeeds.
cam
In the Federalist Papers it is interesting to read Alexander Hamilton's arguments against an executive council. It appears he feared shared power in the executive would make the executive weak and unable to perform its duties but also allow the executive to avoid responsibility.
(more)
adam : Switzerland has an Executive Council: Something like 7 members, appointed according to the proportions their parties hold in parliament. At the federal level the Swiss then pursue government by concordat or consensus, not by vote.
The Federalist Papers were published by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in New York during 1787 and 1788. They were published to sway opinion in New York into ratifying the new American constitution. One of the most influential of the Federalist Papers is No.10 which was written by James Madison. It discusses the role of faction, liberty and the process of government to control the excesses of faction. (more)
