3 1

Arguments Against

Hi, everybody!

Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2, 3 & 4 of the US Constitution, along with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, provides for the creation and explains the rationale and operation of an Electoral College.

Recently, the Democrats and other similarly aligned groups have called for the abolition of the Electoral College. Thankfully, this would require a Constitutional amendment, which is pretty damned hard to achieve...but not impossible no matter how bat shit the idea is: let's not forget the 18th Amendment.

Here is, in my opinion, a very nice video from PragerU that explains why the Electoral College is important and why it must be preserved.


In the interest of dialog and argumentation, what would your best arguments be AGAINST the Electoral College? What?!?! Yeah, I know, but please hear me out.

In my opinion, it's pretty damned easy to argue FOR the Electoral College. Hell, it was recognized from the start that it protected against cabal, corruption, intrigue and faction. But, as I said, a serious effort is afoot to abolish it.

It might be useful to consider the best arguments AGAINST the Electoral College in order to effectively argue against them when the need arises. Notice: I said "when" not "should;" it's definitely coming!

So once again,

What would your best arguments be AGAINST the Electoral College?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Diogenes 6 Apr 10

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


The best I've ever been able to come up with is that the presidency is the only elected office that represent all of the States and all of the people. Given that Senators are now elected by statewide elections as representatives of each State's citizenry (rather than the States themselves), a line in the philosophy of government sand has been crossed: the people ought to be doing the electing rather than slates of party picked electors who don't even have to cast ballots based on the will of the voters.

That's how I would tackle it. Now, how to refute it? I like the argument that we don't want near totalitarian urban rule over a largely rural populace.

Excellent point! Thank you!


The 'gerrymandering' (to abuse a term) which has occurred with respect to how each State's electors must perform relative to the will of the voters. IMO, it was put into place as a last-ditch effort / ability to 'rig' the vote (and I do understand its original point and purpose mathematically) in the sense that the group of 'Electors' are the ones who actually establish the winner, and who-- historically, and at least as far as the College itself goes-- can vote in any way they choose with or without respect to the will of the voters. Since its inception, various States have passed laws which alter the way their electors are permitted / required to vote.

Very interesting point! Thank you!


The only argument I hear is that it’s not democratic. I agree. It’s not meant to be.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:29500
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.