Talk:Electoral college

message: There doesn't seem to be anything in the article about the advantages of an electoral college.  Mainly giving a balance of power to the smaller states.  If the US went to a popular vote system States like California and New York Would control every presidential election and so candidates could run on a platform of "I'll send all the money to CA an NY, and stop sending money to all other states" and win the election.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.100.214 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages 

message: Am I the only one that thinks that this article lacks a section with criticisms of the system. I'm pretty sure we could find some criticisms of the system, as this system isn't directly democratic. Are there any plans in countries using this system to change into the "normal" system of direct democracy? --HJV 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticisms would be an EXCELLENT addition as anyone can level some with the electoral college. I would suggest more discussions begin on why the electoral college was important and why it could be considered now inadiquate or useless. Te original reason was to reduce the problems two-hundred years ago with counting votes.. now with electronic and better logicistics, these problems are solved at least in America; making the electoral college considereably less useful.--OMG LAZERS 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Many still believe in the Electoral College as an important feature of the Republic.  It gives smaller (by population) states a level of political clout that they wouldn't otherwise enjoy.    The original reasonings behind the creation of the Electoral College - that it should ensure smaller states have a significant voice in choosing the president - and that a pure popular vote would reduce the country to a state of mob rule (i.e., 'tryanny of the majority') are still valid.  Of course, a lot of people want to transform the US from a Republic to a Centralized European-style social democracy, and if that is what you want, then you would support the elimination of the Electoral College (the passage 17th amendment was also a huge step along this path).--Jim
What the hell does that last post mean???  It seemed to answer everything BUT the question.  I support the addition of a criticisms section.  It would be appropriate, imo.  24.98.225.16 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: The president elected by the electoral college in Germany has not say, he is a political puppet. the Chancellor who runs Germany is elected by popular direct vote....Felt that bit of info was missing.
:Are you sure? I believe the president is indeed given duties and powers (look in the article for presidency of germany, it lists them.) One of these powers I think is to choose a chancellor (not the direct popular vote.) I believe that is how hitler became chancellor, hindenburg did it because he was so popular.
Both of you are wrong. The president in Germany DOES have some power, his signature is necessary for bills to become law, and he has, in the past, occasionally refused to sign a bill into law if he had grave constitutional objections. Second, the chancellor is not elected directly, he is elected by the lower house of parliament and appointed by the president. The second comment above is mind-boggling, however, in believing that powers held by a president under the Weimar constitution were still relevant today... He's also wrong on Hindenburg's motivations, but that's not the issue either...
--213.209.110.45 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral college in Germany 

message: In this section, it states that winning the presidency without winning the popular vote only happened three times. It actually happened more than that. Here are the 20th century presidents that won without the majority of votes:
1912 - Woodrow Wilson with 41.8% and in 1916 with 49.3%
1948 - Harry Truman with 49.5%
1960 - John F. Kennedy with 49.7%
1968 - Richard Nixon with 43.4%
1992 - Bill Clinton with 43% and in 1996 with 49%
I am siting "the importance of the electoral college by Dr. George Grant." - Dace48
:they may have not had the majority, but they did win the plurality, which in most elections in the US is considered a win.65.205.20.42 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral Vs. Popular Vote 

message: what is it called when a person casts a vote for someone other than they pledged to elect?
:People who do that are called faithless electors. 24 states have laws to punish these bad boys, but check the article for more. --Kevin (TALK) 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  electoral college 

message: There isn't much information at [US Presidential Electors], and I think the two articles could benefit from a merge.64.50.95.2 06:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge? 

message: :*This article is about Electoral Colleges in general. For the U.S system of electing the President, see United States Electoral College. (intro notice)
:*States with electoral college systems outside the United States include (...)
Sentences like this make the reader (me) feel that everything orbits around the United States.  Really does it?
Just a thought.
--200.126.147.111 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the deal with the US? 

message: ::States with electoral college systems outside the United States include Burundi, Estonia, India, France (for the  Senate), Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Is this inclusive|exclusive, comprehensive, completely verified??
This should be referenced further-up, easy-to-locate.
Further, it, as well, deserves an article, comparing how each  entity  got there|here, as well as how various nations have gotten past this  anachronism:
:According to partial official results, she has met the two requirements needed to win the election outright; that is,  a 40%-plus plurality of the votes and a 10% advantage over her nearest rival. That would be the widest margin a candidate has obtained since democracy returned to Argentina in 1983. If final results confirm the current trend, she will be Argentina's second female president, but the first to be elected.
There should be an  Argentina-succession-chronology.
There should be a list comparing all nations' comparable systems, regarding the equivalent position, despite the fact that various nations do name this w/ a variety of words|phrases.
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current method for electing the President is by popular vote. The former method (established by the Constitution in 1853 and re-established by the amendment of 1957) was of election by means of an Electoral College. The amendment of 1949 established popular election for the first time, and the last amendment of 1994 re-established it.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ Cristina_Elisabeth_Fernandez_de_Kirchner ]] 

message: :The current method for electing the President is by popular vote. The former method (established by the Constitution in 1853 and re-established by the amendment of 1957) was of election by means of an Electoral College. The amendment of 1949 established popular election for the first time, and the last amendment of 1994 re-established it.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ presidential election |Presidential Election]][[ president_of_Argentina |s]] 

message: I would like to see references for the material in this article. I'm particularly interested in seeing a reference for the statement that "the United States Electoral College was created for the express purpose of insuring that George Washington would be elected the first president." For that to be true, the Framers would have had to have known that the electors would vote for Washington. But how could they have known that, when they couldn’t have known who the state legislators would appoint as electors? Even if getting Washington elected was one reason for creating the Electoral College, it definitely wasn't the only reason, so the phrase "the express purpose" could be misleading. One of the reasons the Electoral College was created was to prevent "excessive democracy" by preventing the common people from electing the President and Vice President directly. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
Thanks.Sharon Leigh Wilson (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the dubious statement about George Washington and added the unreferenced template to the article. As I mentioned in my edit summary, if the statement was in fact true and is re-added, it needs to have a reference cited. If you find articles like this in the future that are lacking proper citations, you can add the  template to questionable unsourced statements and the  template to the article itself if it is entirely devoid of references.– 67.43.92.191 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electing George Washington 

message: I thought that the territories and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico didn't have any representation in the US House nor in the US Senate, but don't they get to vote for President?
The main article says that there are 538 electoral votes.  This would be 100 for US Senators, 435 for the House of Representatives, and 3 for the District of Columbia.
I knew that the District of Columbia didn't have any votes in the US Senate nor in the US House.  Is it true the citizens residing in Washington D. C. can vote for electors and thus vote for President but none of the territories can neither vote for US President, US Senate, nor even for the President of the USA?
166.70.40.128 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam have non-voting delegate in the US House of representatives.  They have no representation in the Senate.  DC has 3 electoral votes as provided in the 22nd Amendment.  The territories have no voice in electing the President.  They do maintain the right to petition for statehood, which would grant them electoral votes. Schoop (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't the territories get to vote for electors? 

message: "The short-lived Confederate States of America provided for election of its president in virtually the same manner as set forth in the U.S. Constitution."
The Confederation did not have a president.
Please email me at think.perfect@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfabara (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Confederate States of America (Confederacy, not confederation) did indeed have a president.  It was Jefferson Davis.  Schoop (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederacy

message: Is it not obvious that having the final vote really goes to that one group of people, and they can just decide as they wish wether or not to let the real public's opinion influence them? Is it not obvious that many people feel that distorts democracy? Just use logic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.65.233 (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citation needed 

message: I am doing a response on the electoral college and I can't find anything about whether or not the actual popular vote means anything? Is it just to make the citzens feel good and like they are participating in the elections? Why is there an electoral college? What is its purpose if the actual popular vote means nothing to the actual election? Why did the framers choose to create the electoral college?--76.25.72.225 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the Electoral College (United States) article? Your questions seem to be about the US system, and that article coveres it in depth, including issues regarding the popular voote. If you would read that page carefully, I think you'll find most of the questions you've raised are covered there. Also, while talk page are primarily for discussing the article itself, and not the actual topic, your questions do show where the article has left you with more questions than answers. If the US article doesn't answer then, then we need to improve that article. This one, however, is just on electoral colleges in general, and their history, and not the US one specifically. Hope that helps! - BillCJ (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there an electoral college????? 

message: I read through the article in preparing to respond to the above post for information on the US system, but could find none. I noticed that there seemed to be a missing paragraph after the one on Christianinty. The next paragraph began with "Similar systems are used or have been used in other presidential elections around the world." Obviously, the system of the Catholic church is not a presidential system, so I went searching for a missing paragraph. I found it in a spate of vandalistic edits from November 2006. I found some more in December 2007, so we might want to keep an eye out for items we remeber that might have disappeared. So much for Jimbo's thory of vandalism being reverted within 15 minutes. Or was it seconds? Don't make much difference compared to 17 months! There's got to be a better way to protect an encylopedia from such nonsense. Need I mention the vandal was an IP user? - BillCJ (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old vandalism

message: This article says "Nations with electoral college systems outside the United States include Burundi, Estonia, India, France (for the Senate), Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, and Trinidad and Tobago." and cites for many of the countries.  However that contradicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_nation what this article says?  Any known reasons for this? 
MrEaton (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions? 

message: This article has already been vandalized once this morning. I suggest that it be locked until after official popular results are verified on November 5th and then again until the EC vote on December 4th.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.56.30 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RECOMMENDATION FOR LOCKING UNTIL NOVEMBER 5 

message: Each state is allowed to decide how its electors will be chosen. All states except for Maine and Nebraska chose a winner take all system.  If you get 50% +1 vote you get all the states electoral college votes.  In the case of Maine and Nebraska, they use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypothetical question: If every state followed the approach of Maine and Nebraska, how would presidential campaigns adapt?  Would there be more chaos or more clarity? Parsing speeches and campaign ads would be an obvious challenge. Has anyone seen an analysis of this scenario? --jwalling (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 states not winner take all 

message: A non-logged-in editor just removed the following external link:
* 
That was originally from
* https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem
This is part of a larger series on the Constitution.  Here are some other articles in that series that are related to the Electoral College:
* https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/our-electoral-college-system-weird-and-not-good-way
* https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/how-work-around-electoral-college-without-amending-constitution
* https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/why-constitution-s-framers-didn-t-want-us-directly-elect-president
* https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/picking-president-dangers-and-weird-outcomes-electoral-college
* https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/defense-electoral-college-system-and-some-responses
If any editor thinks these would make good external links, please consider adding them to the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, these may be better suited for Electoral College (United States).  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful "external links" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Electoral college. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104065515/http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/elections/federal_convention to http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/elections/federal_convention/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302162354/http://www.president.ee/en/estonia/constitution.php?gid=81910 to http://www.president.ee/en/estonia/constitution.php?gid=81910
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408204828/http://www.ttparliament.org/Docs/constitution/ttconst.pdf to http://www.ttparliament.org/Docs/constitution/ttconst.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227050518/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03938.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03938.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "As of 2019, the United States Supreme Court has yet to decide the matter." This needs an update that I'll leave to someone who knows more about it than I do. Thanks.  –Roy McCoy (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: India uses an Electoral College too, to elect the President. The article should reflect that.  Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears India is mentioned, alongside Germany and Italy. I think the three countries' systems can be fleshed out. It isn't as though only the US and French colleges are worth talking about. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  India