Confessions Of A Political Junkie: Electoral College & Fraud

October 14, 2004

Electoral College & Fraud

Chime in on this.

My view is that the Electoral College helps prevent presidential vote fraud. Because of the nature of the electoral college, voter fraud would have to occur, to be effective, in high doses in swing states, like we are now seeing.

The higher the dose of fraud, the easier it is to detect.

Without the EC, fraud could happen in lower levels nationwide throughout major cities, which tend to have the shoddiest voter registration records. It would be harder to detect in small doses spread out geographically.

That's my abbreviated thought on the subject. What's yours?

Posted by Erick at October 14, 2004 10:37 PM | TrackBack

When "land" needs roads to drive on, schools to learn in, and sewer pipes to cart away its poo in, then it should receive a vote. Not until then.

But, you're right that this is a representative republic and not a pure democracy. Neither system is perfect, and I suspect we are going to simply disagree on which one works better. I have mixed feelings about the electoral college as I stated at some point in some comment precisely for that reason. It has its ups and downs. My take is the inner city gets screwed a little bit in the price-performance ratio. You're entitled to your take.

Posted by: Rusty at October 16, 2004 01:35 AM


This is not a is a Representative Republic....that is the difference. You speak of a "tyranny of the minority" but that is what you are advocating. A few urban areas speaking for the entire country? Look at the map of the 2000 election and see how the red counties encompass the greatest majority of land in the United States.....and the blue areas are the minority...there is nothing fair about that.

See the problems in India to see what is wrong with a true democracy.

Posted by: Chuck at October 15, 2004 08:29 PM

I think your comment is right on target. There is one exception though.

In both Cook County Illinois and the coal fields of West Virginia in 1960, actual voter fraud occured and it likely changed the election.

We still have the cleanest elections in the world because we have BELIEVED in them. But that could all change with the current Michael Moore crowd which plans to have cameras in FL so it can "document" fraud.

Posted by: Jim Pfaff at October 15, 2004 04:23 PM

California doesn't count absentee ballots unless a local California race is close - EVEN if there is a vote for President on those ballots. If a presidential race is close, then they count all ballots. But I wonder what would happen if California was FORCED to count ALL those military votes if we switched to a popular vote.

Posted by: Maggie at October 15, 2004 03:31 PM

The focus on Gore winning the popular vote is baically worthless; Bush, had he desired to win the popular vote could have just spent some money in these urban centers and picked up enough votes to nearly win, or win the popular vote. The election, however, does not hinge on the popular vote, but on the ability to score more overall points (EC votes). Look at it this way: in basketball you don't necessarily have to make more baskets to win the game, you could shoot all 3-pointers and make far less baskets then your opponent who shoots only 2-pointers, and you still win the game. That is why, even as a New Yorker, I prefer the EC: it invites a more comprehensive and detailed campaign strategy.

Posted by: Tony Marrone at October 15, 2004 02:40 PM

The urban areas have a much greater need for government services because of their greater populations, so why shouldn't they have more influence on the election? For instance, why should a farmer in Plains, Ga. have the weight of his vote count three times for legislation that affects a hundred times as many people in Atlanta? That's not democracy, that's tyranny of the minority.

I have mixed feelings about the electoral college, and this voter fraud argument isn't selling me. Republican groups are the only ones so far who have been caught committing fraud, and I'd like to see some evidence of Erick's assertion that major cities "tend to have the shoddiest voter registration records." That just sounds like a veiled way to say blacks in the inner city are ignorant.

Posted by: Rusty at October 15, 2004 10:25 AM

Brilliant argument for the current need to continue with our electoral voting system...although I still believe our Founding Fathers installed it to protect the nation (which was largely rural/agricultural and not well informed on politics) from an ingnorant populace, which unfortunately is still true today!

Posted by: Maggie at October 15, 2004 08:39 AM

I tend to agree somewhat. I also think the founding fathers were brilliant to use the Electoral College as it prevents states like California, New York and a couple of other large population states from electing the President.

If you look at the last election, based on the small number of areas that Gore won.....he would be President if not for the Electoral College. A candidate would only have to win a few urban areas....LA, Chicago, New York City, Philly, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc to win the election. That map that shows the red counties versus the blue counties screams it.....we need the Electoral College.

Posted by: Chuck at October 15, 2004 03:01 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?