Why is the winner take all system of the electoral college undemocratic?

Answer 1

Pure democracy means that the majority rules. (It also means that the majority persecute the minority, so not many people want to live in a democracy. )

The most democratic method of electing a president would be to give each person one vote and the one with the most votes wins.

The US does not use this direct election method. Instead each state is given a certain number of electoral votes , based largely but not entirely on population.

All but 2 states use the winner take all system and award all of their votes to the state-wide winner in popular vote.

Therefore just one popular vote can carry a state. Since the 11 largest states have enough electoral votes to make a majority, in theory, a candidate could get all the popular votes in 39 states and lose the other 11 by a total of just 11 votes and still lose the election.

If states divides their electoral votes in a way proportional to the popular vote count, the split in the electoral vote would be closer to the split in popular vote.

"Winner take all " increases the possibility that the distribution of electoral votes will differ greatly from the popular vote. (it also gives big states more clout than they would have if they split their vote.)

Answer 2

Defenders of the Electoral College make two arguments, both of them bogus. First, they say that it is appropriate because it is a "federalist" institution, and the US is federalist. No one can even say what this argument means. The presidency is the same office, with the same powers and role, however the president is elected. The only impact of the Electoral College is not to make the presidency federalist, but to make it undemocratic.

Second, it is claimed that the Electoral College helps small states. This is a pragmatic argument, not a principled one. Small states will never accept direct elections, we are told, so an amendment will not be able to win the required approval of 3/4ths of the states, and we should not waste our time trying. This is just plain wrong. Under the Electoral College system, small states are ignored. With direct elections, a vote in Wyoming and a vote in California have exactly the same value; but under the Electoral College system, a vote in California is worth as much as 15 votes in Wyoming -- so candidates conclude that campaigning in Wyoming would be a waste of time.

Bottom Line, yes, the electoral college system is not only "undemocratic" it is "anti-democratic", in that it directly stifles the vote of the masses in exchange for a few power players "i.e. electors" to choose for us. As in 2000, (Im looking at you george) this allows someone whom DID NOT receive the majority popular vote to become the president. Patently anti-democratic. We AREthe people, and if you want your vote to actually count, this system should be abolished, PERIOD.

Answer 3

Because it's possible for the winner to have fewer votes than the loser.