Should the electoral college be disbanded and we instead go srtictly by popular vote?

Question

president Bush "lost" the 2000 elections by over 400,000 votes but "won" the presidency.

Answer 1

I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Many presidents have won due to the electoral college rather than popular vote.

What disgusts me is the attempt by my party (Democrats) to try to change the rules AFTER the vote.

That was about the most UNdemocratic thing I've seen in a long time. This question points out that the same foolishness still lives, making a mockery of democratic process as people still think you can't "win" that way.

What utter nonsense.

May I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of the game before you get involved, or change the rules with all of us in agreement before playing.

Playing Monopoly, losing, and then saying that everyone should have started with twice as much money and therefore you didn't go bankrupt makes you look stupid.

Claiming Bush didn't win because of the electoral college is a silly idea (which it might be, but it was agreed to by all participants BEFORE the election, no complaints, since it might have benefitted them).

Some of us are sick of it. Show some political education and patriotic support, change the focus of the party onto the values we have made household words rather than special interests, and we'll take back the White House by 2008.

Don't, and we deserve what we don't get. GET OVER IT! We're losing because of junk like this.

Answer 2

No, the electoral college is very important to the american political system. when our founding fathers set up our government they fought on the issue of how we would be represented in the federal government. large states said that our representation in the federal government should be based on popular decison alone, while small states wanted equal representation. they compromised and created a two house system whee the house would be based on population and the senate on equal representation. the same rule applies to the electoral college and our system of federal elections. each state gets a say in the federal election by having a minimum of 3 electoral votes (equal representation) while the larger states have a greater number of votes based on population (popular representation). if one believed that our representation in the federal government should be based purley on popular decision and pushed to remove the electoral college, then the senate should be abolished as well. the senete gives equal representation to all states. with that said, the electoral college follows our system of government and is vital to ensureing a presidential candidate not only has a sufficient number of pupular votes to govern, but also has widespread support accross the country. this way no single region can elect a president over another. also this helps maintain a two party system because for a candidate to win he must reach a majority of the electoral votes. also this helps maintain a nationally run campain where all states are important. without the system, candidates would only campaign in high density pupulation regions and ignore rural and small states. i hope this helped.

Answer 3

Yes. All it does is make some states worth more than others. All a candidate needs to do is win a few swing states to win. The voters in the other states don't matter.

Answer 4

I can still hear Al Gore lisping his monotonous, whiny rhetoric about winning the popular vote.

Hitler won the popular vote too. By a large margin. Go Democracy!!!

Or... not.