2006-06-30 11:14:40 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No. The whole Constitution was a compromise between the large states, like Virginia, and New York, and the small states like Rhode Island.
We probably should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.
2006-06-30 11:37:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NOT ONLY IS IT FAIR---- ITS SAVING THE COUNTRY---
Without the Electoral College you could become president by campaigning and pandering to only the 7 or 8 biggest cities in America. Imagine someone giving the farm to New York, LA, Chicago, and Dallas, while the rest of us suffer and become less and less represented by our government. Thats how revolutions start--- its on the verge of taxation without representation. That sounds extreme but if some freak in LA was choosing the President every 4 years our country would end up in BAD shape in a generation.
2006-06-30 12:32:03 · answer #2 · answered by alec9922 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the electoral college is outdated, skewed and a mere shadow of democracy.
2006-06-30 11:20:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our country is based on Justice not fairness
and it is kinda fair but not really since the number representatives are capped
2006-06-30 12:49:31 · answer #4 · answered by lyra 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes because it allows small States to have just as much a say as large States.
2006-06-30 11:18:55 · answer #5 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not any more. When the country was formed it allowed smaller southern states to be equal to NY, NJ, Penn. and Mass. It makes no sense now.
2006-06-30 11:19:10 · answer #6 · answered by bilskine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can it be when a candidate with a minority of the votes cast can be declared the winner. It is my understanding that this has happened more than once.
2006-06-30 11:20:26 · answer #7 · answered by gshewman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO IT IS A THOROUGHLY OUTDATED SYSTEM --HAS LOST ITS VALUE TOWARD ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE AND HAS COST THE COUNTRY DEARLY IN TERMS OF THE LOSS OF POPULAR VOTES ACTUALLY HAVING THE SAY IN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NATIONAL DECISIONS --AND EACH TIME THAT IT IS USED IN THIS MANNER WE ARE TOLD THAT CONGRESS WILL REVISIT THE ISSUE AT A LATER TIME AND THAT TIME NEVER EVER COMES
2006-06-30 11:21:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, ask Al Gore!
2006-06-30 11:17:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it is. it prevents someone like hillary from buying off a large city for all their votes, to hell with the rest of the country.
2006-06-30 11:52:56 · answer #10 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋