Is the electorial college a fair way to elect a president?

Question

in the year 2000 vice president gore and govener bush faced off in what was a very heated battle for the presidentsy of the united states what many people consider to be the most powerful postion on earth. gore won the popular vote meaning that the majority of the country voted for him but bush wone the electorial vote meaning he wone states with more votes in the college. putting aside you political affiliations is this a fair way to elect a president considering that even the most popular person wont nesicarrily be elected?

Answer 1

Yes as it's a balance between the big and small states. If it weren't for the Supreme Court, it probably wouldn't be under attack.

There was a reason why the founding fathers choose this way. It's to prevent 'mob rule' or basically the majority from ruling all. It gives the smaller voice some strength that is needed to counter the majority.

Besides, except for I think 4 elections, the electoral college did go with the popular vote. It just spices things up a bit, for better or for worse.

Answer 2

If this country was not perhaps the United STATES of America (emphasis on STATES) then perhaps a unifying system would work better, but unfortunately the entire structure of the country, and government in general, negates such a move as of now. My problem is that I believe a president should be elected solely by popular vote, yet I also think a de-centralized government is essential to the survival of this country. It's a nasty Catch22. Perhaps if local governments had more power, and the President decidedly less so, then this issue wouldn't be as important. Good question.

IN RESPONSE TO coasterbeth4:

Practice what you preach - you're missing an "LY" off your last word there genius.

Answer 3

I think it is yes, only because the delegates in the electoral college will vote for the majority. Now I know there was a difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote, but that was because Mr. Bush won a lot of states that are not heavily populated, like the plains states.

I hope I answered this properly. I was dumbfounded though - how could 30 million voters be so stupid???

Answer 4

Personally I do not believe that the president should be elected based on votes of the electoral college. I feel it would be more fair,and appropriate to elect the president based on the DIRECT vote of the people! Contrary to what others had to say,I do not feel it is a matter for the supreme court(they've "screwed up" this country and " butchered" the US constitution enough already)-it is a matter for the people to determine for themselves! An amendment to the constitution would probably be needed to make this change-the american people would have to petition or otherwise influence their congressmen to have this done by showing them it is the will of the people,and in the best interests of all.

Answer 5

Sure it's fair. Not perfect, but fair. We've been doing it this way for our entire country's existence and it's worked pretty well. It only became an issue because of the Bush-haters, who to this day claim the election was stolen.

With current technology I don't see why we couldn't go to just adding up the votes and the one with the most votes wins. But that doesn't mean the current electoral college method isn't fair.

Answer 6

It's a sham. States with small populations have a much stronger voice in electing the president than states with large populations. Political minorities in Blue/Red states feel unempowered to participate in the political process. Popular voting is the only democratic way (oh and give D.C. some congressional representation)

Democracy = 1 vote, 1 person.

Answer 7

The electoral college is fair because it makes gives small states slightly more power to elect the executive branch to make up for the slightly less power they have in electing the legislative branch.

A state's representation in the House of Representatives depends on its population. If you divide the 435 US Representatives by the ~300 million citizens, you'll see that each Representative represents an average of ~700,000 citizens. However, many small states have over 700,000 citizens and only one Representative. So large states like California may average 685,000 residents per Congressman, but the Delawares and Montanas of the world have nearly 1 million residents and only one Congressman. There are two congressional elections for every presidential election. So by giving smaller states slightly more power in the electoral college (by giving all states two extra votes by virtue of their senators), small states are able to make up for their lack of representation in the legistlative branch. And this keeps power perfectly balanced between the large and small states - which was the intent of our founding fathers from the beginning.

Answer 8

because lower back at the same time as the electoral college replaced into devised, it really is purpose replaced into to furnish small states with small populations extra ability. yet now that maximum states have various human beings its starting to be to be having too a lot detrimental impression on the classic vote. as a rule because a really smaller and smaller set of folk are in cost of who receives the endorsement. too a lot ability is centred in an antiquated subjective procedure it really is not needed any extra

Answer 9

No. Even Russia and Iran permit direct vote on the President.

Of course, Russia also destroys political opposition to the president, and Iran's president isn't even close to the final authority there.

Answer 10

No, of course its not fair. Every other country in the world that holds free elections, has direct popular vote. But, we keep on insisting that the electoral college is the fairest way. You saw what happened in 2000. I rest my case.