Should the system be revamped so that canidates start delivering messages to the whole of America and not just the states that have 20 or more electorates? If so, what would you do to change it? If you think the current system is still the most effective, why? (Please be objective and keep political bias to a minimum, thanks)
2006-07-10 13:11:17 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Just a little note for Answerman. The constitution is a 'living document'. That is why they have these things called "amendments". Thank you for your answer though.
2006-07-10 13:33:40 · update #1
Note to retired_afmil. That is what the current system does. States like Texas, Florida, and California get more attention because they have more electorates. My question I guess is more about if we could have a system that would elimnate that. I see some suggesting yes and we need a popular vote, but isn't that just the same?
2006-07-10 13:36:54 · update #2
BTW, this is not a question about what happened in 2000 where gore won popular but bush won electoral. This is to say that in every election the canidates spend so much time in states that have large electoral number and a signifigant less time in the states that have very few. Do you think we should change it so the canidates have to refine their messages to every american and not change the message based on the amount of electorates the states have?
Also, I know I am leaning to my opinion, but I will be objective in selecting my best answer. If you can give a convincing arguement as to why it should stay, then I will select yours best.
2006-07-10 14:26:04 · update #3
Hey SPLATT. I appreaciate the first part of you answer, but the second part you can blow out your ***. Its just an opinion question. If you cannot just answer a question without being a ******* asshole, then stop answering questions.
2006-07-11 06:59:51 · update #4
In order to get rid of the Electoral College you would need to get a constitutional amendment.
To do that you need to get 2/3 of both houses of congress and 75% on the states. That means you would need 38 states to agree. Since 29 states have less than 10 Electoral votes, I don’t think you could get more than about 20 states to agree.
So, if you want to waste your time on this. Go ahead. It will keep you from causing other trouble for the rest of us.
2006-07-11 00:18:53 · answer #1 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
It is time for that system to die. We need a popular vote election. By the people. It would take an amendment to the Constitution, but it could start with a grass straw movement. If people in every state in the country started collecting signatures we could have this go onto state ballots or send it to Congress and tell them we want it on the national ballot. It probably would be better to put it on the state ballots first that way they couldn't vote it down before the people got to vote.
2006-07-10 13:58:38 · answer #2 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
G'day Yayrea, thanks on your question. I help retention of the electoral college. in the different case, you may have smaller states ignored in favour of the bigger states. It likely isn't mandatory in spite of the indisputable fact that it truly is constructive. The electoral college isn't rigged adverse to the want of the individuals. commonly, the winner of the everyday vote wins the electoral college or maybe as he hasn;t the margin has been very close. One equipment that should be considered may be having the winner of each and every congressional district triumphing one electoral college votes as even states that are heavily positive to at least one celebration or the different like Texas or California may have close Congressional districts. Howver, the biggest electoral reform may be having one consistent set of election guidelines in the course of the rustic and having one needed body to run US federal elections. The 2000 Presidential election obviously confirmed the issue with having many community and state governments operating the election. Regards
2016-12-01 00:49:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I wish the other guy had won the 2000 election, I say no. If we eliminated the Electoral College entirely, we could be faced with a scenario of several candidates in the general election with a shot at winning, and the winner could win with 17,18, 19, 20 percent of the vote, and that candidate could be an extremist.
2006-07-10 14:13:02 · answer #4 · answered by n10city75 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, leave the constitution alone. It is a good system that has worked for over 200 years. Even though it worked against me the last two elections I do not think we should be messing with the constitution. It is a great document when you consider that it was written so many years ago and is still valid.
2006-07-10 13:16:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow that is dumb then a couple states will elect the president. Then they will give the big states all the pork a small state with a few people, they won't pay attention to. We have the best system going no change
2006-07-10 13:27:14 · answer #6 · answered by retired_afmil 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With the speed of Computers and if Vote calculation is up to par we do not need electoral votes any longer let the Majority Speak. I want my Vote counted.
2006-07-10 13:17:24 · answer #7 · answered by kritikos43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think it should be completely done away with. We have the technology, and it wouldn't be too hard or expensive, to get rid of it and just count individual votes. Candidates should win by popular vote. As it stands now, that doesn't always happen (like the last election).
2006-07-10 13:15:49 · answer #8 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe we should vote for our own president, not the electorate.
2006-07-10 13:20:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
SHUT UP!
2006-07-11 10:27:12 · answer #10 · answered by ♥eLizAbEtH♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋