if the U.S.A. were a true democracy and the people voted directly for President, would this be a good thing?

Answer 1

No, the electoral college guarantees that a president has broad support in large areas of the country, and not just in a few population centres. We cannot have just New York, LA, and Frisco deciding who is the president.

The electoral college is great. Every state gives it's votes to the winner of it's popular vote. If we dissolve the electoral college the USA cease to be the great republic it is. Majority rule is mob rule.

Answer 2

A true democracy doesn't need a President, as it would not have a need for any representation. There's a very fine line between true democracy and anarchy.

Taken from Wikipedia, "Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives."

Answer 3

No, it wouldn't. A direct vote would mean that population centers in the country would dictate to the rest of the country which leaders would be elected.
I don't know about you but I don't want some liberal from Detroit to run America...or New York City, Philadelphia and certainly not Los Angeles.
The Electoral College system was put in place for the very reason I have cited. The founders understood that people far removed from the population centers, which are the liberal blue dots in red states, would end up running the country unless they used another method.
That is also why the Presidential election starts in Iowa and New Hampshire- hardly liberal population centers. Those guys were geniuses.

Answer 4

No, for a number of reasons. First, consider what happens if there is a close vote. As things now stand, you may have to recount a state or two, but in a direct democracy you would have to recount the whole country. Second, the present system insures that no person can be elected who does not have support from a large part of the country, rather than from just a few large states.

Answer 5

that would be a matter of opinion. I can tell you this. John F Kennedy and George W Bush would have both lost their first elections as president if ppl voted directly. There may have been other presidents elected only because of the electoral college, but those two are the ones I know for sure.

Answer 6

No, suddenly a person who is not a good politician but is a celebrity ( say Tom Cruise) will be elected president because everyone thinks he is a nice guy and because he has enormous "face value". This could lead to very difficult situations.The president has to interact with the world's heads of state, for an educated career politician this is not very hard to do, for an uneducated outsider it would be a disaster.

Answer 7

America is not government by the people, it's government by the participating people.

So maybe, maybe not. I think that a republic is the only way to go. Democracy gives to much power to the government and is ultimately self defeating.

Power corrupts. Corrupted power seeks more. It's a terrible cycle. But it's happening right now, here, in the U.S.

Answer 8

Not according to the governors and senators from about 30 or 35 of the smaller states.

Answer 9

No, candidates would never bother to campaign in rural areas if it weren't for the electoral college. It's an essential part of federalism.

Answer 10

Not if you live in Wyoming (just to pick one example). The current system slightly inflates the power of your vote if you live in a smaller state.