If we did, Gore would have won over Bush. Why don't we do this?
2006-08-04 03:43:47 · 11 answers · asked by CoronaGirl 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes, the popular vote is the way to go. the electoral system is flawed. the electorates can vote for who they want to, whether their state votes that way or not.
the other thing is it doesn't matter how many vote right now, because the amount of votes, electorate, in each state can create an unbalanced load due to jerrymandering and other political tools.
Example (hypothetical): there are three states. State A: votes 1,000 for gore and 975 for bush (small states). State B votes 1,000 for gore and 975 for bush and state C votes the opposite: 975 for gor and 1000 for bush.
That comes to a popular vote of 2975 for gore and 2950 for bush. Gore wins pop vote by a hair. However, State A has 32 electoral votes, state B has 15 and state C has 50.
Bush wins, 50 to 47 in the electoral system.
Now that is a very base but pretty accurate example as to why the electoral system sucks.
And Gore won in 2000. The rest can get over it. :o)~
2006-08-04 04:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by DEP 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is certainly an interesting debate but I have to say something. Gore won the popular vote over Bush by less than 1 percent. Who's to say that outcome wouldn't have changed if there hadn't been a recount? (Which certainly would have happened as it did in Florida). The way people complain you think Gore beat Bush by double digits in the popular vote. People GORE LOST IN 2000!!! GET OVER IT!!
2006-08-04 10:54:29 · answer #2 · answered by jimel71898 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's time we went to direct election instead of that antiquated electoral college nonsense. I can't think of a single country in the world other than the US that has such a way of electing their leader (and in the case of Bush, I use the word leader quite loosely). If we had direct elections, Al Gore would be in his second term, the environment would be cleaner, we wouldn't be in Iraq, we wouldn't have a budget deficit and so on. But we insist on hanging on to the electoral college which basically makes a person's vote worthless. It's time for a change!!!
2006-08-04 11:58:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very simple the current system made it so all the states had a equal imput in the election of our president, if it was just popular vote all politicians would campaign on the west and the east coast only, because that where most of the US population resides and they would ignore the rest of the country.
2006-08-04 10:55:39 · answer #4 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college is God's way of letting Algore get all the stupid popular votes he wants, but to make sure there's no way in Hell he enters the White House as President.
God's plan worked perfectly.
2006-08-04 12:02:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it should be based on popular vote ! That is the true way america votes !!! Some states are changing this now !!!
2006-08-04 11:17:21 · answer #6 · answered by jdfnv 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because when we made the voting system, smaller states wanted to feel like they held more power. They felt the electoral college system covered that.
2006-08-04 10:48:49 · answer #7 · answered by Uncreative Name 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What you don't like the system of electing a president on unpopular vote?
2006-08-04 11:07:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gore is an abject idiot.
But I agree about popular vote.
2006-08-04 11:32:32 · answer #9 · answered by Alexander Shannon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It's a bad idea. The electoral college protects the interests of the smaller states. Mobocracy isn't all that great a thing.
2006-08-04 11:14:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋