the electoral college? keep it? or scrap it?

Answer 1

Scrap it.

It was designed to keep largely populated areas from ruling the government in times that communcation was not instantaneous, but seeing as the votes of the college are not reflecting the votes of the people they're supposed to represent(recently the electoral colleges voters voted contrary to the actual majority votes of the states the college votes represented) it should be scrapped.

I don't think that allowing the majority of Americans to decide their president will make this country worse, and since that's what the college decides, and the president is not a dictator, then it will only make our country better.

And now that the majority of americans can see each candidates pros and cons, why would we need a group of representatives to elect a representative.

As far as smaller states not getting enough attention or campain platform consideration, so far we've been deluged by lies from our leaders, who wants a leader to come to their state just to lie about issues that are important there when they're not really going to do anything about it?

Bottom line, if electoral votes were only decided by the votes of the population of the state(not entered before the states votes had been tallied), then it would be a little better, but as it is it would be better to be rid of it because I don't see a president being able to use the fact that they're elected to abuse a state that has less of a population, and allowing a majority to decide what's right for their country would allow our society to change with the times instead of holding on to racist predjudiced leaders who get there by corruption and controll the college.

Answer 2

Scrapping it would require a Constitutional amendment. And while I think that might be a good thing, it's not likely to happen.

But fixing it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment, and it's something that can be done on an incremental basis.

The problem is not with the concept of the electoral college itself. That just takes all of the votes cast, and groups them into large chunks based on percentage of population in the state.

The problem is that the current state laws (in most states) allocate those votes all or nothing, based on pure majority rule. A more effective system would be to allocate the votes based on the actual relative percentage vote. Let's look at an example, in a state with 10 electoral votes, and three candidates.

Of the three candidates, one gets 52%, one gets 34%, and one gets 19% of the vote. Under the current model used by most states, all 10 of the electoral votes get allocated to one candidate.

Under the proportional model used by a couple states, one candidate would get 5 electoral votes, one 3, and the other 2. Very different math, and now the system is much more reflective nationally of the entire population.

How electoral votes are allocated is decided by each state, and can be changed incrementally by each state. A lot easier than trying to get a federal Constitutional Amendment to do it.

Answer 3

In this time of instant computer results there is absolutely no need for the electoral college. Those that get elected should truly be the ones that win the popular vote. The electoral college is an outdated, unnecessary system.
Scrap It!

Answer 4

keep it. Here's why:

If it was scraped, campaigns would focus all their efforts in densely populated areas in order to get the most bang for their buck when if comes to campaign time/money. States with no big cities would by and large be ignored. With the current system, states with big populations can't be ignored because of their large number or electoral votes; however, neither can small swing states. This makes sure that all states get attention. If a small state is being ignored bacause its considered a lock, the peopel just have to start voting for the other party and attention is focused back on them a bit. Swing states such as Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, and many others would be more or less ignored in favor of campaigning in NYC, Las Angeles, etc if we went to a strict popular vote.

Plus, Election day gambling with friends over who can pick the states right just wouldn't be the same if the states didn't have electoral votes.

And that brings me to a side comment . . . Those who say Bush only won the election because of the electoral college are not exactly correct. Remeber both candadates campaigned knowing it was an electoral house decision. If they had campaigned for the popular vote instead, the counts would be different and its impossible to know who would have won.

Answer 5

Trying to scrap it is a waste of time.

It requires a constitutional amendment.

To get that passed, it requires at least 38 states sign on.

You might get 16 or 17 of the largest 20 states. That would mean that you need 21 or 22 of the smallest 30.

That will NEVER happen. To vote for this amendment, those states would be giving away the additional power of their electoral college vote that is weighted in their favor.

California alone makes up more than 12% of the population.

The top 9 states more than 50%.
The top 20 more than 75%

Smaller state would be foolish to allow the bigger states to decide the election.

Answer 6

i'm a lefty, yet I fully help the Electoral college device. It is going returned to the assumption of the framers and our concept of federalism, and that each and every state is unquestionably a sovereign and not purely a region. It demands applicants and events to pay some interest to the guy smaller inhabitants states and not only ny and California. on the time of the framers, they disturbing pertaining to to the disproportionate impact of Virginia. The logical extension of your argument would be to disband the senate. i think of issues have worked for the main area rather suited over the final 220 years or so.

Answer 7

SCRAP IT!!!! It's an antiquated system that no longer serves it's purpose. It gives the highly populated places like California, New York, and Florida the power to decide who our president is. It violates the principle of being elected "by the people for the people". Twice George w. was elected without receiving the majority vote.......you explain that to the majority.

Answer 8

Scrap it - we have the technology to actually count each vote now (and if it didn't exist, there wouldn't have been a debate over the 2000 Presidential election and things probably would have been VERY different now)...

Answer 9

Most of the population is on the east or west coasts.
With out the Electoral college ,we'd be ruled by Calif. and New York , the coasts .
The college gives the rest of us a voice .

Answer 10

The purpose of it was to allow regional candidates the ability to win a national election in an age when crosscountry travel was slow.

With today's media and airtravel, the notion that someone needs help obtaining a high-profile is ludicrous. It is as useful today as a powdered wig.