Is it fair Gore with higher popular votes was beaten by Bush with lower popular votes?Should US constitution be ammended?
2006-08-27 17:23:22 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
The reasons for the electoral college is dead.
Direct popular vote.
2006-08-27 17:27:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
The winner of our presidential election is the person who gets the most electoral college votes - not the most popular votes - and there is a reason for that. If it was up to the popular vote, the majority of the smaller states would have little impact on the outcome of our elections. If you could get majority popular votes in New York, California, Texas and Florida - these four states could influence the outcome of every presidential race - and that wouldn't be fair. Every time there is a general election, there are always proponents who think the Constitution should be changed. However, I think it will remain as it is for years to come.
2006-08-27 18:10:45 · answer #2 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would you be asking to amend the Constitution if Gore won? I didn't think so. If the tables had been turned I would have expected Gore to win. Do you know why? Because it is the way it is. Always has been.
The electoral college was set up so that the president is not chosen just by the most populated areas of the nation. It gives a better picture of the nation overall.
By the way, who won the popular vote in 2004? I forgot.
2006-08-27 17:30:14 · answer #3 · answered by Christopher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, absolutely not - our Constitution should not be amended. The reason we have a president win with electoral votes instead of a popular vote is that if it depended on popular votes only, "at best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones. " The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience and is no mistake. "Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). "
Quoting from a report, The Electroral College, "without such a mechanism, presidents would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones."
2006-08-27 19:27:46 · answer #4 · answered by School Is Great 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well. It wouldn't change anything. Even though Gore did win, there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's very rare that a president wins without a majority so I don't think an amendment would do too much.
2006-08-27 17:28:08 · answer #5 · answered by keiko 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not first time.....it's in the constitution for very valid reasons....if a fair vote was not held...that's bad, but doesn't change the law, assuming a fair vote was held, the law worked, and either side was obligated to abide by it......in other lesser countries there would have been a coup...we are better...we live by the rule of law, for better or worse......ask John Kerry....
2006-08-27 17:28:42 · answer #6 · answered by scott n 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go watch Schoolhouse Rock.
2006-08-27 17:34:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do we really have to re-hash how the Bush administration ripped off voters again ???????
2006-08-28 15:06:15 · answer #8 · answered by reignydey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It does not have to be fair, it was the law at the time.
2006-08-27 17:36:33 · answer #9 · answered by Albert F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense does it?Thats exactly how they keep screwing the people who are tired of being screwed.
2006-08-27 17:29:10 · answer #10 · answered by jgmafb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋