2006-09-21 10:37:23 · 7 answers · asked by jenniferbrr 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Well, let's just say I wouldn't want to live in a state like Alaska or Montana who get 3 electoral votes. That's less than .6% of the total votes. That is pathetic and an embarassment to those states. California has 10.2% of the electoral votes. Who do you think candidates are going to try to win over? Whoever said that you have to win a majority of the states to win the electoral college is wrong. You can win the electoral college by winning the top 11 most populous states. The government is essentially playing favorites with the states. Why should the states be deciding the election anyhow, and not the people. Isn't this supposed to a democracy?
2006-09-23 11:09:21 · answer #1 · answered by Shaqfan11 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The electoral college and the way the electors are picked guarantees that all candidates for President will campaign in all the states not just in 2 or 3 cities. It was set up this way so that small and less populous states would have a say in the election. A person running for President must win a majority of the states not just a majority of the popular vote. The popular vote is not representative of all the people because too many people live in New York and Los Angeles. That is just two big cities if 1 person gets the majority in those two cities he could easily carry the popular vote this leaves out too many people in the rest of the country hence the reason for the electoral college in the beginning and now.
2006-09-22 15:25:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with what the previous guy said about changing the system. The Democrats would love to change the system and abolish the electoral college because the majority of the popular votes are concentrated in densely populated big cities like NYC and Los Angeles. These cities also have high concentrations of unionized labor and we all know that the labor unions support the Democrats because it's in their interests (not necessarily in the best interest of the UNITED States). As a result, the Democrats are beholden to the unions and their workers in order to stay in power and so on and so on....
To abolish the electoral college and rely solely on the popular vote would not be for the greater good of the country.
ATTENTION AL GORE: BUSH DID NOT STEAL THE ELECTION. YOU LOST! GET OVER IT!!!!!
2006-09-21 19:05:26 · answer #3 · answered by Visions_Of_Johanna 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It says each state gets the same number of votes for president as they do in congress. This is almost literally true. The actual language o Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2 is: Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
It is interesting to note, if the state legislature chose to appoint Electors directly, without any popular vote, it would be permited under the US Constitution.
2006-09-21 22:30:00 · answer #4 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like the electoral system because it requires the candidates to focus on issues (and voters) outside LA and NYC. If we got rid of it, we'd end up with a few third party candidates brandishing so many votes that a major party with as little as 33% of the popular vote could win.
2006-09-21 21:40:20 · answer #5 · answered by szydkids 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It means that whoever owns all the money has all the power!
2006-09-22 10:35:37 · answer #6 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It says we should change the system.
2006-09-21 17:46:16 · answer #7 · answered by hungerforknowledge 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋