but do we stil need it? Shouldn't we now be able to vote 'one vote per person' and really elect our most important elected official with the 'populous' vote? ( I know I didn't speak that right but you know what I mean)
2006-10-03 14:28:46 · 7 answers · asked by Goodmomma1 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Heck, if we had had the popular vote 6 years ago, we might now have a rational government rather than a totally irrartional one.
Darn that sure would be a nice change I think.
2006-10-03 14:38:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, we should keep it. The federal government has very little laws and regulations that deal with elections. Elections are left to the States. If we used the popular vote to elect the President, that would all change. States would lose the control they have now, and the federal government would control elections. And, if you look at the 2000 elections, it was a good thing we have the electoral college. The recount was confined to only Florida. Think about how much more of a mess a would have been if it was nation wide.
Also consider that the President is not elected to be "the voice of the people". He is elected to represent the federal government. The U.S. House of Representatives is the elected body to represent the people. The U.S. Senate is suppose to represent the state governments, but that went away with the 17th amendment.
If you want it changed, change it at the state level. There is no federal law that says a state has to give all electoral votes to one candidate. All they saw is that the state gets x amount of votes, and it is left up to them to decide how to use them. Contact your state legislators and ask them to change the state laws so the electoral votes are more proportional to what the popular vote is in the state.
2006-10-03 23:54:17 · answer #2 · answered by Mutt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course you are right. The reasons for the Electoral College are obsolete and it is an unnecessary institution now. Some folks will say that it prevents the candidates from spending all their time in big states and ignoring smaller states. But seriously because of the Electoral College, smaller states are ignored anyway becuase they dont have enough electoral votes and in fact larger states like California, NY, TX have been largely ignored too, becuase their outcomes are pretty much predicted. The candidates in 2000 and 2004 spent most of their time in about a dozen or so "swing" states.
2006-10-03 17:14:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I think the electoral college still is a good idea, it might need to be tweeked but is still a good idea. Take the last two presidential elections. If you look at the states that went Democrat they all were in big city states and the rest of the country went to Republican. So by map standpoint the majority of the states wanted a Republican in office.
2006-10-03 14:40:18 · answer #4 · answered by eric g 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We need a mechanism to protect small states from the whim of the corners of the country. Without it, you could win the presidency by targeting California, Texas, Florida and New York. Without that power, what would prevent Montana from becoming the national dumping ground?
2006-10-03 14:41:30 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think we need to dump the electroral vote .
We need to make every vote count . If not why vote.
2006-10-03 14:36:12 · answer #6 · answered by Sunglass kid 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! The electoral college is obsolete now because we have better communication and transportation
2006-10-03 14:38:23 · answer #7 · answered by jekin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋