First of all I do not agree with the 51% rules 100% of the poplulation... it means that 49% of people are not reperesented.
My questions is, what do you think is better for election results, the popluar vote or the electoral college voting system?
2006-10-08 03:57:59 · 11 answers · asked by Tim G 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Until the US converts to a Parliamentary system with proportional representation, they should require all states to split their electoral votes according to the percentage of popular votes. Nevada has 5 electoral votes, and is closely aligned at about 50/50 Dem/Rep. If the Reps get 51% they should be awarded 3 electoral votes, and no more. Populous states with more electoral votes would have a more representative division, more truly reflecting the will of the voters in those states.
2006-10-08 04:31:08 · answer #1 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Voting rules come in many formats.
In a popularity contest, Mary gets 51 votes and Jane gets 49 votes. That means Mary is more popular by 2 votes.
In the Senate most voting is popular and The VP is the tiebreaker.
Yet, in some instances, it requires a 2/3 majority.
I've never believed in the Electoral Vote.
PS: I know nothing about Popluar voting.
2006-10-08 11:13:04 · answer #2 · answered by echiasso 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Electoral College should be abolished with the popular vote prevailing. As it is, we can wind up with a president unwanted by the majority of the people - Bush in 2000 for example when Al Gore won the popular vote. The arguments about the Electoral College giving even the small states a say in the election of the president is ridiculous. What about all the people who voted for the other candidate? With the EC, your vote doesn't mean a whole helluva lot. With direct voting, everyone's vote is equal.
2006-10-08 11:37:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Popular vote, everyone knows the politicians have been gerrymandering for electoral points since the system was amended to the constitution.
Our Founders wanted a direct Presidential vote!
2006-10-08 11:10:09 · answer #4 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college was established to protect the less populated states. Without it candidates would only need to cater to populated areas such as the northeast, Texas, illinois, and California. They won't give a damn about what the people of south dakota or new mexico want.
2006-10-08 11:06:42 · answer #5 · answered by Texan Pete 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Popular vote gives to much power to a small area of the country.
Just because 51% rules does not mean that other people are not represented.
Vote out all incumbents!!
2006-10-08 11:02:20 · answer #6 · answered by Zen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The vast majority of the 50 sovereign states in the U.S.A. vote conservative, and are unwilling to be dictated to by a few highly populous and far-left states like California and New York. I damn well don't want to live under the ideals of Hollywood and the USC-Berkely campus. That's why this nation's leaders have ALWAYS been selected by the electoral college instead of the so-called "popular" vote, and why we have to maintain the status quo.
2006-10-08 11:05:13 · answer #7 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Its hard to say, popular vote actually means every vote counts as 1 vote, while electorial vote ensures that even the small population states at least have some value. I think it should go to popular vote, but then who would campaign in Michigan if that happened?
2006-10-08 11:03:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Electoral College has been corrupted by the majority Republican Congress, so it will have to be repaired. The majority vote should be what is used.
2006-10-08 11:08:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you voted you are represented. You just can't win them all. But the demoncrats can't seem to win many AT all!
2006-10-08 12:40:11 · answer #10 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋