Do you think electoral votes are necessary today?

Question

Do you think we should do away with the electorial votes now or keep them?

Answer 1

NO!
It's an outmoded system that should be replaced with popular vote, it puts people in office that really did not win!

Answer 2

In response to an above answer, it's simply false to say that Bill Clinton was elected by the electoral college but not the popular vote. Bill Clinton did in fact win a plurality of the popular vote.. it just wasn't over 50% due primarily to the presence of Perot.

The electoral college had its reasons when it was devised and those reasons are still every bit as applicable today.

As has been pointed out, look.. if all you had to do in order to win election was win a simple majority of the nationwide popular vote, all you'd have to do is go campaign in the most populous areas of the nation. LA, New York, Miami, Washington, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Seattle.. etc. The interests of more rural voters would be ignored. The winner-take-all feature of the electoral college forces a candidate to gain not only a depth of support, but a breadth. Win 50% of a given state and move on. It would be very lopsided if a candidate were to campaign hard in the most populous states and entirely ignore the smaller ones. Also, the electoral college encourages the two-party system, which is actually a good thing. There are many reasons. I encourage you to read up on it and not be swayed by the popular resentment of George W. Bush. I am not fond of the man either but I do understand the reasons for the electoral college. Give our founding fathers some credit. There is no reason the electoral college is now "antiquated." Think it through before you start advocating such dramatic changes to our electoral system.

Answer 3

I don't think electoral votes were ever necessary.

Electoral votes do not give an individual a voice, it gives the majority of a state a voice. I know that I will never have to vote in my state because the outcome will always be the same. Illinois is always democrat. Chicago is too big of a city for the rest of the state to go up against. I want a voice darn-it!

It is also not fair that larger states get more electoral votes. California get 54, NY get 33, Texas gets 32...but smaller states like Wyoming get 3, New Mexico gets 5, Arizona gets 8...The purpose of the electoral college was so that smaller states were represented fairly, but looking at those numbers, do you see anything fair about it? It's easy to see that getting the larger states is extremely important for an election. The smaller states really don't matter unless it's the deciding vote. If they want to make it fair, give every state 5 electoral votes, then we'll see how these elections pan out.

Here is a list of some of the presidents that lost the popular vote, but won the electoral vote:

Harry S Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Answer 4

We should keep the electoral college system for two reasons:

1) The President was never, has never, and is not the voice of the people. That is the job of the U.S. House of Representatives.

2) Voting is a state issue, not national. Right now, there are very few federal laws and regulations dealing with elections. States primarily control it. If the President was elected by a national popular vote, this would change, and it would be a mess. For example, in the 2000 election, the recount was isolated to Florida. How much more of a mess would it have been if it had to be done nation wide?

Answer 5

I believe it should remain though not for the same reason that the founders initially devised it. We currently have a large number of states where the population is so small that they are ignored in national elections.

When was the last time a candidate visited Alaska or Hawaii?

Still, some smaller states garner visits because the electoral college renders them important enough. Without the electoral college a candidate could win the presidency by dominating the vote in a few cites (not just a few larger states).

If this were the case rural states and those without the largest cities would not have any influence in national elections.

Obviously the current system favors smaller, rural states in the opposite way. Still, our government needs to error on the side of protecting minority rights. The government is not just built on popular sovereignty and majority rule. The other foundational concepts are important too.

Answer 6

I think the electoral college is a good thing because it gives smaller states a little more say in the process, but it also makes it easier for candidates to only campaign in certain 'battleground' states and ignore the rest of the country. There is no law that says the states have to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who won the state, though. If ALL of the states were to give their electoral votes out by percentage of the popular vote, or by some other method that apportioned them out, then the Electoral College would be a better representation of the people's will.

There is nothing preventing this from happening, but it would have to be done by the STATES, not the federal government.

Answer 7

Electoral votes were designed to give underrepresented populations an equal vote. For example, if we counted all votes equally, the desires of small states, or states with less populations would be completely swallowed by states with larger populations.
The electoral system insures that all voices are heard more or less equally.
If one wishes to have the wishes of large states such as California, New York and the like determine the outcome of all elections, then a flat vote count is the way to go. If, on the other hand, we want the smaller states to be heard as well, then we should keep the current system.

Answer 8

Of course. Otherwise California, Texas, and Florida would elect the president everytime. Small states with small populations would be excluded from the democratic process. They would have no voice. If you were running for president and there were no electoral college, you could just campaign in the largest states. Forget Iowa, Forget New Hampshire. Forget Oregon. BTW, the first three states I listed have large Hispanic populations that Dems assume will vote for them overwhelmingly. That's why you hear mostly liberals campaigning for the elimination of the electoral college. A sneaky way past those evil Republicans...

Answer 9

I do think it has relevance

It gives a say in the process to the states, and not just a popular vote that would give discounted weight to lesser populated areas.

Even though in either case Hawaii's 2 electoral votes will not really sway an election in most cases, it COULD in some instance. The popular vote within that state still gives power to the 'democratic' process of the vote. The people within the state control their own voice that cannot be drowned out by a highly populated city like NY or LA. This keeps the power and a voice spread throughout the country, instead of just the most heavily populated urban areas. Again, the 2 votes generally won't make a difference, but it does allow their will as a state to be recognized. I cannot overstate the importance of that.

Answer 10

They're an unfortunate evil we have to live with. I sometimes question the distribution of which state gets more but as a whole it represents the general population. Remember most people can vote in this country (we know who can't) but that does not mean that any individuals vote is not cast by a complete moron.

Answer 11

You mean for presidential elections, right? We should keep them. Each state has its own local interests which would not be addressed on a strict popular vote. The same reasoning applies to keeping the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. The smaller states get at least a minimum amount of votes. On a strict popular vote, smaller states could be completely overwhelmed.