Should the ELECTORAL COLLEGE be abolished, and the popular vote decide the Presidential election?

Answer 1

yes, absolutely.

Answer 2

There are pros and cons.

There are some advantages in the present electoral system. It was conceived primarily to make it easier to determine the outcome of the presidential election.

Generally I favor it as a better means of allowing the states some greater representation in the presidential election process. Most of the time the popular vote and electoral vote will produce pretty much the same results.

A turn to the popular vote would probably lead to some long delays before the results of a presidential election would be known and would also open the vote up to more fraud problems and especially to manipulation. The electoral system is a good check on this sort of thing.

Changing this would require the Constitution be amended or re-written, and I think the less we have to do this the better off we are.

Answer 3

The electoral college was designed to prevent democracy! Democracy is mob rule. If the electoral college were abolished then campaigning would be limited to the areas where population is concentrated. This would mean that the interests of those not in NYC, LA, CHI, etc. would go unrepresented. The electoral college is a good thing. Just because it is not easily understood does not mean it's a bad thing. Regardless of whether they ******* Sally Hemmings...the Founders were geniuses.

Answer 4

I'm sure there is a reason for the Electoral College system, but, as an outsider, it does seem to me to produce a result that does not reflect the will of the majority of the people who vote.

Probably further 'answers' will help to explain why the College should be retained.

Answer 5

Yes. I can understand why the electoral college was put in place when this nation was founded. But today, we need to be electing our presidents with the popular vote.

Answer 6

The electoral college was designed to prevent states with large populations from dominating those with small. It still has a reason to exist. But what happened in 2000 shows the need for some sort of reform. Still it happened before and ironically both times to Tennessee candiates. Andrew Jacksons first run and Gore.

Answer 7

Of course it should be! Too bad a bunch of whiney folks in sparsely populated states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Vermont and Alaska will keep it from ever happening since they have an inflated impact in Congress, the Electoral College and national affairs.

Answer 8

I can tell that so many answering this question are political lightweights first of all we are not a Democracy but a representative Republic, I do not want mob rule, second if we just chose leaders my popular vote all politicians would campaign in NY, California, Texas, Florida because that is where the majority of the population live. They would simply ignore the rest of the country so if you lived in say Maine they would not pay attention to you, but with the electorial college it forces them to pay attention to the entire country.

Answer 9

I think it should be kept. In the 2000 election, it was helpful keeping the chaos to Florida. Also, if there is a terrorist attack or disaster that disrupts voting in some places, that state still have the same relative influence.

Answer 10

Yes! I've never understood why the popular vote should not determine the results.

Answer 11

The popular vote would be more indicative of a true democracy.