2006-10-22 06:53:29 · 7 answers · asked by stephanie k 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I would ask you to observe these questions before asking if we should do away with the Electoral College. Look at the nature of the question or the answer they expect, the spelling and grammar! God I hope not!
God bless You, Yours and the Southern People.
2006-10-22 07:00:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college was established because though the public should have a voice when it comes to elections and elected officials, they felt even the masses would or could not constitute an informed and educated vote on their own, so people were elected to represent the masses, people in the electoral college who were better informed and educated. Granted hardly ever, if any, do elected voters in the electoral college vote a different way than the voters that elected them, so it does not change a whole lot of things. The biggest difference would be found in situations where the electorates and the actual population ratios are disproportionate, due to census estimates and the like. Do I think it should be abolished? No, because I believe it does not affect the outcome too much differently, and prevents some forms of electoral fraud, but not all.
2006-10-22 14:07:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!
When it was established, I think it was a good idea. However, with modern means of communication, the average Joe can learn what he needs to know in order to make a decision about who he wants for president. Democrats scream that without the electoral college Gore would be president and Bush would have been out. But without the electoral college, Kennedy would not have been president either. We have to take the good with the bad if we do away with this method that has been in place for over 200 years.
2006-10-22 14:10:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. The electoral college is the only way all states have an active voice in elections.
2006-10-22 13:55:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes..Definitly should be abolished..Presidential candidates only have to focus on States that are up for grabs...Example Ohio..or Florida..They know before the election which states are up for grabs etc...also makes it so Canidates pander to certian states for votes..Example..Florida..Bush takes a hard line agianst Castro to get the Cuban American Vote...So if a State..like say... all New England States..are usually all Blue..Then its almost as if Conservative Votes are in vain because Conservatives will rarely win those states...
2006-10-22 14:23:34 · answer #5 · answered by tiipotter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It gives better representation to the smaller states than the popular votes does.
2006-10-22 14:01:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are good arguments for both sides of that question. But the Bush thing is one good reason to do away with it
2006-10-22 14:02:25 · answer #7 · answered by norsmen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋