do you think that electoral college is the best process to elect the most powerful person in the world? If not, what suggestions would you make to reform the process? For example, many people argued that eliminating the Electoral College would insure that every vote counted equally and would force candidates to compete in every state (not just the swing state). Other people argue in favor of using regional primaries to determine each party's candidate (as opposed to the present arrangement that forces candidates to compete in fifty separate contests). Still others focus their reforms on changing the financing of these elections
2006-10-23 12:35:25 · 11 answers · asked by coniotic_girl067 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
This college is outdated
2006-10-23 12:37:19 · answer #1 · answered by Dr.O 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If one understands the office of the President, the electoral college makes the most sense.
The President is not the President of the People of the United States, but the President of the united States. There's a huge difference.
The federal government isn't supposed to provide The People with everything they think they want this week, be it disaster relief for hurricanes and earthquakes, or conquering Iraq, or getting out of Iraq. It's supposed to be a joint venture of THE STATES. The President is supposed to be the one person that presides (not 'rules') over this body of STATES (not the People).
That being the case, the States created a way to make sure that each State (not "person") has input into the selection of the President.
LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTION. There is NOTHING in it that says you get a vote for President, there is nothing in it that says anyone has to care what you think about the choices, because the President isn't supposed to have ANYTHING to do with YOU, and for the most part, he still doesn't other than maybe trying to buy your vote when New Orleans gets hit by a hurricane.
There's nothing wrong with the electoral college. What's wrong is the seventeenth amendment. Fix the right problem.
2006-10-23 12:43:56 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I help the electoral equipment for the comparable reason I help each State having 2 Senators. If we went to an instantaneous widely used vote for President and/or made the Senate inhabitants proportional it might disenfranchise, or so the small States might argue, a minimum of 15 States and carry approximately an entire new bunch of issues. 12 States have 4 Electoral votes or much less, sixteen States have 5 Electoral votes or much less. 22 States have 7 Electoral votes or much less. The founding fathers wanted maximum persons to rule, yet did no longer decide for many persons to rule genuinely. sensible adult males. via fact which you may want a Constitutional modification to abolish the Electoral college, and there are 22 States with 7 Electoral Votes or much less , the Electoral college is right here to stay.
2016-10-02 21:28:24 · answer #3 · answered by spies 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the electoral college is not an accurate system because the electors are not obligated to vote with their state. Instead, maybe the electors should be eliminated and when a candidate wins a state, they should gain that amount of votes.
2006-10-23 12:39:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college give each individual state a voice in the national election. If we didn't have the electoral college the politicians would pander to NY TX and CA only and the rest of us can be hanged.
2006-10-23 12:38:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
the electoral college is not outdated. it was established to ensure that smaller states would have a voice in selecting their president.
consider this: nevada has 500,000 citizens, incredible resources, land, and one of the largest tourist centers in the world bringing in massive revenues. Rhode Island has 1million citizens, and well, not half of what Nevada's territory contributes.
both of these states require representation, and both states are agreeing to be a part of this union. cutting out the electoral college would mean candidates can skip states like Nevada, while the citizens of Rhode Island contribute a larger voice in determing a leader who will have great influence on issues directly effecting big states like Nevada. just because there are more people in rhode island, doesnt mean they're going to understand the big issues better than citizens of nevada, wyoming, new mexico, arizona etc.
is that fair?
2006-10-23 12:37:18 · answer #6 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college works fine. It represents each state the same way the the congress represents each state.
2006-10-23 12:41:45 · answer #7 · answered by sdh0407 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the electoral college is out-dated... but it is still the method in which the president is elected. The individual vote should direct the electoral vote, but does not always do such.
2006-10-26 06:27:18 · answer #8 · answered by j H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its designed to give small populous states some power...if not for that new york and california could dictate all politics...think about all californians and all newyorkers voting for one party, thats a lotta votes..and maybe the other 48 states vote for the other party but dont have as many votes as NY and cali.....see...do some math and you can see it could happen..we must keep the electoral college in my opinion
2006-10-23 12:42:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think eliminating the electoral college and making every vote count is the best way.
2006-10-23 12:38:06 · answer #10 · answered by foundation 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
only idiots and liars claim the EC is outdated. it was designed to protect small rural states from heavily populated urban states. without the EC new york city and los angeles will deside all presidential elections
2006-10-23 12:39:43 · answer #11 · answered by iberius 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋