Who thinks we should abolish the Electoral College?

Question

i think we should only have direct votes or in the very least go to maine form which is a split cstate vote only maine and nebraska have it but it is a good idea.

Actually I am a Republican so this is a deviation from the normal republican view.

It was originally created under the belief that American citizens are too stupid to vote for themselves.

Answer 1

Not me, I love it.

Answer 2

No. That would mean only California and New York need vote.

Think of it like a board game. Each state has chips making them worthy of "recognition in the contest". The contest remains in the state with the highest number of votes collected within that state the winner. If you win the state you get all the chips. There are 50 chances to win chips. He who gathers the greatest number of chips in 50 trys wins.

You just have to understand the game that keeps some states like RI, SD, WY and others from being disenfranchised.

Don`t worry, Hillary understands the game very well. That is why she moved to NY to be Senator, 42 Chips, instead of her home state of AR, 6 chips, or IN where she grew up, 8 chips. She can claim all 3 as home and grab 56 chips right off the bat. Only real looosers lose their own home state...Gore.

McCain vs Hillary: At the starting gate McCain has AZ and 6 chips in his pocket. Hillary has NY, AR, IN, 56 chips, at a minimum 42. See how much ground McCain has to make up. Vice Presidents are picked based on this. A Vice President from a New England state or Southern state can solidify an entire region into your camp or help you where you have a weak State.

Believe me the Democrats as well as the Republicans know how to play the game and they are not going to change it.

It is not really true that it was because voters might be stupid that we have the electoral college. That was a European idea. We evolved out of that quickly as a new nation. It was States (little countries) not having power to enfluence in a Union of states because their populations were low. The Chip game forces Candidates to not by pass anyone and only go to the most populated states. Suddenly a State like Vermont can turn an election giving them importance.

Great question though.

Answer 3

I believe that the electoral college was enacted to prevent parts of the country with the highest populations to determine who is president. I can understand this reasoning.
I also think that it should be amended.Eliminate the "all-or-none" process.
Each candidate gets a % of the state's electoral votes depending upon the popular vote in each state. Example:In a state with 12 electoral votes; If candidate A gets 3/4 of the popular vote, accordingly,he/she would get 9 electoral votes. Conversly the opponent would get 1/4 or 3 electoral votes.

Answer 4

Another argument for the electoral college is that undeveloped regions in the heartland to not attract enough political attention because of their inability to apply influence . . . really, I care, but I don't think that pleasing undeveloped US regions should carry the penalty of alienating the direct vote count. I believe in it. I think it's absurd that it's possible for the most voted-for candidate to lose any election -- and I'm neither a registered Democrat or a Republican, so I have no vested interest in prior election conflicts. I just want the man the people want to get the job get the job.

Answer 5

I firmly believe that every vote should count and that means getting rid of the electoral college...popular vote, that's the only way to go. These past couple presidential elections should have taught us something...get rid of the electoral votes and let the popular vote count, the amount of people that vote, each and every vote should count for that particular candidate. It works for everything else we have to vote on, why is the presidential vote different? It should be the same as any other election, a vote cast is a vote counted. It would be nice to see the electoral vote abolished, times have changed and we, as citizens, out number the collegiate numbers now, where when this was introduced, we didn't have as many citizens way back then. It should be something congress should be looking into if there will ever be a "fair" presidential election in the future.

Answer 6

Yes. Bush/Gore. Proof. It will probably not be abolished because it gives disproporationate advantage to small states (and thus getting 3/4 of STATE LEGISLATURES to approve a constitutional amendment is going to be a challenge), but the guy (or gal) with the most votes should win.

Answer 7

The electoral college is part of our system of checks and balances. It ensures that the president is not directly elected by the people and therefore will do the right thing for our country and not be swayed by public opinion. Remember that their are 535 elected representatives between the house and senate to balance out the prez. If anything the electoral college should be strengthed, not eliminated.

Answer 8

Would like to see Electoral College left in place because of small states, but would like to see this change: You win EC you get two years you win popular vote you get two years. The only way besides rapid assassination or death President gets four years is to win both.

Answer 9

I do. What is the premise behind the electoral college anyway? That the American public is so stupid that they need someone else to vote the right way for them if they screw it up?

Answer 10

I think it's fine, and the dems dropped it pretty fast after the last election.

Answer 11

there is no reason to change the rules to benefit one party , if you can't win fair and sqaure you are a loser