Who thinks the Electoral College should be sent down the toilet so the popular vote can elect the president?

Question

Consider this: It would mean that New York, California, and other more populous states would basically determine who the president is...

Answer 1

Yes please! I am tired of living in a state that always votes the same and my vote means nothing.

Answer 2

That is not necessarily true.
The states have a proportion of electoral votes based on population.

I good way to go about this would be for individual states to pass a law stating that all of the electoral votes for that state would go to who wins the popular vote nationally. There is already a movement for this (I think starting in CA), but no state has actually passed the law yet.

Answer 3

Apparently NOT the founding fathers who created the electoral college. What are you saying you should change the rules if you can't win the game?

I always thought you should just play better.

Okay NY and CA appoint a liberal president...in retaliation the states select conservative senators and congressmen...hello gridlock!

Stick with the constitution and if you can't get your party's candidate elected then stop running bad candidates. Just because the crowd thinks it's best doesn't make it best look at the success of Hillary Duff for proof of that.

Plus IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN. To make such an amendment you'd have to get it ratified by all 50 states and no state is going to give up it's right to vote for president.

Democrats should take the advice of this old saying from India..

A bad dancer blames the floor.

Answer 4

I am editing my previous answer because I feel I may have misinterpreted your question and was thus unfair.

That would mean rural residences in the middle of the country and some areas of the states you mentioned would have their lives inequitably affected by the more populous states. Inwhich case, perhaps then the smaller populated states should move to the most populous ones and alter their political demographics, which I doubt those states want.

Answer 5

I thought the Electoral College was wrong long before the 2000 election.

Now I'm more convinced, as the last two presidential elections have shown that it makes it easier to steal elections.

When The Constitution was written, it took weeks to travel and there was no instant communication, therefore, they had to have "The Vote That Matters" in one place.

No longer true.

Your additional note is false: California would not be voting as one, the Republicans in California (there's lots in the mountains, central valley, and in southern cal) would all vote as they saw fit.

Each PERSON in the COUNTRY would have one vote. Each vote could be equal in weight to every other vote.

Why should one voter in Wyoming count more than 43 voters in California?

The majority should pick the president, not the minority.

The Senate would still be 2 per state, so less populated states wouldn't be powerless (assuming we don't soon have an Imperial Presidency).

One person, one vote. It's only fair.

Answer 6

Actually, I think the electoral college will save us one day. Imagine a presidential election where the national popular vote is only separate by a few thousand votes. Can you imagine Florida 2000 times 50? It's better if the dispute is kept in one or two states.

Answer 7

Not me. The present system has worked for over 200 years. The major population centers in the US: New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Fransisco are top heavy with registered Democrats. Most of them are extreme left wing liberals. Do you want the concentrated populations of a few cities controlling the entire country? I don't.
I live in Pennsylvania. Phila and Pittsburgh are dens of extreme left wing liberals. The rest of the state is very conservative. Look who is our re-elected governor: a Philadelphia, left wing liberal, who is an attorney. So far, he raised taxes and goes to different towns where he does photo ops, handing out money to municipal governments. He got elected by popular votes, 90% of Phila and 80% of Pgh voters voted for him.

Answer 8

All progressive states and cities are democrat. Any state that would be a likely 'terror' target votes no on Republicans. Even Texas...look at the parts of Texas that matter, eg. Houston, Dallas, etc. they vote Dem.
I love Chicago.. 89% for Kerry in the last election... **** yeah!

Answer 9

The Electoral College is completely outdated. When our country was founded the voting population was less literate, and the problems facing government were minor compared to now. Just as with fixing voting rights, something should be done to allow the popular vote to carry in all elections.

Answer 10

Ya'll still mad about that 2000 Election? Nope for me. I'm glad our founders had enough foresight to see the downside to popular vote and gave each state a say-so

Answer 11

I do. Get rid of the E.C. system. Direct popular vote. If a candidate gets more votes out of New York and California than out of Texas and Florida, so be it.