and how should it be changed or fixed?
2006-11-25 16:16:25 · 5 answers · asked by Metal 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
"Regional Presidents" can still be elected. California has 56 voters, while the Dakotas have 3 or 4 each. Abolishing the Electoral College would only cause our cast votes to actually count towards a President, instead of a group of voters.
Isn't that a step in the right direction for Democracy?
2006-11-25 20:50:11 · answer #1 · answered by amg503 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although it was set up because of low education levels at the time, such is not the case now. Granted, not all election systems are perfect (such as the Federal Election in Canada in 1993 where two parties got the same number of votes, but because of the way they were distributed, one party received 52 seats in the House of Commons and the other received 2), the one element I do like is the fact that the voter is voting directly for the person, and the decision is in the voter's hands, not in the hands of a group of elitists. By eliminating the Electoral College and having a direct vote for the President, the chances of a repeat of the 2000 Presidential Election is less likely, as the people choose.
2006-11-26 01:06:49 · answer #2 · answered by rempelhg 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It shouldn't be changed. Our founding fathers knew that if elections were based on popular vote a regional president could be made. They always wanted a candidate to hold the best interest of the entire nation at heart and not just one section of it. If it wasn't for the electoral college, neither party would care what the Dakotas thought or would care how New Mexico was effected by policy.
Pfftt, besides, this debate only comes up because the Dems lost, the repubs can follow the rules.
2006-11-26 03:20:03 · answer #3 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The US set up the Electoral College because most Americans in that day and time couldn't read and write; so, it was believed that they needed someone who could to make decisions (laws) for them. Since those days are passed, and the EC can elect someone who didin't win the popular vote, I believe it should be abolished and just go with the popular vote.
Come to think of it, that would work in any country.
2006-11-26 00:23:45 · answer #4 · answered by TheOldOkie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it is outdated and not needed, also it is set up unfairly, you could lose and still win, or win and still lose.
2006-11-26 12:43:26 · answer #5 · answered by Old Guy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋