2006-12-01 22:27:27 · 17 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
NO, we should not use popular vote. The reason is that states and regions with a lower population will have no voice whatsoever. Large cities will decide all elections with a popular vote. The electoral college spreads the vote somewhat to all areas.
2006-12-01 22:38:53 · answer #1 · answered by morris 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The people who think the electoral college helps represent small states are incorrect. Winner-take-all has destroyed that concept. A plurality in the 10 largest states can determine the election regardless of how the other 40 states vote.
The electoral college has also led to a two-party monopoly and limited the competition of ideas; a concept never envisioned by the founding fathers. There should be univeral, regional primaries where all candidates (democrat, republican, independent, green, libertarian, socialist, etc) compete. The top 5 would move on to the general election.
In a one-sided election it doesn't matter what system you use. In a close election, the electoral college has a 50-50 chance of getting it wrong. In a close election, with a popular vote, ALL votes matter in ALL states. With the electoral college, Democrats rarely campaign in states like Kansas; Republicans rarely campaign in states like Massachusettes. With a popular vote, every vote in every state will count.
2006-12-02 09:42:49 · answer #2 · answered by be_ritchie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it helps keep representation to the smaller states. A popular vote would keep elections only in the big cities, meaning, that's all candidates would care about. The whole mid-west would be ignored except Chicago. We should keep the electoral college, but maybe modify it like Nebraska and Maine do. Like in the example above, if Candidate A gets 51% of the California vote, he/she gets all 54 votes, and Candidate B gets none. Under the Nebraska/Maine method, Candidate A would get 51% of the electoral vote, so about 28 votes, and B would get the other 26 or so, if my math is right. That's more fair, and then all regions get represented.
However, you'd have to lower the Win number from 270 to something else b/c no one would get 271 votes under this system.
It would also help if the primaries rotated regionally? Does it make any sense that New Hampshire gets to eliminate 80% of the candidates?
2006-12-02 09:07:24 · answer #3 · answered by theodore r 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The Electoral College was set up for a very good reason. To be sure that all parts of the country were represented in the electoral process.
Most people in the US have conservative values. There are a few spots where extreme left wing liberals reign: Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles. These cities represent about 12 per cent of the population. If they vote 90% Democrat, it would not surprise me.
They would control every national election. A Democrat would win every time.
2006-12-02 06:37:53 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've often thought the same thing. Sometimes it seems your candidate may be on the verge of victory, only to have all that work, hope and encouragment to "get out and vote" get dashed by the damn electoral vote. Makes it all seem a waste. I suspect it's part of the reason why many don't even bother...
2006-12-02 06:38:25 · answer #5 · answered by Fonzie T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The electoricol college give the smaller states a voice otherwise the only place presidential candidates would go are large cities. Although they have the post people they may not have the entire countries best interests in mind
2006-12-02 15:12:52 · answer #6 · answered by know it all 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Among other reasons...
If 50.001% of your state wants candidate A and 49.999% want candidate B, then you've effectivly canceled out the vote of your entire state. It's as if you didn't vote at all.
However if your state takes all of it's power to push for the candidate that the majority of it's citizens want, then that state is actually casting a vote for the candidate that they want and hence has a voice.
2006-12-02 07:01:33 · answer #7 · answered by Ender 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, yes, and again yes. Maybe we would have less trouble at the polls?? And we would for sure elect a president of our choice.
Maybe if we had popular vote, I'd think about voting again...or maybe not. All politicians are bought by the big money powers so what is my one vote going to do for the country? Nada.
2006-12-02 06:36:19 · answer #8 · answered by Blue 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Next time you go to the Mall,a Ballgame or a Concert.Look around you,check out the popular vote.Jefferson,Madison those guy's knew what they were doing!
2006-12-02 09:16:33 · answer #9 · answered by Dr. NG 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! I think if that was done you would see more people go to the polls. Because then every vote would count.
2006-12-02 07:39:17 · answer #10 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋