The Electoral College vote system is inefficient and out dated. If it were abolished, would it increase voter turn-out?
2006-12-10 14:05:35 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Yes, the popular vote should be used in Presidental Elections as the deciding factor. More People would come out to vote if they felt like there vote weighs in exactly as equal as everyone elses. It makes no sense at all to allow someone to become president if they cant even win the popular vote.
2006-12-10 14:53:31 · answer #1 · answered by ocracokes_friend 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
It was developed to protect the small states and make sure they aren't taken advantage of. Problem now is that that now California can be split 49.4% to 49.6% and 48 votes go to the winner. Not right imo. But I dont see it changieng anytime soon, only time people care is in situatiosn like the Bush Gore election, and trying to hcange it in the heat of htat would cause major political backlash. This is an issue that should be brought up not in a presidential election year.
2016-05-23 03:49:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the Electoral College was designed so the bigger states couldn't railroad the smaller ones and the candidates must pay close attention to the nation as a whole. There is a reason for it.
Besides the next election the Democrats would win by Electoral standards and not by the popular vote and want to change it back.
2006-12-10 14:16:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Founding Fathers were not dumbos. Why would they want the most populous states to determine the outcomes of national elections? Not very fair, is it?
The Electoral College serves its purpose well and prevents the takeover of national elections by a handful of states. Since much of the N.Y. tri-state area and California are notoriously Liberal, it is not surprising that Libs want to abolish the Electoral College. So self-serving.
2006-12-10 17:02:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, the electoral college should follow the rule and vote for who the people want. They are suppose to vote according to the popular vote. And get rid of the Socialist Communist voting machines owned by Hugo Chavez.
2006-12-10 14:23:55 · answer #5 · answered by spyderman131 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no. it is the best way to ensure fairness in elections by preventing the tyranny of a few states in electing presidents. actually a president can be elected by winning a one vote majority in six states leaving six people electing the president. as for voter turnout it would not increase. splitting the electoral votes of each state would be a benefit though and i would favor that.
2006-12-10 14:15:41 · answer #6 · answered by bearbait7351 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Just get some decent voting machines or paper ballots that will register people's votes honestly.
Get those phony Republican owned rigged machines out of America. The rest will take are of itself.
Remember, Bush was able to steal two elections not through the electoral college, but because of those disgusting machines.
Americans should be ashamed for ignoring this.
2006-12-10 15:00:10 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes, we should get rid of it. It just destroys the whole meaning of "every vote counts" because in reality, it doesnt. I think that is why the voter turnout is low, whats the point of voting if most of the time you usually know how your state is going to vote?
Just my opinion even though i KNOW that this would never happen. We'll just end up sticking with it and end up getting a president like Bush who surprising won the electoral votes but not the popular votes.
2006-12-10 14:11:46 · answer #8 · answered by maxic 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
yes. currently, if every single voter in Wyoming turned out to vote (probably around 300,000 people), but only one person in California did, the California vote would still count for about 60-ish electoral votes compared to Wyoming's 3.
Also, you could hypothetically win 49 percent in the 10 most populated states and 100 percent in 40 states, and still lose, even though you would have the numeric landslide ever.
2006-12-10 14:18:24 · answer #9 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No because large population states would dictate the outcome of elections.
If you want to increase voter participation, put the canidates on American Idol
PS I took the blue pill
2006-12-10 14:13:57 · answer #10 · answered by cowrepo 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋