Electoral college, makes it more likely presidental candnidate will go to places otherwise why would not with popular vote. The electoral college as set up to make sure thier a check on the idiot masses back in 19th century.
2006-12-22 20:34:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by ram456456 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It is not needed. For historical reasons that are no longer relevant today, it still is the law. It is an archaic and obsolete system of election of the President that was created when some states didn't even have a direct election for President (the legislature elected the "Electors" to vote for President in at least one state until about 1820 )
The only reason why we still use the system is that it is anchored into our US Constitution, and it would take the vote of 2/3rd of both houses of congress, plus ratification of 3/4ths of the state legislatures to change it to , for example, electing a president by the total popular vote nationwide. And for political reasons, that great a number of votes doesn't currently exist
As far as the choosing of "Electors", the political party in each state selects a "Slate of Electors' In some states their names are actually listed on the ballot. In other states, it just lists the party candidates for Pesident and says something like this example) "Electors pledged to vote for JOHN SMITH of Illinois for President and BOB DOE of Ketucky for Vice President"
If SMITH and DOE get the highest number of votes in the election in that state, then the people selected as "Electors" meet in what is called The Electoral College"--actually, not a single place. Each set of electors meets in the state capitol of that state on the same date in all 50 states, and cast a ballot for SMITH and Doe. That document is certified , and is sent to the US Congress, who meet in Washington, count the electoral votes, and declare SMITH and DOE elected as President and Vice President.
The problem occurs when there is no majority for any one candidate. If not, the House decides who should be elected. In this vote, each STATE casts one vote. But states that have an equal number of congressmen from two parties are split, and cast NO vote. A State that has one Congressman casts ONE vote, and a state like California that has 55 congressmen casts ONE vote.
Confused? You bet.
Then, add the problem with the "faithless elector"--an Elector "pledged" to a Presidential candidate, who nevertheless casts his vote for somebody ELSE ! (Yes, this has happened at least seven times in the last 50 years.--in fact in 2000, one self-important elector from D.C. abstained as a protest) In a few states, an elector MUST vote for the person he is pledged to; if not, he is guilty of a crime. But that is not by any stretch all of the states.
Yes, it is a mess.
2006-12-24 01:49:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by JOHN B 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The electoral system evens it out between the states. Otherwise more populous states would gain and keep control of the country. California is attempting an end run around the electoral system now in their state legislature.
2006-12-23 04:37:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The reason we have one is that our founding fathers were worried about "uneducated" votes, so the electoral college was created to even this out. In todays world however the system is outdated and most people feel it should disappear.
2006-12-23 06:34:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by David W 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
All of the arguments for keeping the electoral college are undemocratic reasons. the system should be one person, one vote, period. so what if the elections will be decided in places like california, florida and new york city? if there are millions of people there, their individual votes should carry as much weight as the individual votes of farmers in idaho.
2006-12-23 06:26:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by niko 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's where you go to study to be an electrician
2006-12-23 04:36:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋