It seems that a candidate has only California and New York to win, plus a few other states and they will win an election with such high points in Cali and NY, while only actually winning in 5 or 6 states out of 50. Does this seem messed up to anyone besides me??
2006-12-28 01:09:24 · 12 answers · asked by KEVIN C 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, do you think that Alaska should have as many electoral votes as California when California has 60 times the number of citizens that Alaska has. Now that would be messed up.
2006-12-28 01:17:27 · answer #1 · answered by Herr Raging Boehner. 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We do need an electoral college so the smaller less populated states have an equal voice in who becomes president. The point system to each state is determined by it's population.
New York is Somewhat balanced out by Texas, but I don't think there's a state that reviles California.
As for going to an all popular vote, it is getting easier to do and hopefully more people would actually come out and vote. As it is right now, if your in a primarily red or blue state you start to feel your vote doesn't count, so you might not go out and vote.
Even though I'm in a primarily Red state I always go and vote during presidential elections, since I want the right to whine and cry about whoever gets into the White House as President.
Edit: I feel Jon Thomas has a wonderful idea on how to fix the electoral college. I've watched elections extremely closely and if you click on a state you can see how each little district with in that state voted. And I feel to give each district an equal voice would be great. So if the candidates are 50-50 in a state that each get half of the electoral college votes. If they're 60-40 one gets 60% of the electoral votes and the other gets 40%. I feel in that way we'd get a better picture on how each state actually voted.
2006-12-28 01:21:57 · answer #2 · answered by Mikira 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean it seems odd if the most populous states exert the most influence on an election? That doesnt seem messed up to me at all.
In any case, New York and California only account for 86 electoral college votes. Winning those two states is definitely an advantage but not a lock to win an election.
2006-12-28 01:15:06 · answer #3 · answered by sothere! 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Each vote of the Electoral College should be cast according to the majority of the respective district, not by a winner takes all for the whole state.
2006-12-28 01:17:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is very messed up becuase we all saw how a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the election because he doesn't win the electoral vote. This is how we get the BUSH.
2006-12-28 01:19:13 · answer #5 · answered by michael f 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Isn't this determined by population? Perhaps the new census will change those numbers. I agree that its a scary thought to think that California and NY are the driving force in this nation. The electoral college is a good system.
2006-12-28 01:17:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You're facts are skewed, but the electoral colloge does irk me as well. The elections should be based on the popular vote and nothing else. But of course, that would never happen because then we would have to change the house and the senate which would never happen becuase all the small states would freak out because they wouldn't have any power. But guess what small states, when you're little you don't have any power...
2006-12-28 01:19:52 · answer #7 · answered by bubbleblu602 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Personally, I would prefer an abolishment of the electoral system.
2006-12-28 01:18:24 · answer #8 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's always seemed messed up-The actual total votes for whatever canditate should determine the winner,period.
2006-12-28 01:12:33 · answer #9 · answered by festeringhump 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The electoral process is a joke. It should be done away with.
2006-12-28 01:15:31 · answer #10 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋