Electoral College.....i think its unconstitutional?

Question

Think about it....if your state votes democrat and you vote republican.....your vote doesn't count AT ALL

Answer 1

No the Electoral College isn't unconstitutional. The Electoral College makes sure that the President wins in many states to really represent what they want. Of course the popular votes should count but within a state. I disagree with the way the Electoral Votes are being allocated. The winner-take-all method doesn't represent what the voters in a state want. I like the Maine/ Nebraska method (2 electoral votes for the statewide winner and 1 electoral vote for the district winner) and the proportional method (electoral votes are allocated proportionally to each candidate according to its popular vote) but I think it would be better to have a mixed method where the statewide winner would receive the 2 at-large electoral votes and the other electoral votes are allocated proportionally. But if a state has 3 electoral votes, either all electoral votes should be allocated proportionally or use the same method as above. If you allocate the proportional electoral vote in a 3 electoral vote state, you'd have to include decimals. So, either we increase the number of Representatives from 1 to at least 2 and the Senators to 3. Otherwise, we'll have candidates fight over a decimal. I think electoral votes, if being allocated proportionally, should always round them off to the next number. Say we've got 3 candidates and 12 electoral votes, 2 at-large and 10 proportional.

Cand A got 45%*10=4.5
Cand B got 40%*10=4.0
Cand C got 15%*10=1.5

9 electoral votes were allocated and there's 1 that hasn't been allocated. To make things fair, this electoral vote should go to the candidate that came in first. And candidate A would get the 2 at-large electoral votes. However, with my plan, we wouldn't use the simple majority system but another system (sorry I can't tell but it's my secret plan). And about the whole Electoral College thing, it's more realistic for it to be reformed with the plans I explained. Thanks for your time and sorry for the long comment.

Answer 2

The United States is not a democracy, it is a representative democracy. The Congress is the Congress of the States. The Presidency is a vote of States. Some States split their electoral votes, which isn't a horrible idea, but we could not have a Union if the populated cities and coasts could just vote over anything the middle needed or wanted. There would be no incentive for those States to stay in the Union. Europe has already established a similar system for the exact same reasons.
Scientific American did a great article on the math behind it back in 1996, where they made the analogy to baseball, and how the World Series is the winner of the most games, not the most runs scored. Mathematically, the statistical chance of one person's vote tipping the whole election is actually much higher under the electoral college than under a Nationwide majority rule. If California was removed from the mix in either system, the Democrats would never win an election due to the massive population and Electoral votes it carries. Also, under an electoral system, there is capacity to easily accept new States into the Union, States like Puerto Rico, Alberta, and Baja and to allow them representation fair and even alongside States like California.
If you support the values and programs of a particular Political Party, then vote for your State to enact it, not the whole Nation. If you like the idea of socialist medicine, do like Hawaii, and vote for it in your State. And if you want your State to send it's deligates to support a Presidential Candidate, then vote to do so, and if you want to get your State to split it's deligates, get it on the ballot to do so .... and vote for it. Your vote does count, every vote counts! Good Luck!

Answer 3

I agree with the other people who have said that nothing is unconstituional if it is IN the constitution.

And yes, deadly donkey, the asker probably meant that she and you and some other people want for the Electoral College to be abolished and hence DEconstitutionalized. I'll support that, too. I support eliminating the College and having a direct popular vote. That will take a constitutional amendment.

But in the meantime, don't use the word "unconstitutional" unless you know what that word means.

Answer 4

Sorry. Read the constitution and weep. The Electoral College was set up precisely to suppress those pockets of disgruntled voters you envision. I guess it smooths out the fabric of society to facilitate governance. Think about it...do you really want the snowplow to do only the majority Democrat neighborhoods? You've posed a good question, though. What lawyers refer to as "legislative intent" is an important and often overlooked facet of law. Good Luck. Happy New Year.

Answer 5

The Founders, who wrote the Constitution did NOT want the people directly voting for the President. They decided on the Electoral College as a means to chose a President without the unpredictable whims of easily swayed voters. We vote for Electors whom we trust to do the job for which they are elected.

This system IS Constitutional because it IS part of the Constitution of the U.S. Have you even read it? Doh! If you have, you wouldn't have stated your question as you did.

Answer 6

In 2000, I voted for Gore and in 2004 I voted for Kerry; my vote didn't count at all (and Gore got more votes than Bush.) Nevertheless, the College was written into the Constitution because that's the way the framers wanted it!

Answer 7

It is perhaps unwise, probably unfair, and certainly undemocratic, but it is not unconstitutional since that document provides for it and it's function.

That function was one of several written into the Constitution to prevent "the people" from have too direct a voice in the choice of leaders.

Hamilton (who was among several conservatives who were disposed to establish a monarchical system) was among those who were deathly affraid that if the govt. were too responsive to the inflamed will of the people, it might take their property from them and redistribute it. So they framed a document that blunted the manifestation of popular will.

They would not have been so concerned had they any idea of how weak the will of the people would prove to be, and how corrupt and easily bought their representatives would become.

Answer 8

The reason for the electoral college is that every state has a say so and some states are smaller than others.

Answer 9

Well, I shouldn't say unconstitutional; UNFAIR sounds more apropriate. I cannot agree more with you; people should have the chance to cast direct votes, even when politicians decide to start a war. People are the ones who suffer and pay for their decisions. Not fair at all!

Answer 10

i tottaly understand what you mean. for all you people who said it cant be unconstitutional because its in the constitution dont understand the question. i think it 'should' be unconstitutional for the reason you stated. For example in Illinois Chicago has the largest population and is entirely democrat. While the rest of Illinois is pretty republican but they dont count because the couple of million of deomcrats in chicago made their vote not count. I think that it discourages voters. for example if i was a republican living in illinois i wouldnt even bother to vote in a presidential election because my vote wont count.