I think it would be a good idea, because the current system distorts the election process. Each candidate looks at the elctoral map to find a way to win. .This leads to the candidates, either Republican or Democrat, spending far more time in the swing states than in either the red states or the blue states. This means that residents of other states often see very little of either candidate, which means they are more likely to believe the negative statements thrown around in the campaign.
This is exasperated because the networks have decreased the time spent on covering the conventions people who don't live in swing states often don't get a close view of the candidates. In the last 2 elections, These two factors together lead to a President, who comes in already disliked by about half the country.
The process also gives different weights to different voters. The low population states are over weigthed because the formula adds 2 to the number of Congressmen, which is proportional to population. Because of this Wyoming and Vermont get far more weight per person than California.
It also leads to the absudity of 2000, where Al Gore indisputably got more votes than Bush, but lost because Florida was given to Bush. Whether that was fair, it illustrates the point. Imagine in 2004, that Kerry received 60,000 or more additional votes in Ohio, he would have won -even though Bush had more popular vote. In either case, (even if FL were not questionable) this leads to a sense that it is not fair - though the candidates were just doing what was modt likely to win.
The historical reason was that the United States was a confereration of states - and people were loyal first to their state then to the union. I no longer think this is true.
Birch Bayh, a former Indiana Democratic Senator (and father of Senator Evan Bayh) and fromer Representative Anderson (Republican, Rockford, Illinois) have proposed an interesting idea of how to effectively get to using the popular vote without a constitutional amendment.
They propose that states vote to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner - no matter who wins their state - as soon as enough other states have similar laws to control 271 electoral votes (the number needed to win). If that many states had this law, the provision would lead to the popular vote winner winning -as he/she would have a minimum of the number needed to win.
2007-01-07 23:57:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by karen c 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, not at all.
The electoral college, as Bad Samaritan and The Dude have indicated, is there to ensure that the entire country's interests are included in the election process. If the election was based only on the popular vote, candidates would never campaign outside of high-density urban areas - New York, the cities in California, etc, because they'd put their money where the most votes were to be had. The interests of Americans in rural areas everywhere would be completely disregarded. The electoral college, on the other hand, ensures that even states like South Dakota, with its 3 electoral votes, have to be considered; the margin of victory has been that close at times.
In short - the electoral college is there to serve ALL Americans, not just the densely packed urban Americans.
2007-01-08 02:50:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Electoral College is there for a reason. Our founding fathers were wise in there ways.Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
2007-01-07 11:16:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bad Samaritan 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
i imagine you may't replace the guidelines mid election, yet i imagine if a Dem wins they ought to make the electoral college performed by percentage of votes. i does not have a topic with a winner take all in a landslide victory --- say a candidate takes 60+%, inspite of the indisputable fact that it truly is inaccurate to furnish an complete state's percentage to a candidate if he wins by a unmarried vote. It opens the door for election fraud. i imagine there's a a lot more suitable arguement for the delegate device than the electoral device because the delegate device supplies human beings something to stick with that ramps up party help for the overall election. i might want to assert try a changed electoral college first and if that would not restore the priority, evaluate dropping the electoral college fullyyt.
2016-12-01 23:29:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by rieck 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes because as we learned from history popular presidents maintain more power over political affairs than elected presidents. The National-Union feels the electoral college should be a second voting system to decide between close races, http://www.voteprimous.com
2007-01-08 08:39:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
To go from what we currently have, to no college would be too big of a step. The country would not support that change - cause most do not understand how it works.
As an interim step, I would like to see the members of the Electoral College be required to vote based upon the popular vote that occurred in their state.
Usually the only people who pay attention to the college, is someone in school.
2007-01-07 13:07:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by John Hightower 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
That would be great! We are supposed to be "For the people by the people"! Its now that electorial votes are added in some places and taken away from others which will garantee a win. But if the electorial colledge is droped then only the people will elect a president. example Al Gore wan the popular vote!
the recount in florida and the involvement of the supreme court seperating the country would never had happen! And would bush really be president if it was only popular votes!
2007-01-07 10:37:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by MaryAnn K 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Absolutely not. Areas of high population density would then dominate elections, areas predominantly liberal left, ready willing and able for more and "better" government. The Electoral College is a GOOD safety device against rapidly increasing highly centralized welfare democrats controlling the rest of the country. Even THAT is not working very well...
2007-01-07 10:01:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Gunny T 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Absolutely. The electoral college is the reason that campaigns focus entirely on the so-called swing states such as Ohio and Florida while completely ignoring the rest of the states whether they be conservative or liberal. Abolishing the electoral college would result in truly national campaigns in all 50 states (with perhaps some concentration in population centers) and more answers about truly national issues such as the war in Iraq instead of candidates from both parties becoming overly concerned with issues of local significance to various swing states and key constituencies therein.
2007-01-07 09:51:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
The electoral college is absolutley brilliant.
There is a lot of popular opposition to it because 90% of people don't understand it.
Why are people who are opposed to the electoral college not upset by the fact that each state has 2 votes in the Senate regardless of population. It is exactly the same principle.
2007-01-07 08:59:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋