2007-01-18 07:28:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No. The present system gives each state a voice - like the senate, where every state has two senators.
More importantly, the Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to large sections of the country. if we had a popular vote, a Democrat could win by sweeping several big cities and a small region of the northeast and west, or a Republican could win by sweeping the south and plains, without being very popular at all in other areas of the country.
The Electoral college ensures that a "regional candidate" will not win, even if he or she takes 75% of the vote in some cities or states but receives very few votes in much of the country. it makes sure an elected leader is more of a NATIONAL leader.
Also, to the extent there are recounts, etc., the Electoral College system serves as more of a "firewall." There may be a question in one or two states, but if the issue is country-wide, the recount could go on for a year ot two!!!
Good question!
2007-01-18 07:30:12 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have considered your question and I have decided that you are asking the wrong question. When everybody can vote on Election Day perhaps then we can consider your question. There are also problems with the possibility of people voting in more than one location due to double residency. This can cause great problems. The first order of business however should not be the reform of the electoral college, but making sure that every voter that wants to vote in an election is able to vote in that election. A very easy solution to this problem is to have 24 hour voting on election day from 12:01 AM (one minute after midnight) to 12PM (midnight) with a requirement of at least 3 hours before votes counts are announced(3AM). When we accomplish this objective, the Electoral College system should be reviewed. The history of of the American Presidents elected by the Electoral College is quite mixed, and overall the resulting Presidents, are on a par with those elected by popular vote. The Electoral College can create anomalous results, popular election does not guarantee better Presidents, all it means is that the people's choice gets to serve in office.
2007-01-18 16:13:14 · answer #2 · answered by David M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean by personal? I will assume that you want to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate without having to consider his or her chance of winning.
For that to happen, winners should be decided on a proportional preferential voting system.
That way you can rank the candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. in order of quality. If your favourite has no chance of winning this time, then your vote is not wasted as you are effectively voting for your preferred candidate who is last to be eliminated.
This also has the effect of lifting the morale of your first choice even though he does not win. It adds to his credibility in the eyes of the public. These two effects are very important for future elections.
Finally it is so important to educate the voters. Australia uses preferential voting for both federal and state elections but I know from experience that people's understanding of it is abysmal. Many still think their vote is wasted if they vote for a less popular candidate.
2007-01-18 17:49:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If you want to go monkeying with our government's structure, I'd like to return to the days where Senators were appointed by the states.
I think the Senate truly should be the state's representatives in Congress, and the Representatives should represent the people.
2007-01-18 15:34:06 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT DEMOCRACY MEANT THE MAJORITY RULES.
WELL THEN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.
YOU CAN GET THE MOST VOTES BUT STILL LOSE THE ELECTION. THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
ASK AL GORE, HE WENT CRAZY AFTER HIS LOSE TO BUSH. HE GREW A BEARD, GOT FAT AND STARTED HUGGING TREES.
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM SUCKS AND SO DOES THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM. WE HAVE NO REAL CHOICES.
2007-01-18 15:33:26 · answer #5 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It make sense. In some cases, the electors are elected by the people. I think that is as close as we are going to get.
2007-01-18 15:31:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
nope
if it did Cali and NY would elect every prez
2007-01-18 15:30:37 · answer #7 · answered by mebbe_sew_mebbe_knot 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. I don't.
2007-01-18 15:31:56 · answer #8 · answered by Gideon 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO
2007-01-18 16:16:35 · answer #9 · answered by bob b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋