Do you think the president should be elected by popular/majority vote in the United States instead of the way it is currently done? Why isn't the United States a direct democracy?
2007-01-20 18:54:01 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
2007-01-20 19:03:52 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On this question I am not completely sure. I kind of lean toward the popular/ majority, because I think it is unspeakably immoral for one candidate to be able to steal an election, from the candidate that wins the popular vote. However, I have seen in some documentaries that there was more corruption, involved in the theft of the 2000 election than just the electoral college. There were people who were not allowed to vote because they had the same names as convicted felons from other states, and that is just one example!!!
2007-01-21 03:32:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
200 years we have used the present system. Today we don't have to because of the internet. I like your idea and not only that - I think we should vote on a lot of things directly. For instance desecration of the Flag illegal as a Constitutional Amendment. There was overwhelming public support - polls I saw were in the 70%-90% for range. The bill fell 1 vote short in the senate. So 70-90% of Americans wanted it and almost 66% of the legislators voted for it but it didn't pass. Something is wrong when the vast majority doesn't get their way.
2007-01-21 09:45:37 · answer #3 · answered by Texas Mike 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Each state in the union is run with some personal freedom- hence electoral votes. The current system is supposed to represent each of the United States according to what each state wants. So your vote in say California is independent from me in New York. It can make the election go either way. I guess you didn't like the last couple results, many of us didn't.
2007-01-21 03:02:33 · answer #4 · answered by C J 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I think that the person with the most votes is the winner. The electoral college should be abolished. Al Gore got half a million more votes than Bush and he still didn't win! That's like giving the win to the team with the most hits and not the most runs! It's just stupid.
2007-01-21 02:59:47 · answer #5 · answered by AL IS ON VACATION AND HAS NO PIC 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, it should be one person - one vote. Every person should have the same influence no matter where he or she lives. The number of states that support each president shouldn't be of any importance whatsoever - we are human beings, not states. Human beings are real, states are mere mind constructs. I can't understand why USA still hasn't changed its system for president elections. The current system is so clearly unfair and arbitrary.
2007-01-21 02:58:07 · answer #6 · answered by Justin Case 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I believe electoral votes work best.
The reason it is set up this way is because the government believes it's citizens are too stupid to make choices on their own. In some ways I agree with that. I know people who go out and vote and are completely clueless about where the parties stand on the issues.
2007-01-21 03:00:22 · answer #7 · answered by The Pig! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have have always thought that it should be the popular vote that elects President.
2007-01-21 03:04:41 · answer #8 · answered by Max 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Popular majority vote would fail too because of the number of people who don't bother to vote.
2007-01-21 02:59:41 · answer #9 · answered by melbournewooferblue 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No...if it was direct vote large populac places would run the country..New York...Calif.. The farmers in Iowa would have no representation and I do not want farm policies decided by city people.
2007-01-21 03:08:12 · answer #10 · answered by Frann 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the electoral college gives a more fair representation of the country.
2007-01-21 03:08:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋