2007-01-23 06:42:09 · 9 answers · asked by i pack a 44 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
If you mean should there be votes cast by an electoral college system as there is now, or simply the popular vote counted, then I am in favour of the US scraping the electoral college. I'm from the UK, and we are one of the few countries that have stuck to the 'first past the post' election system in which the candidate with the most votes wins outright, no matter what the margin, and lesser parties gain nothing. The UK no longer has an electoral college, and to most it seems like quite a cumbersome tool for selecting the presidency, and to me personally seems like an added, unrequired layer between the voters and the president to be.
Each state has as many Electors as it has Representatives and Senators. The most populous state is California (55), followed by Texas (34) and New York (31). The smallest states by population, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, have three Electors each.
Questions were raised most recently over the efficacy of the electoral college due to the 2000 presidential election.
Another criticism is the fact that you can have a 'faithless elector' who has been chosen to vote for the candidate that won in his or her state, but instead decides not to do so.
Al Gore polled more votes, but George Bush won the votes of the electoral college by taking Florida. This also took place in 1824, 1876, 1888. In my view it isn't right that the country as a whole should cast more votes for a candidate and then he is denied the presidency. This isn't a partisan issue, if it was the other way round and Gore had one with less votes then I would have viewed that as unfair also.
There are many arguments for and against, but if the electoral college vote is scrapped then proportional representation would most likely be implemented, which in a country the size of the US would be quite difficult put in place. Most European countries us PR to elect their officials, which means a greater plurality of minor parties (which can mean more extreme parties helping form coalitions of governments) but also governments made up of coalitions of parties which find it difficult to work together. If used in the US on a state wide basis, votes in the electoral college could be handed out proportionaly. For example, in 2000 California voted 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Gore/Liberman won all 54 electoral college votes, when as we can see, a large percentage of voters supported Bush/Cheney in that state. Under a proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke.
This proportional voting system seems much more fair and balanced, and may lead to a higher voter turnout, as voters who live in a state which is dominated by one party, know that they can still win some of the college's votes for their candidate.
2007-01-23 07:13:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are downsides to a popular vote, just as there are downsides to the current electoral system. At the moment, I see no need to change.
The electoral system "evens out" influence among the states. A popular vote would mean that voters in the biggest states - CA, NY, FL, etc. - would overwhelm most elections by the shear size of their population. With the electoral system, at least small states like ND and RI get some input - their guaranteed 3 electoral votes. That avoids having the populations in those states feeling like they have no voice at all, and helps keep everyone participating in the US system of government.
Also, the electoral system makes the results in most elections not very close, since an entire state goes one way or the other, even if the vote within the state was close. This reduces bickering, second-guessing, calls for recounts and other uncertainties that could lead to instability in the country, and perhaps undermine the legitimacy of the elected government.
The calls for a popular vote are coming now, I think, because we recently had an election (2000) where the popular vote and the electoral vote disagreed. There are calls for a popular vote whenever this happens, but it is a very rare occurance.
The current system ain't so broke, so I don't think we need to fix it.
2007-01-23 07:03:31 · answer #2 · answered by Steven D 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would like to keep the system as it is now. Our government consists of 3 branches. Only one of those branches are designed to be the "voice of the people", and is the only one elected by the people. The President is not, has never been, and should not be the voice of the people. There is a lot of issues that he/she needs to decide on that is the best for the country, but will not be the most popular to the people.
Also, elections are a state issue. There are very few federal laws pertaining to it. If voting for the President changed to a popular vote, there would need to be many new laws enacted for election. Then, to make elections as simple as possible for the state and local offices, the states would then need to change their laws to match the federal ones. And on top of all this, think about how much more of a mess the 2000 election would have been if they would have needed to do the recount nation wide. As it was, the mess was confined to Florida.
2007-01-23 07:54:19 · answer #3 · answered by Mutt 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well electoral is better and more ethnical. The majority is not a good thing when corrupt. But the electoral college is also a bunch of rubbish I think. There really is no fair way to do it. I say we just stick with what we got and just educate our children so they can grow up to be smarter then the lying idiotic politicians we see today.
2007-01-23 06:52:03 · answer #4 · answered by Beaverscanttalk 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since the Senate was rigged against newer states, the only way the newer states have any control is via the electoral college. I doubt you will ever see it changed by constitutional admendment...
The college makes presidential candidates pay attention to smaller states, if not, they would just focus on the states with the most population..
2007-01-23 19:01:32 · answer #5 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The electoral vote is out dated.
2007-01-23 07:49:44 · answer #6 · answered by cwigg 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
popular vote for sure. the electoral college system is an outdated system that serves no purpose anymore
2007-01-23 06:56:12 · answer #7 · answered by 2010 CWS Champs! 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Popular vote!
2007-01-23 07:03:20 · answer #8 · answered by MaryAnn K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
popular vote
2007-01-23 06:50:59 · answer #9 · answered by tina 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋