I don't understand why the Presidential election in this country doesn't just get decided by the popular vote instead of relying on the Electoral college.
2007-02-01 04:02:34 · 9 answers · asked by mommasquarepants 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
It is flawed but it prevents the largest states from picking the president. It is conceivable that California, New York and Florida or Texas could vote for one candidate and the rest of the country vote for the other candidate and the candidate that won those four states would win thus causing a misrepresentation of the country as a whole. It would also make the candidates only campaign in those large states. That is why the Electoral College system is in place.
It is not prefect but it more fair then the alternative.
2007-02-01 05:05:59 · answer #1 · answered by Rob S 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The people who wrote the constitution were _against_ the idea of unrestrained democracy. The electoral college was a way to reduce the chance that people in high-population states could impose their wills on those in low-population states. In a presidential election, the vote of a person in Alaska or Minesota counts more than the vote of a person from California or New York.
2007-02-01 04:09:54 · answer #2 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is "flawed"... it is a little antiquated, but then again it was developed by our founding fathers in the days prior to rapid communications, 24 hour media, and an ignorant populace.
I think the FLAW is the lack of knowledge of the US population's KNOWLEDGE of the system... and the fact that less that 50% of the voting-eligible population actually turns out to vote.
CHANGING it would require a Constitutional Amendment... when we DO amend the Constitution to "correct" this at put it to a popular vote... lets remember to add requirements to prevent the vote by illegal immigrants... and political contributions by corporations.
2007-02-01 04:13:06 · answer #3 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Way back in the day, it was the most efficient and accurate method of taking the popular vote to DC, before regular mail service and telephone access. But here and now in the 21st century many people are plugging for electronic voting via internet, if there is a way of providing voters with a, secure system, a receipt and certifying the vote.
2007-02-01 04:13:04 · answer #4 · answered by Amy V 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i've got easiest those days swayed my opinion in this after assorted theory and a few prodding. -i've got continuously been of the physique of innovations that, besides the fact that i do no longer like it, we'd desire to electoral training to have the skill to offer each and each state some fairness interior the election equipment. ^^That, is too much of questioning with the aid of the sphere and that i now have an information of this. the well-liked vote might empower individuals over the social accumulating and that's often good. Granted, important states like California and Texas might heavily sway the race although that could be a countrywide Election the region the everybody is picking their national chief. that is to declare that each and each citizen will might desire to have the suited to good their vote and place/state could now no longer be a area. To institute the fashionable Vote we'd first might desire to return to States Rights because of the fact the main intense governing technique and look after the Federal government in DC the region they belong.
2016-11-02 01:27:32 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Why the hell do we even have it anyway. There's programs which can falsify the tally of votes. Hence why our last 3 presidents come from secret societies, and in the last election, we had two from the same society of Skull and Bones. So in other words, different party, same result.
I thought this country was vote by the people. Guess I've been wrong.
2007-02-01 04:08:58 · answer #6 · answered by Ted S 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Then you also do not understand the Constitution. The constitution assigns the election of the President to the states. To decide the Presidency on a nationwide popular vote would, therefore, be unconstitutional.
2007-02-01 04:25:10 · answer #7 · answered by Dr.T 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a way of preventing an even bigger moron from getting to the White House.
2007-02-01 04:07:10 · answer #8 · answered by Gustav 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's horribly flawed, but what's the solution? smaller states need to have equal sway in national politics, but they shouldn't have MORE - as some do now.
2007-02-01 04:10:55 · answer #9 · answered by jack spicer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋