We the Popular Voting People?
Recently someone brought to my attention, a simple yet complex question. The question was, "How does the Electoral Process works, vs. the Popular vote?" Well we went through the usual, the voting population of each state, combine their votes to a certain number at which time an electoral vote is place, based on the population of the state. This provides a fair playing field for states with a small population.
Then he said, "Then why is that if we take the combined popular vote of each election of the people without their state representation being involved: why is it that the popular vote seems to win and thus really represents the voice of the national people, without state representatives. I quickly thought of the Articles of Confederations. What do you think is correct. Has our combined voice really been muted due to our state representative voice? Or has the state always represented the best interest of it's residents?
2007-02-28 08:41:24 · 4 answers · asked by taochiespirt 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
People tend to forget that we live in :
The United States of America.
A union of 50 states under a republican form of government.
The electoral voting system gives small states a voice on the national stage.
Most people don't seem to know, the US Constitution doesn't spell out how States must allocate their Electoral Votes.
While most States have a winner take all system, nothing prevents the States from allocating their Electoral votes based on the popular vote totals in those States and dividing their Electoral Votes based on the percentage of popular votes each Candidate received.
I'd much rather have people change their state law, than to change the US Constitution. After all, the system has worked very well for 218 years.
2007-02-28 08:57:42 · answer #1 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has only been one other instance when the Electoral College went against the popular vote. Thats when Truman defeated Dewy back when everything was in black and white. So I would say the Electoral College has pretty much fulfilled its role.
If there was no Electoral College then future Presidents will be voted in by NY, SF, LA, and Seattle.
2007-02-28 08:47:35 · answer #2 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the advantage of the EC is that is actually forces candidates to campaign nation wide. if the popular vote was all that mattered, candidates would spend ALL of their time campaigning in the top ten or so cities. a large number of states would be all but forgotten. with out the EC, montana, the dakotas, minnesota, wisconsin, and the rest of the midwest would NEVER see a presidential candidate. that is what makes the EC better than the popular vote in my opinion
2007-02-28 08:58:50 · answer #3 · answered by forjj 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the electoral college is complete and utter bulls!@#. it should be disbanded and replaced with duh, the popular vote. and none of this media frenzy nonsense where the presidency is decided in one night. It might take 60 days to count all the votes people, live with it.
2007-02-28 08:46:14 · answer #4 · answered by Danielle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋