I live in TX, which is a red state...but I am as blue as blue can be. Same for those who live in a blue states and they themselves are red. My vote is never truly heard on a national scale, and politicians ignore our state when it comes to campaigning, etc. Although, suprisingly Obama did come here a couple of weeks ago...that never happens. It just makes no sense that a man can lose the popular vote, yet win the presidency...like what happened to Bush in 2000. It just does not seem right (or fair) that a few states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. get to decide our fate when it comes to the executive branch.
And for those who say that small states wouldn't get a fair say, that is what the Senate is for.
So, do you think the electoral college system is antiquated and no longer neccessary?
What effect do you feel that is has on democracy and voter apathy for that matter?
2007-03-15 08:10:13 · 13 answers · asked by ♥austingirl♥ 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Articchick...values like you are speaking of, can not be legislated. There are gay people in Arkansas, and these "values" are a personal choice...it's not like public sex is allowed on the streets or anything. What's so bad about two men feeling comfortable enough to hold hands in public...and maybe *gasp* kiss. Those without sin, cast the first stone...thanks.
2007-03-15 08:19:22 · update #1
Alaskans, not Arkansas...oops...same difference.
2007-03-15 08:20:59 · update #2
So what you are saying then is that small states should decide the fate of our executive branch then...how is that fair...the few controlling the many? I still don't buy it. And for those who say that we are a republic, ok...fine. That does not change the point of my question.
2007-03-15 08:25:12 · update #3
NO!! The Electoral College prevent the over-populated cities and coasts from forcing their opinions down our throats.
I can not see Alaskans living with San Francisco "values". Won't happen.
Austin - who the hell cares if someone is gay? NOT what I mean. I mean the no hunting, no fishing, no trapping, no SUVs, no fur, etc., etc., etc. NOT going to happen. And trust me - we have liberal idiots who try to impose those "values" on us daily.
2007-03-15 08:13:35 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
None, the electoral college is elects the president, and every stae participates. In fact, the united states is not a democracy, but a federal republic, meaning the people elect officials to vote on laws and govern. Only a republice would use the electoral college
2016-03-29 00:09:58 · answer #2 · answered by Sandra 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college is most often promoted as a way to check the will of a tryanical majority and give leverage to less-populated states. In reality, a candidate only has to win the largest states by a thin margin to win the presidency. The last two elections were decided not by Rhode Island and Wyoming, but by Florida and Ohio- two states with huge populations and paritsan election officials. All votes need to be counted anyway, so whoever gets the most real votes (not electoral college votes) should win. This is not the only fix needed in our nation's electoral systems- electronic voting machines with software that the manufacturer (not the state) keeps a proprietary interest in, standards that vary from state to state even for federal elections, state voting officials who work for one of the candidate's campaigns, the list goes on. For the U.S. to promote itself as a beacon for democracy is becoming increasingly laughable.
PLEASE STOP SAYING IT HELPS SMALL STATES. To get the electoral votes needed to win all a candidate is win the 12 most populous states by razor thin margins. How does this help the small states? It takes 13 of the smallest states just to match California's electoral votes.
2007-03-15 08:22:44 · answer #3 · answered by thrillhaus 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
WHAT!?! Texas is not ignored...it has too many electoral votes. Were you blue when Clinton was elected? Was your vote not counted on a national scale then? You're right, if you took away the Electoral College, states like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc. would not longer decide the fate of the Executive Branch...instead it will be cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc....because that's where the candidates will spend all their time.
2007-03-15 08:21:06 · answer #4 · answered by Gus K 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think there are good reasons to have the Electoral College. It makes sure a candidate shows strength in several areas of the country. If the "popular vote" system were used, someone racking up huge vote totals in a few cities, states or regions, but very unpopular in the rest of the country, could win. That's not healthy. Plus, if we had no one receiving a majority (or, say, 45%) of the vote, would we need a run-off? The Electoral College system already provides for this. Finally, the system is good because if there is a question on vote totals, it "compartmentalizes" the areas you have to recount.
I still think it's a pretty good system, although I am in a similar situation to yours.
2007-03-15 08:13:50 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
We live in a republic, not a democracy.
Our officials are democratically elected.
If you feel your voice isn't heard, join the crowd!
The electoral college was set up to give adequate representation to states with small populations. Remember, when territories were signing up to become states, they demanded a voice and representation in the central government. Without the electoral college, there will be no States rights.
I know, some want to get rid of states rights anyway; but that is another issue.
2007-03-15 08:21:20 · answer #6 · answered by Philip H 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes i think its antiquated and no longer nescessary.
I think that if more people thought their vote would count they would participate.
Alot of things should change with the system. we should have a voting day holiday so more people can get out and vote without having to try and make time.
I think all counties in all states need to check ID for someone to vote. I think we should make sure people abroad are allowed their vote and also those in the military get their vote in.
-added
I bet there is some thigs about voting most people do not realize. Not all of the votes are even counted.
You do not know who the popular vote winner was in the last election or the one before. ( although I would bet it was Bush )
One reason for the electoral college was we didnt have plane, trains or cars... was pretty time consuming to collect all of those votes. not hard to do now.
2007-03-15 08:16:37 · answer #7 · answered by sociald 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think it plays a large part in voter apathy in the national elections for the reasons you have stated... I, living in a red state.. know my vote for president is no more than superficial because my state is going to go red... the electoral college was good for it's time... but much like affirmative action it has outlived it's usefulness and purpose and it is time to formulate a better system.
2007-03-15 08:20:40 · answer #8 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and it will be even more unfair in the elections of 2008. With states moving their primary dates ahead most people outside NY,CA,TX,FL wont get a say in who the candidates are or who wins in the end.
Every vote should count and be counted. We need this to be a law now before the primaries.
2007-03-15 08:19:53 · answer #9 · answered by Mother 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The United States is not a democracy, it's a Republic.
2007-03-15 08:15:38 · answer #10 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
That, and the other big problem with democracy is groupspeak; if you don't agree with the majority then your vote doesn't count for squat.
2007-03-15 13:42:52 · answer #11 · answered by D.L. Miller 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋