Should the US get rid of the electoral college? Should we have a direct vote for the President?

Answer 1

I think the Electoral College is becoming obsolete. As it stands now, a candidate only needs to win the 10 largest states to win the White House... Hardly representative of the leader of our nation.

I'd like to see it shift to be like Maine. The candidates "compete" in each Congressional district. The winner is awarded one vote for the District. Then the candidate who gets the most votes for the entire state receives the two votes for the state.

This would eliminate the Red State-Blue State divide, as all 435 Districts are up for grabs. Of course the problem is that it would diminish the power of Cali, NY, et al. in electing the President.

Answer 2

IF the electoral college is thrown out, then plan on a president which can only muster up the most votes in the 10 biggest cities in the country, and the rest of the country would be forgotten.....and all policy's that the then Pres. would in-act would be dictated by just those then 10 cities........I guess then the U.S. would be then the US ten cities. The founding fathers where smarter than that, and wanted equal representation for each state, so thus the electoral college system, to make sure each state is represented based on the population of that state. Yes, some states have less, but the population is also less. And if you go back in History, President Garfield won the election without carrying two of the biggest states of FLORIDA and CALIFORNIA, proving that the system does work. And don't fret, if you didn't win the Presidency, your state has equal representation in the Senate, 2 senators from each state.....and representation of the population by the Representatives in congress, so each state is recognised by the population base.

IF the system is not broken, don't try and fix the wheel.

Answer 3

The Electoral College was created because the founding fathers didn't trust the average citizen of the country to be educated enough to make a well informed decision.

We have seen that the popular vote does not necessarily dictate who becomes president. If the person who the most people vote for doesn't become president, what's the good of having a vote?

Then again, given the results of the last presidential election, perhaps the Founding Fathers were onto something.

Answer 4

Hmmm....i'm fairly on the fence for this issue. Alot of very sturdy factors have already been addressed and reported. in spite of the undeniable fact that any given equipment of vote casting, even if electoral or direct, may have that's flaws, execs and cons. What i'm more beneficial in contact about, is that our 2 get at the same time equipment is starting up to lose draw close of what human beings truly want. both activities (and that i locate myself jumping the isles relying on the priority accessible, no longer because i'm a traitor to one or the different get at the same time, yet because I evaluate myself modern and area with the conception or answer it truly is the finest or a minimum of makes maximum experience, no longer because a particular idea aligns with the Dems or GOP's) have lengthy gone the way of pandering to whoever can provide you the most contributions, perks, or kickbacks. Moreso than replacing the electoral college, i imagine we'd like a nil.33 get at the same time that particularly represents the direction united states ought to take up an ever-replacing international monetary equipment and shifting climates (no longer in the actual experience like international warming). regrettably, the electoral college is traditionally set up to help a Demo or GOP nominee and that i concern that an Indie get at the same time would not make it a procedures in spite of if it were using the effortless wave. therefore, a minimum of, the electoral should be changed to a minimum of help one or 2 more beneficial activities interested in vying to characterize the yankee public who's interested in creating the U. S. a frontrunner in all elements of the international monetary equipment back, no longer basically the country that flexes that's defense force muscle tissue in bullying trend. That mentality must have lengthy gone by ability of the wayside a lengthy time period in the past...

Answer 5

No. we actually need the electoral college. go ahead and look it up, this is what the founding fathers intended. its also why we have a house of representatives, and a senate. the senate is 2 votes per state.

Answer 6

I always thought that the electorial college would be abolished the next time that it affected the outcome of a presidential election. It turns out that I was wrong...

I say get rid of it. I understand that it is supposed to lead to "more equitable" representation of the smaller states in the electorial process, however, we have Congress for that.

Just my $.02

Answer 7

Why? If that was done, then the president would only need to carry about 10 of the largest cities in the nation. Many states wouldn't even matter and would be cut out of the process.

Answer 8

Ihave always thought that the popular vote should determine who becomes President.

Answer 9

Yes. Take it to the antique roadshow to see if it is worth anything

Answer 10

yes, one man one vote, and may the best man win.