Electoral votes were first created in the days where votes were collected by horseback, so they just did it electorally. Now that our world has flatened , should we still leave it up to congress to decide who our leader is or should we start going by popular vote? In the 1984 election with Reagan, for example, the popular vote was much different than the electoral votes...
2007-03-21 18:27:23 · 10 answers · asked by BEN JEE 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
That's not the only reason for the electoral college.
It also skews the results so that small or unpopulated states have more effective voting power, so large populated states don't make the entire decision. If the electoral college were removed, then the vote would be decided almost exclusively by California, Illinois, New York, Georgia and Florida by population.
The problem isn't with the electoral college itself. The problem is with how states have implemented it -- all or nothing across the state. If states instead allocated proportional electoral votes for all candidates in the state, it would case a drastic change in the electoral math, and eliminate much of the two-party monopoly that we now suffer under.
2007-03-21 18:38:31 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we still need the electoral vote. if it was just a population vote, nothing would matter but the bigger states and nobody would care about anything else. We need to make sure we don't have a mob rule attitude and don't let the people with power be able to run things without the chance of anyone else ever getting a shot. It may not be perfect, but it works. If it was taken away, it would take away the votes of many people in this country and alot of issues would never be heard or seen..
2007-03-21 19:35:56 · answer #2 · answered by aaron b 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The framers of our constitution didn't want direct democracy as it is nothing more than mob rule.
Small states would become politically isolated if the electoral college were eliminated. No presidential candidate would ever visit the 40 smallest states.
-----------------------------------------
Question for Matthew: What was the highest grade you passed? 8% of popular vote for Regan in 84?!?!? Is this a joke or do you actually believe what you said?
Reagan was re-elected in an electoral vote landslide, winning 49 states. Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3761 votes, meaning Reagan came within less than 3800 votes of winning in all fifty states. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes total (of 538 possible), and received nearly 60 percent of the popular vote. Mondale's 13 electoral college votes (in Minnesota and Dictrict of Columbia) marked the lowest total of any major Presidential candidate since Alf Landon's 1936 loss to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Mondale's defeat was also the worst for any Democratic Party candidate in U.S. history.
2007-03-21 18:35:07 · answer #3 · answered by Dave 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The electoral process works.
1) I don't want the states of California, New York, Illinois, and Texas choosing the President. By a popular vote, that would likely happen.
2) No, the smaller states are NOT better represented by the popular vote. Mathematically, the smaller states are better represented by the electoral vote.
3) We are not a "democracy" but a "democratic-republic" -- we do not make our decisions based on popular vote, but we vote for the people to make those decisions--and can vote them out if we don't like it. Big, big, big difference.
2007-03-22 06:54:36 · answer #4 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The electoral college never had anything to do with the ease of counting votes -- that's a myth that doesn't even make much sense, since they have to count the votes anyway.
The reason for the electoral college is as true today as it was 200 years ago -- to provide a balance between the needs of large states and small states.
2007-03-22 01:38:13 · answer #5 · answered by Teekno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Popular vote is far better. A Wyoming resident has almost twice the weight of a New Yorker.
As you pointed out, the Reagan landslide of1984, winning 49 of 50 states, was less than 8% of the popular vote.
2007-03-21 18:33:03 · answer #6 · answered by Matthew P 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
More people would register and actually vote if they would abolish the electoral college. I have actually met some educated individuals who say they aren't bothering because as sad as this sounds, they feel their votes don't count. I live in SD. (Which borders WY and Montana on the western side)
2007-03-22 10:17:51 · answer #7 · answered by hawk_11149 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Roght, today popular votes ate more efficient and therefore better tha indirect electoral votes.
2007-03-25 15:33:38 · answer #8 · answered by sensekonomikx 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter all yoou have to do is pay someone off and you win get it! Perfect example Jeb Bush was cheap Ken Blackwell was around 21 million!!
2007-03-22 16:01:50 · answer #9 · answered by sally sue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should have gone popular after WW1.I say_One man/woman one vote..
Dan
2007-03-21 20:57:30 · answer #10 · answered by DanntBoy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋