I don't agree with it, but maybe I'm missing something. If the popular vote is the true majority, then isn't that true representation?
2007-04-18 05:27:34 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The electoral college gives every state a say in the election of a President. If the electoral college did not exist the candidates would only need to win the votes of three or four of the country's largest cities to win the election. If you think you vote does not matter now, it would really not matter then.
You have to understand that our country is based on the Union of the states. Every state has a say in our government and every state should have a say in determining who becomes the president.
2007-04-18 05:34:50 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
well.. the electorial college has done some wonderful things in the past.. like because of it..
women can vote
black Americans can vote
these are just 2 of the things it has helped along in the past...
but it you want to be fair about things.. I think giving each person a % of the votes from each state would be better off...
lets take NY most of the time it goes to a member of the DNC... but if they did it on a % base... then that would give the RNC member 43% of that state every election.. calf. would also be about 43 to 48% to the RNC every year..
during the last election it would have put Kerry below the 100 point mark and not even been close... during other elections it would have made the other guy win... so with each side you have pros and cons... remember just because you think something looks good... doesnt mean that it really is
2007-04-18 12:35:26 · answer #2 · answered by Larry M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is and it isn’t. The political parties today have to much invested in it and the way it works to do away with it. As an example – President Bush got the largest popular vote in history in 2004 but barely squeaked by in the Electoral College. The system is geared to have it that way. If you did away with it – all the primaries and big states such as NY and CA would be on equal footing with smaller states as the percentage of voting in each differs. What I mean is that all you have to get is the lead in CA to get all the Electoral College votes. It would be different if only the popular vote counted and it was added state by state. The red states have a per capita higher percentage of voters so they would have a greater impact.
2007-04-18 12:34:58 · answer #3 · answered by patrsup 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're definitely missing something here!
The Electoral College prevents the largest states from choosing the President and helps to spread the power. If "popular vote" was all that was necessary, then the candidate that said "No income tax if you live in California, New York, and Texas" would win every time.
Does it seem silly? Sure. Does it work better than the popular vote? Absoloutely.
Think about this: the only people who want to get rid of the electoral college are people who don't vote or rarely vote.
2007-04-18 12:57:39 · answer #4 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, you're missing one key aspect.
The federal government was given power ceded from the people and from the states. What the electoral college does is keep the states, especially the small ones, relevant to the selection of the president. The states are important political entities that should not be lightly dismissed.
The other reason was that there was fear that the more populous states would be too much in control of dictating the path of the country.
I think it works pretty well. All we need to do is repeal the 17th and our government can become a little more balanced once again.
2007-04-18 12:52:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What would be true representation is if every state had the same population, but it doesn't. The electoral college ensures that every states votes count. I would certainly not want just California, New York, and Texas deciding all my future elections. The electoral vote is the only fair vote system.
2007-04-18 12:35:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It gives the power of electing to the states. If it were simply a matter of popular vote, all you would need to win is Florida, Texas, California, and NY. The idea of the college is to still give strength to those states who have bigger population without completely taking it away from smaller states. We live in a constitutional representitive republice, not a democracy. The constitution establishes the electoral college, so therefor the states still have power as a whole.
2007-04-18 12:36:05 · answer #7 · answered by Nate 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No David----I don't feel it is right for areas of dense population like newyork and california to call all the shots--issues arise that concern middle America that the representation would be insensitive to-----this is why the electoral college works best.
2007-04-18 15:18:49 · answer #8 · answered by EZMZ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The EC keeps one region from effectively running the country and leaving all other regions unrepresented.
Consider the voting power of California or New York City, for example. Why should they over-power South Dakota, for example?
2007-04-18 12:48:53 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am totally against the electorial college. Just because the morons in my state out vote me and the sane people, does not mean I want my vote represented as their choice. In my opinion it destroys democracy - a vote of the people, by the people, and for the people. With the electorial college, a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the election.
I also think we need a write in slot on the presidential ballots.
.
2007-04-18 12:34:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋