What's the point of having popular votes when you have electoral votes?

Question

I mean if you have popular votes outweighs the electoral votes, either way the electoral votes counts the most. Either electoral votes gets kicked out or dubbed down on voting.

Answer 1

I agree......but why was it started in the first place - it is there you will find your answer.

Answer 2

The President was never elected by popular vote. In fact, there is no provision in the Constitution of the USA for the Presidential candidates to come before the people for any kind of vote at all.

However, after the electoral college got set up, the states felt they needed some idea of what the people thought so they added the President to the ballots as more of an "opinion poll" from the people than an actual election.

As the years went by, the states started putting more and more importance on what the people actually said so almost all the states changed how their electoral voted and now, whoever wins the state on the popular vote gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state. One result of that is a President can get the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

This change by the states did two things. First, the people now indirectly do elect the President. Secondly, by keeping the electoral college, Presidential candidates can not ignore the smaller states. If the election was done strictly by popular vote, the candidates could just hit the seven most populated states and ignore the rest. This also forces a more equal distribution of federal funds as again, without the college, the money would go to the big states to get the votes.

To get rid of the electoral college, you would need a Constitutional amendment. Since this would require 36 states to agree and since most of the states would lose political power as a result, it is highly unlikely it would pass.

Answer 3

favourite vote determines which way a particular state will pass. each and each and every states are made from electorates = #of representatives+2 senators. The founding fathers set it up this way with a view to provide smaller, a lot less populated states, a better say in the technique, and under no circumstances be drowned out by the bigger states. as an get jointly: California has fifty 3 representatives. Wyoming has a million. yet giving each and each and every an more effective 2 electorates makes issues somewhat more effective even, from a political aspect of view. California nevertheless dwarfs Wyoming by fifty 5 - 3; yet that 3 can nevertheless make a distinction, while a million ought to probable no longer. ought to you pass out and vote in case you knew your state ought to in hassle-free words be properly worth 2% of yet another state's clout, who votes any opposite direction? particularly, it really is 6%. somewhat more effective.

Answer 4

When Kennedy and Nixon were running for president in 1960, Nixon won the popular vote and Kennedy won the electoral vote and the presidency. We have no say about who we want to represent us. I don't understand why they even have public elections.

Answer 5

Popular votes determine the winner in the state level and the electoral votes determine the real winner in the national level.

Answer 6

It's the way our government was set up. A Federal Republic.
Prior to the 17th Amendment there was no popular election of Senators, they were appointed by the States.

Answer 7

The general public is not smart enough to know whats good for them.
Just look at how easily we are manipulated, separated and pulled together on a whim. The chains are not loose my Friend

Answer 8

Because people are stupid! That is why we need so many politicans in the first place. You see, you elected your representitives to speak for you after you throughly thought what they stood for, and how they would act on your behalf.But when it comes to the President, You might make your choice based soley on how he/she would act on your behalf!

Answer 9

no idea