Do you think we should get rid of or change the electrol college?

Question

I think it should be done or percent of votes each canidate gets. Not the winner takes all.
It seems the old system makes loser takes all.
and by the way I voted for Bush But my vote didn't count I Live in New York.

Answer 1

Each person votes, the votes are counted, we have a president, look at the money we save from pensions, medical, etc. Who needs an electoral college that lobbyists can buy.

Answer 2

You know, I'm frankly sick of reading this tripe from...well...thers no other way to refer to them...Liberals, who are still P.O.'d that they lost the last 2 election and they blame it on the Electoral College.
It funny how the Democrats talk about "the will of the American people" all the time, but when those "American people" vote Republican, those same Democrats are screaming "Ah what the hell do you know ya stupid hicks! You don't know what the hell you're doing!"

Well, guess what....the Electoral College is written into the Constitution, and it's not an Amendment...its in the original Articles, so it can't just be "abolished" out of hand....it'll take a Constitutional Amendment, and for something of that significance, you can bet the chances of it happening in our lifetime are slim and none.

Answer 3

YES.

The popular vote did not fail to elect the winner in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. The Al Gore George Bush election was simply the latest, but most assuredly not the first time this has happened.

In a supposed democracy, it is ridiculous to keep a system where your vote doesn't really count if you're a democrat in Alaska or a Republican in New York.

The electoral college system has several faults:

1) Candidates will spend most of their time in swing states. I live in Colorado, so candidates may come here this year to solicite my vote. If you live in New Jersey, they're not even going to cross the border. Candidates ignoring you = undemocratic.

2) The electoral college makes votes more meaningful in smaller states, but not enough to make a candidate campaign there. People's votes mean the least in California, and the most in states like Alaska and Wyoming. If 49% of California votes republican, all 55 of their electoral votes still go democrat. If 49% of Alaska votes democrat, only 3 votes go republican. Unequal vote = undemocratic.

3) No third party to be found. Sick of voting for the same two parties? Good luck. The electoral college keeps third parties from even appearing to matter. Instead of being able to build up a higher and higher percentage of the popular vote each year, third parties typically get zero votes in any election. Zero electoral college votes would be possible, even if a candidate won 49% of the popular vote. Keeping opposition parties out of power = undemocratic.

4) Sometimes the candidate with the most votes doesn't win. This isn't some crazy liberal stuff. Republicans have lost before for the same reason. I want to know as an American that my vote counts equally. My citizenship as a Coloradan is secondary to my citizenship in the US. I don't believe I need some disproportionately strong vote in Colorado to feel counted. Not electing the numerical winner of an election = undemocratic.

5) Some of the "electors" don't even vote with their states. When Colorado went to George Bush in the last election, my vote for Kerry was dropped and forgotten, and another Coloradan person was PAID as an elector to go to Washington and drop a piece of paper in a hat that said "George Bush" on it. Are you kidding me? I think the real problem is that people don't even know that this happens, or especially that we pay the people. Then there's the "faithless electors." 158 times, your state's vote has been changed anyway. Imagine in the next election, I vote for John McCain, but Barack Obama wins Colorado, then all the McCain votes are dropped like a ton of bricks, 9 people from Colorado get to fly to Washington, DC, and then they can still change one of their votes back to McCain. Is this a joke? Elected officials not acting according to their state's wishes = undemocratic.

6) At the beginning of our history, the United States was still a new concept. Before that, it almost appeared that Georgia, New York, and Massachusetts were on their way to becoming more like separate countries than the same country. Most people probably don't remember, but there was a time when the US was split into two separate nations. Back then, a system that made the states feel more equal was required. Here's the problem: states don't feel. That was hundreds of years ago, we've developed into Americans...it's time my vote as an American counted more than my vote as a Coloradan. We live in a federation, which is slightly different than a straight-democracy.

6) Can you imagine taking a popular vote hundreds of years ago. Talk about a nightmare, collecting all of those voted by horse and carriage from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. Back then, I bet the electoral college sounded simply marvelous, and a genuine attempt at a substitute for democracy. I wouldn't have wanted to count them all. Now we happen to know the popular vote much sooner, usually by a few hours after the election. Let's remember it's 2007, not 1776.

We just don't need it anymore, it's an old system that was a good idea at the time. It's unfair for people in big cities to lose the importance of their vote to someone in a rural area, or for a Republican New Yorker to feel left out of the political process. This is why politics has become a joke. We as citizens matter...just maybe not all of us matter as much.

Answer 4

The electoral college is bothersome, but it frankly protects us from an even greater level of governmental stupidity. It helps us to avoid becoming completely gullible apes.

Answer 5

Wow. Great question. There are both pros and cons to both. If we go with the popular vote, liberals have it hands down (these areas are the most populated). If we continue to go with the electorate, we DEFINITELY have to re-vamp it.

Answer 6

One man, one vote, period. The electoral college is obsolete.

Answer 7

YES, that is the way it is suppose to be...for the people by the people.....not coruption, big business and insiders...

Answer 8

yes, and than the last four elections would have been diferent

Answer 9

one person one vote