Why is the Electoral College still in place?

Question

I really can't understand why the electoral college is still in place. It failed us in electing Bush by him not winning the popular vote, and after so many years why is it still in place? It was originally put in place because most Americans at the time were not intellegent enough to make the choice between which person was the better to elect and also because at the time elections were not something that broadcast over mass-media like it is today.

But seriously why is this still in place? Do you think that when the next president is elected they will try to remove it? Or do you think another Bush will come along to screw up our country even more?

To those assuming I dropped out of high school because I was lazy or anything like that how about you don't judge others. I dropped out of high school so I could support my grandma who just recently died of cancer, I worked 2 full time jobs and gave up years of my life to a dying person and you just sit here and judge me? I feel sorry for you, you'll amount to little in life.

Answer 1

So we don't have to live by YOUR mistakes.

Answer 2

Yes, the electoral college brought Bush to power. No, that does not make me very happy.

However, the electoral college serves an important purpose. It guarantees at least some voice to every state in the country.

Can you imagine what would happen if the electoral system switched entirely to popular vote? Candidates would campaign in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and all of the other major cities.

Smaller states and rural areas would never have a say. Sure, we all know that no one really goes to campaign for the presidential election in Wyoming because it has only 3 electoral votes. But at the same time, nobody wants to piss all of those little states off too much. Because sometimes an electoral victory comes down to just a few votes. Look at the 2000 election. Had Gore won West Virginia or two small electoral states like Wyoming and Montana, he would have been president.

States with small populations still have a voice, and that is important.

The system should instead be reformed. It should be based on individual congressional districts. For example, I live in Virginia, where there are 11 congressional districts, giving us 13 electoral votes. My district, sadly enough (at least for me), always votes for Republicans. However, some of the other districts in Tidewater and Northern Virginia vote for the Democrats. A district's electoral vote should go to the candidate that wins that particular district. So if voting went as normal, my district's vote would go to the Republican, but Jim Moran's district would go to the Democrats. As for the two Senate votes, they would go to the person who won the majority of the House votes.

That would be a much fairer system and would force candidates to campaign EVERYWHERE.

Answer 3

You have to understand the basic foundation on which the United States is built. We are a union of fifty individual states, thus the chief executive should be chosen by the states, not the populous. The electoral college is set up so every state has a more fair and equal voice in the process of choosing the chief executive. It really has nothing to do with the American people being to stupid to choose a President (I don't think we are really any smarter now, more information does not equate to more intelligent or informed). Popular vote and the voice of the people is represented in Congress, particularly the House of Representatives.

It will never be done away with as it would take a Constitutional amendment to do away with it. What states would support such an amendment? California, Texas, New York, and that is about it.

Answer 4

2000 was not the first time that this has happened and it will not be the last. The system was put in to place to balance the power between large states and small states. In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

So, Al knew the game was to collect electoral votes. If the goal had been popular vote, Bush would have campaigned differently than he did.

Also, never forget that if Al would have won his own home state, he would have won the popular and electoral vote. Such a shame that the people that knew him best couldn't pull the lever for him.

Answer 5

This system should be extinct. Alright, why was it used in the first place? Because the lack of information did not allow the general public to make an informed vote, period. Now it does not matter because most Americans can make a informed vote and it should be the majority vote that elects the president. This system is flawed and it leads to a very strategic voting process which undermines the voice of the people as a whole.

Answer 6

Nothing prevents States from delegating their Electoral Votes on the popular vote totals in their States.

Nothing demands that they use a winner take all system.

Your arguing up the wrong tree,

You should be arguing why your State delegates it's Electoral Votes on a winner take all system, instead of delegating them via the percentage of popular vote a candidate gets in their state.

You have to remember, the name of our country is.

The United States of America.

So why do you want to strip the States of their Constitutionally granted powers ?

Answer 7

They dont even know what the popular vote was. They never do know the complete total, because they dont count the complete total unless there is a recount motion and then only the complete count is done in the counties of the recall.

What I mean is to add to this, when county votes are counted they only count until there is a clear winner.

I doubt it will change any time soon.

Answer 8

It is still in place, because it still provides more equal representation. If the popular vote determined the election, the populous areas would force their will on the rest of the nation.

Answer 9

oh, because it didn't elect who you wanted lets just change a 200+ year old system. it didn't elect a democrat, so it is clearly pure trash. why not have a dictatorship? I'm sure you would support that as long as it was always a liberal dictator. and you libs say you are all about the constitution, please!

Answer 10

I think our founding fathers knew what they were doing.Bush ,Bush is that all you people think about.Why do libs hate this man so much.He has signed every spending bill,he has worked with Ted Kennedy.He is a liberal spender he has hurt the republican party.He has lost congress the senate.You all should love this man.He has been a disaster to us conservatives.

Answer 11

Why is it still in place? Because it has had a 96% success rate. If it ain't broke don't fix it.