Wouldn't it be more Democratic to use the popular vote to elect presidents?

Question

So why do we need two different systems?

Answer 1

Given the majority of responses on here I've got to ask this.

If the Electorial college is the ultimate say on who the president is, then how does your vote count?

You also seem to think that everyone in New York, California and other large states are hapless drones who are all incapable of independant thought and must vote as a whole.

As of July 1, 2006, the estimated population of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the other insular areas of the United States was 303,755,930.

All of these people are individuals whose voice should be heard. In california it only takes 18,228,787 votes to win all 55 electorial votes. California has a population of 36,457,549, that means 18,228,761 votes no longer matter. Is that fair? If you were of the latter tell me how your vote counts?

The losers combined make up 4 other states whose total electorial vote only comes in at 24. Add that up and now your up to 36 million more people whose vote no longer counts. That's 4 1/2 states that don't matter. Texas with a population of 23,507,783 has 34 electorial votes, only need 11,753,925 votes to win all those votes. That leaves another 11,753,857 out in the wind, and that adds up a little more than that of 8 other states. So we are up to 13 states whose vote don't count. That's almost 60 million people whose vote doesn't count. Last timeI looked 60 million was far more than 30 million.
Are you seriously telling me that 30 million people are matter more than 60 million?
How is the Electorial college fair again? How does it balance things out?

Answer 2

It would be best to retain the electoral college, but get rid of having each state determine how their electors vote (whether as a bloc or not).
Each congressional district should vote an elector. The statewide popular vote should determine one elector. The majority of districts in the state should determine the final elector.
In this scenario, everyones vote counts more...if they are from a small state. The candidates would be forced to deal more with "real America" not just where the population centers and electoral votes are.

Answer 3

Article II, Section 1, Clause II of the Constitution says, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President.

3.2 Arguments against the current system
3.2.1 Unequal weight of voters
3.2.2 Losing the popular vote
3.2.3 Focus on large swing states
3.2.4 Favors less populous states
3.2.5 Disadvantage for third parties

3.3 Arguments for the current system
3.3.1 Requires a distribution of popular support to win the Presidency
3.3.2 Maintains the federal character of the nation
3.3.3 Enhances status of minority groups
3.3.4 Encourages stability through the two-party system
3.3.5 Turnout-related issues
3.3.6 Isolation of Election Problems
3.3.7 Maintains Separation of Powers
3.3.8 Death or unsuitability of a candidate

Answer 4

would be fine with me.
what people don't realize, is that the number of electors are indirectly related to the populations via the number of rep and senator seats the state has in congress, the most populated states having the greatest number. then the number of electoral votes are proportioned according to the census every ten years, so the bigger states are picking the winner anyway. It is a sham that doesn't work like it is suppose to.

It is sad to see so many voters, who have no clue how their election system operates.

Answer 5

No. Why should the top 5 states in population essentially pick the President for the rest of the country? The Founding Fathers were smart men and knew there would be many who think like you, so they addressed the issue accordingly. Liberals in California and New York hate the electoral college.

Too bad.

Answer 6

i think of, if we used the many times occurring vote vs. electoral college, that we would have had some distinctive presidents. One could be Al Gore and yet another would be John McCain. unsure on McCain, yet i think of that would desire to be authentic. i think of the finished style of votes could paintings greater helpful in immediately's international because of television, internet, etc. Our states was once type of disconnected and now we are amazingly close to to a minimum of one yet another. We share perspectives all over the rustic, and the international in an instantaneous. i could choose the finished style of votes as an entire be used vs. that gadget, which i think is particularly tainted. So, i'm unsure you and that i could decide for the comparable president, however the finished style of votes in the process this usa may be the finding out component, i think of. God Bless united statesa., yet please God, would desire to you help us do issues somewhat greater helpful? we are type of in a multitude. Amen.

Answer 7

Perhaps the fair thing to do would be for each state split electoral votes instead of winner take all. As it is, whichever candidate wins the popular vote for a given state wins all of that state's votes. Why not split them based on the % of votes, rounded up for the winner.

Answer 8

actually there's just one system - the republican one. we are a republic because we elect people to represent us, and those representatives perform their tasks in a democratic fashion: by popular vote.

thus, we are a democratic-republic.

the constitution provides our electoral process. the process was part of the negotiation between large states and small states, and highly populated and large;y unpopulated states. its an agreement, which our constitutional government depends on. without a system to counteract the power of certain states, the other states would have no reason to remain a part of our republic. why would nevada want to be part of America if new yorkers californians and texans are making all the decisions? they may as well take their resources, land, robust economy and tourism and seced if thats going to be the case.

Answer 9

We have told people like you a million times that N.Y. would elect the President every year if we did away with the electorial college. By the way, Clinton did not win the popular vote in his second term. So it works for libs also. And you know that Hillary will not win a popularity contest.

Answer 10

No. The number of votes in our larger cities would easily exceed the number of votes from our smaller states and make their votes worthless. The electoral college is the fairest way to balance it all out.