2007-07-05 10:19:31 · 9 answers · asked by brianriback 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Wow...savagenationarmydu...I think you need a SERIOUS vacation...holy lord...What the heck was that all about? LOL!!! And you're a Bush supporter...way to go moron!
2007-07-05 10:31:41 · update #1
It is the best story never told.
We enjoy a two party system. Pure popular voting would encourage splinter parties with a singular agenda. Elections would go to people with far less than 50%. A typical European election has candidates with 20-30% of the vote thrown into a runoff. A large majority of the electorate is disenfranchised.
Our current system also minimizes fraud. Having lived in Chicago, I know how a political machine can create huge numbers of bogus votes. We limit fraud to one state at a time. It is not a perfect world but it could be worse.
We allow different voting laws in different states. A ballot that might count in one state does not count in another. Having a universal voting registration law might be an interesting solution but it is a problematic idea.
Let me add another problem about direct voting. Local jurisdictions can add initiatives to the ballot that bring out people that would not otherwise vote. Give politicians another chance for mischief and be aware.
My last argument has often been used although I am somewhat skeptical. If we had a snowstorm in the West or hurricane in the South or power outage in the East, an unfair advantage might be gained
2007-07-05 10:23:31 · answer #1 · answered by Menehune 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Lodstrom 2004 said it quite eloquently you need to go back to school if we abolish the electoral college we would end up with mob rule and politicians would only campaign in NY California Florida and Texas because that is half the US population right there and the hell with states like Idaho, Wyoming etc, so it seems there was a lot more wisdom in the formulation of this system.
2007-07-05 10:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the electoral college preserves the union because it gives smaller states the representation that they need.
quite frankly, if you support abolishion of the electoral college, you should also abolish the senate, and abolish all state governments, except those as appointed by a federal government.
otherwise, you recognize that we are a UNION OF STATES before we are a union of individuals. Why not go back and read your federalist papers. Hamilton and Adams are a lot smarter than anyone you will find here on this site, including you and I both.
2007-07-05 10:29:50 · answer #3 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college was established so that every person has a vote. Through his votes, the candidate gains points depending on each state. This is because every state has a chance to vote for a candidate instead of the candidates just campaign in one state--say California where he could clean up.
2007-07-05 10:26:43 · answer #4 · answered by gman992 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.
The Electoral College is to protect the country from the 5 largest states, which would completely control the nation.
It is to protect the little people.
Don't schools teach Civics and History, anymore?
2007-07-05 10:25:38 · answer #5 · answered by wolf 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It scares me beyond words for the sake of the future of our country that this question is being asked even by thoughtful, intelligent, involved Americans.
The people who ask this question never frame it in the context of the balance of power. The genius of our constitution was in its separation of power. The only organ of government that was to be selected by popular vote was the House of Representatives.
I was discussing this issue with a friend recently and she asked me, "well, shouldn't the president be the president of all the people?" I think my emphatic "no" surprised her, and my quotation of the constitution perplexed her. The president is to be elected by the states, not the people. That is constitution 101.
The elections of neither our senators nor our president should be entrusted to the least educated, least interested, least intelligent amongst us. Let the public elect their representatives. The state legislatures should vote on behalf of the state.
2007-07-05 10:42:04 · answer #6 · answered by stokes_trevor 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
dear fascist you should move to a commie nation. "we abolish it and take back control of our own country"? who the F are you? half of the country thinks you're a nut..so good luck trying to "take back" anything.
the founding fathers knew better.
so say everyone in rhode island likes ice cream. but everyone else says no. so their voice means nothing to you? oh yeah...you're a fascist so no it doesn't
to properly reflect the REPUBLIC we live in. NOT a democracy which in essence is mob rule....the electoral college should give votes based on the percentage of votes the candidate receives.
here in cali all 52 go to a demorat every year. so the 4.5 million of us that vote republican, our voices are not heard. it means nothing. because of the 5 million that voted for joan carrie, at least a million are illegals. is that fair to you liberals? i thought you were so tolllllllllllllllerant and open miiiiiiiiiiiinded?
freakin fascists....i hope a revolution happens in this country again and we'll see who takes what and controls what. you s.o.b.s would put those who you don't agree with in death camps like your heroes stalin and hitler.
2007-07-05 10:29:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
YES. It used to be necessary when counting votes was a slow, tedious process but today it is outmoded.
2007-07-05 10:29:56 · answer #8 · answered by punxy_girl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. One Man, One Vote
2007-07-05 10:23:14 · answer #9 · answered by JBS7878 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋