The Electoral College is an out dated voting system and works against the true intent of the majority of the people. In 2000, Al Gore got the most most votes yet Bush won the Electoral Votes..thanks to his corrupt brother, Ex-Governor of Florida, (who shat in office for too long).
2007-07-15 11:56:19 · 13 answers · asked by little timmie 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I am not pissed that Gore lost, I am pissed at how he lost.
2007-07-15 12:05:29 · update #1
I realize it's purpose. The EC gives a voice to only two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. If we keep the EC then election is strictly up to the Democratic or Republican Party No other person would matter.
2007-07-15 12:12:44 · update #2
Please write your Congressman, Congresswoman, Congress-closet-gay, Congressional pedophile, whomever you can, tell them the people want a bigger voice!
2007-07-15 12:15:41 · update #3
The recent posts to this question just totally ignore the details I've written up here. They go on to correct me with their ramblins and snyde remarks. I know what the Electoral College is supposed to be for. I taught American Government at the High School level. If the election process bores you, then don't come here!
2007-07-16 01:44:33 · update #4
A more urgent reform is term limits. Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. It makes little difference which Party is in power, they are both corrupt.
Public service is a brief civic duty, not a career. Never re-elect anyone.
2007-07-16 07:49:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow! It's been two whole days since I have seen a question about this subject.
(Copies, Pastes old answer. Since we get one of these questions nearly every day)
The Electoral College:
Pro: The Founders of this nation had a justified fear of complete democracy. They set up a system where supposedly wise men, elected by the people, and holding no other office at the time, would chose a President. They knew "There's a sucker born every minute". They made sure that there was an insulating layer of responsible people between the voter and the presidency. Thus there is some protection from the lies and deceit that went on during election season, then just as it does now.
Con:
1. Those who failed their civics classes, or who have never received any instruction in our system of government, along with those who wish to take advantage of the most ignorant portion or our electorate, continue to complain and question the Electoral College. This makes the sheep easily identified and led by the barking dogs.
2. Those who wish to take advantage of the gullibility of the average voter would like to do away with the Electoral College, in order to make their nonsense campaigns more effective.
Although the Electors of most states are "pledged" to vote for the winner in that state, and most face criminal penalties for breaking that pledge, there may come a time when the Electoral College is forced to muster its courage and go against the vote. This could happen in a scenario where massive fraud or corruption is found between the national election day and the balloting of the Electoral College. This could happen, and is what was intended by the founders of this nation.
http://www.hendrixcampaign.com
2007-07-15 21:15:30 · answer #2 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gore lost because he lost. They did at least 4 recouts in all of which Bush won. Even after the Dems tried to only recount the most populous dem regions. It was sham. All the FL supreme court did was rule that you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game and stopped the incessant recounting. There was nothing corrupt about what happened in FL unless it came from the Dem side.
Now on to your question. The electoral college is essential to give smaller states and regions at least a little more power in voting for prez. If we went straight by popular vote the only areas that would choose are president is CA, NY, TX, and FL. SD, UT, NH, AL all would be ignored and forgotten. Why even have states? Why not do away with state government and only have the Fed and local governments. Popular vote only is a terrible idea.
http://www.dryflypolitics.com
2007-07-15 21:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by sbay311 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the Electoral College was eliminated, the candidates would put all of their efforts into the major urban population centers and ignore everyone else.
Which, by the way, is the way they do it now.
Actually the real purpose of the EC was to give someone a means to veto the popular vote for a totally wacko or unqualified candidate, or some other unusual circumstance. People make waaaayyyy too much of the EC at the exclusion of criticism of the news media for their control over who is and who isn't what they refer to as a "viable" candidate.
2007-07-15 21:13:31 · answer #4 · answered by Evita Rodham Clinton 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And the electoral college is mandated by the Constitution, so it would require a constitutional amendment to eliminate.
However, fixing the electoral college is much easier. All we have to do is have each state allocate votes on a pro rata (percentage) basis among the candidates, rather than all or nothing. That would solve 90% of the problems, with 20% of the effort it would take to change the constitution.
2007-07-15 19:16:13 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because its an incredibly stupid idea. if it werent for the Electoral college, instead of having recounts in Florida we would have seen recount upon recount in every single solitary state.
The recount in Florida was confusing enough and there were disputes all over the place. Instead of taking a month to conclude decisively who won there would have been no President. And likely there would have been war.
Do you really want another civil war? fine do away with it. But there is a reason it exists and without the check you are just asking for trouble.
2007-07-15 19:48:54 · answer #6 · answered by Avatar_defender_of_the_light 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why doesn't Congress cut down on its vacation time by-oh I don't know- 70%? Why don't our lawmakers work as much as their constituants?
Why don't we level the playing field and put limits on campeign spending, opening up the run for presidency to the people in general, like is intended?
Why aren't there even more restrictions on lobbiests, and why aren't general referrendums used more frequently?
Huh...
Honestly, I agree with you 100%. The US Government (much like every other world government) isn't exactly logical. Beaurocracy quite frequently dictates the way our government is run, rather than the direct opinions of the people, and while that is completely and utterly unfair and opposite to the original intent of our democracy, it's the way things seem to have turned out. Until our government leaders care more about governing fairly and logically and less about their political careers, things aren't going to be inclined to change.
Fat chance of that happening, huh.
2007-07-15 19:04:35 · answer #7 · answered by gheefreak 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You must live in one of the larger states that would pretty much control the country. States like California and New York would have the power and states like the New England States,New Jersey and Delaware would be out of the picture.
2007-07-15 19:16:03 · answer #8 · answered by hdean45 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
EC is not outdated at all. Possibly it is needed more today than ever. Maybe you don't realize it's purpose. The EC gives a voice to small states who would otherwise have none. Remove the EC and election is strictly up to urban vote in NY, TX, CA & FL. No other states would matter.
2007-07-15 19:02:29 · answer #9 · answered by billnzan 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Count me in. I am serious too. This is the most undemocratic part of the system if you ask me. Everybody has the right to be heard and everyone that votes should be capable of independant thought and not let certain states make their decision.
2007-07-15 19:03:04 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋