Would you support switching to presidential election by popular vote?

Question

I would. It seems kind of silly that the vote of a person in, say, Wyoming or Vermont doesn't count as much as the vote of a person from California or Texas.

Answer 1

No, because New York, Chicago and Los Angeles would determine the outcome of every single election, no thank you, not having it!

Answer 2

Absolutely not! Our Founders clearly avoided popular election of the President for a reason. The 5 most populous states could force their candidate down the throat of the 45 remaining states. Our Federal gov't. is a 'Union' of 'States' not one gynormous state with 300 million residents.
Remember, the popular vote loser only wins an electoral victory if there is a third candidate and/or the popular vote winner has his votes too heavily concentrated in too few states ( see: Gore, 2000. Winning his home state of Tennessee would have made this whole controversy moot.)
Remember, nobody cheated. If Gore and Bush were reversed in 2000, Gore would have been the controversial President -- the system isn't rigged for just one party, the rules don't change.

Answer 3

Absolutely! The Electoral College was instituted by the founding fathers elite to insure that they could maintain control of the leadership when the rif raf voted the "wrong way". It was also the way local votes were represented in the capitol when communication was difficult and slow ( it took weeks to get from Jefferson's home in Virginia to Philadelphia or NY). Today we see ourselves first as citizens of the United States (rather than citizens of a State) voting for a national leader. In the early daze the President was seen as the leader of a union of States and elected by the States, not by Americans as a whole. We see things differently today and electing the President directly makes as much sense as electing a governor directly. The EC is archaic and should have been eliminated years...decades ago.

Answer 4

maximum present day-day Presidents did no longer win the Iowa caucuses. the recent Hampshire popular will help to make certain the Presidential candidate for the two events, however the South Carolina popular besides as large Tuesday primaries will additionally make certain how the various states will vote. The social gathering convention writes the platform for each social gathering and provides their candidate to the voters. Presidential applicants was once desperate from the floor of the conventions, yet no longer plenty anymore. in case you detect which you have a particular candidate in recommendations, then get out their and artwork for them. call their interior of sight headquarters or the social gathering headquarters close to you and volunteer. in case you have a dollar or 2 to deliver them, try this too. it particularly is an significant election--in lots of techniques.

Answer 5

People in less populated states like mine's votes count as much as others. First our 3 electoral votes is a higher percentage of the total electoral vote than our 600,000 population is to the total voting population. More importantly, our system of government was formed that the states, not people, elect the president. The senate was originally elected by state legislatures rather than by the people leaving the House of Representatives as the peoples representatives. Anyways anyone who wants to change the system has no interest in understanding that states elect the president not people and that this was done on purpose so wy waste the energy explaining.

Answer 6

No because it would allow candidates to ignore the smaller states. Also, there would be massive amounts of voter fraud in democrat cities.

If you do not think democrats cheat, answer me this

In the last WA election, the Republican Dino Rossi won 2 counts. Magically, some votes showed up in the Seattle county. There were more votes cast than voters in the county. Democrat won.

Answer 7

I think that I would support this because this would more so represent what the people want. I'm not sure exactly when but it has happened in history that a candidate lost the popular but won the election. You can also easily see in theory how easy it would be in a close election to win the popular but lose the election. If the votes are very close in certain states (N.Y., Cal, Tx etc) but you lose them; but you when running away in Wy, SD, ND etc, you can win the popular. But those states don't carry anything in the electoral college like Cal + Ny so the election is lost.

Answer 8

The USA is not united yet as one nation to go for popular vote where may the best American will be elected. Politically the USA is not yet civilized to go for popular vote. Its sad but its true.

Answer 9

It doesn't not matter which way you slice it!

Then the only people who would see presidential candidates are large states! The electoral college was set up to protect small states from getting adequate representation!

Originally, the people didn't elect the president at all!

Answer 10

you have it backward, mate ..

the vote of the person in vermont counts toward three electoral votes while that of the person in California only counts toward 1.04 electoral votes.


And, NO. I'd not support changing this.

Answer 11

Why not! Who knows who or what could be our pres if folks even added those right-ins to it! hehehe! And I don't like that people think they "know better" than me and what I do before I vote; Hell, they, the Electoral College people, can change thier votes if they so choose! That sucks! Which is why I thought it funny about all those Florida votes in the first place!