what is the rational for electing a president by number of electoral (college) votes vs. the popular vote?

Answer 1

In theory, it gives more power to the small low population states - but in practice, both small and large states are ignored after the primaries, unless they are swing states, like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The candidates pay no attention to California after the primaries because they know it is going to goDemocratic; nor do the candidates pay any attention to the small state of Utah or the large state of Texas after the primaries, because they know both states will cast all of their electoral votes for the Republican candidate.

The great evil of the Electoral College is the all or nothing way the states cast their electoral votes.

However, there is a way to make the Electoral College irrelevant without a constitutional amendment.

See www.nationalpopularvote.com

Answer 2

To make the electoral college fair, give each candidate their percentage of the votes. If a candidate wins a state by 60 percent of the vote and the state has 10 electoral votes, give the winner 6 and the loser 4. That would truly represent the people.

Answer 3

Simple: popular vote alone will cause candidates to only target high population areas because if you do that you can get the most votes with the least amount of work. If this were the system used, then people living in high population areas would get the most attention from elected officials and the rest of the country would be ignored.

Also, the electorate serves as a failsafe, they can dissent from the popular vote and vote against them (it's a felony if they do) if they think the American people are not making the right decision.

Answer 4

Well in todays environment I would give two answers:

1. The electoral vote forces candidates to campaign throughout the nation, and take the states seriously (rather than simply campaigning in population centers). It gives the states power, and helps in getting more well rounded American (rather than regional) candidates.

2. States not the Federal Government regulate their elections. States such as California have massive voter fraud problems (such as illegal aliens voting), and do little to nothing to stop it (in fact often encourage it). With the electoral vote California, while still having much power due to its high population, does not have unlimited power. They have simply 55 electoral votes, and no more power than that. Under a strict popular voting system, California's fraudulent votes are mixed with the other states (including states that take great lengths to stop voter fraud). Such dilutes the power of everyone else's vote.
I am a Texan and do not want my Texas votes to touch nasty California votes! LOL. (Seriously though).

Answer 5

Because it preserves the voice of ALL states, not just the ones with the biggest population centers. Get rid of the electoral college and you effectively eliminate the votes from any states beside California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

Answer 6

To ensure each state counted in an election and to lessen the chance of electing demagogues (like Europe's Napoleons, and later Hilter's and Mussolini's).

America has never had a tyrant. Oh sure, we've had presidents we didn't like, but never some dictator bully boy that lethally eradicated political opponents.

Answer 7

The founding fathers did not trust the people. You need to remember that america is NOT a democracy. The will of the people, and one person one vote, are jokes. The only thing that matters in american politics anymore is money and the lobbyists that throw it around washington, d.c. like it's confetti.