2007-08-13 14:30:47 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why are some of you getting so offended? You do not know what political ideology that I ascribe to, yet some of you are making assumptions based on my question.
2007-08-13 14:47:27 · update #1
John c, what does obesity have to do with the electoral college?
2007-08-13 14:49:10 · update #2
Yes.
Edit:
"The electoral college will never, ever be eliminated. Why don't people understand that."
Actually, this is America. Anything is possible if the majority of America wishes for change. Don't forget, the people rule.
***
The electoral college is not functioning as it should. All a potential candidate has to do is focus on the states with the most electoral colleges to guarantee a win. The candidate doesn't even have to visit the other ones because they are hardly worth the time.
Originally, the use of the electoral college was because they didn't have an efficient way of communication in a timely manner. In this day and age, communication is instant.
2007-08-13 14:34:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
No if we were to eliminate the electoral college then most peoples votes would not matter. All a person seeking the presidency would have to do is campaign in a few large cities or states and say screw the rest of us.
That said in its current form the electoral college is outdated. Any system in which it is possible that a candidate could win the popular vote but still lose, is a system that needs changed. The best idea is to modify the electoral college so that is a percentage system. An example would be if a state has 4 votes and one candidate gets around 75% of that states votes they should get 3 electoral votes, and their opponent 1. That way any presidential candidate must campaign everywhere but everyones vote matters.
2007-08-13 14:37:19 · answer #2 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think of the electoral college could be eradicated, or on the least made over.. how that's set up now, it favors greater states with extra votes than the smaller states..This in turn takes remote from the main suitable to equivalent representation for some states.. It additionally has a historic previous of putting the guy with fewer customary votes in place of work.. that's strictly how we wound up with Bush as President interior the 1st place.. purely think of if we did not have the electoral college, Bush under no circumstances might have had the final 8 years in place of work, and issues might have been very diverse.. without it, we could have a genuine say in our representation and our votes will actually count sort for something.. the way I see it, as lengthy as we proceed utilising the electoral college, the subsequent President will continuously land up being the guy who the "extreme and mightier powers than the guy" needs it to be.
2016-10-15 06:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The candidate receiving the most votes should win. However, we have seen the candidate receiving the most popular votes, of the people, did not win in 2000. Ask Al Gore! Moreover, poor Al Gore is now roaming around preaching about "global warming" and selling his environmental products to his tree hugging followers. Also, he is now quite obese, caused by eating junk foods!
2007-08-13 14:45:27 · answer #4 · answered by john c 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
since the smaller states joined the Union with the explicit promise that the Electoral College was part of the deal, do you propose to let those states that do not want to be part of this revised Constitution leave?
or will you force them to be part of your changed States?
I'd suggest to all of the small states that they refuse or leave. You can have the large urban states -- CA, NY, PA, and whoever else wants this.
As for me -- no thanks.
GL
2007-08-13 15:00:28 · answer #5 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It was set up so candidates had to focus on the entire nation, not the most populous.
2007-08-13 14:56:17 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes because then even though the reds would be mostly ignored the majority would truly rule.
A majority of the land mass is red.
The majority of the poulation is Blue.
2007-08-13 14:35:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, big waste of money. It also allows people to build war chest, ie lots of cash for free.
2007-08-13 14:37:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! There is absolutely no need for it. Keeping it around is not very democratic.
Let the people speak!
2007-08-13 14:36:52 · answer #9 · answered by Pretty_Trini_Rican 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, we should not. It was the standard we used from the beginning and we should continue using it.
2007-08-13 14:48:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋