Do you think we will ever elect a president by popular vote ?

Question

Do you think we will ever elect a president by popular vote not electoral votes and why. As we have seen in the past a nominee can loose the presidential bid and win the popular votes. When will we see an elected president by popular vote , not just what Iowa and Florida and the others electoral vote do . Is there any other election you know of that is done in this way ? Don't you think if one candidate gets more votes than another they should win ? I don't care if your rep. dem. or independent . It just seems like the one with the most votes should win !

Answer 1

The reason they went with the electoral college was to make sure that smaller states had as a fair share of pull when it came to electing the president. For example, South Dakota has a very small (although very active) population.

Here is a good answer about proposals in the past to change it.

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

AND

Were any measures introduced in Congress to change the Electoral College process by amending the Constitution?

Yes, several joint resolutions were introduced in the current Congress and were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The proposals, all introduced in the House of Representatives, include the following:

– Voting rights for residents of United States territories and commonwealths [H.J.RES.101.IH]

– Direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote [H.J.RES.109.IH]

– Right to vote amendment [H.J.RES.28.IH]

– Every Vote Counts amendment [H.J.RES.103.IH]

To find these Resolutions, go to the Library of Congress' THOMAS web site.

Follow the link to the website. They have a large amount of info about this.

PS

Really good question.

Answer 2

The popular vote and the electoral vote have gone to the same person in 90+ percent of the Presidential Elections in the country's history. EVERY states popular vote and its electoral vote have gone to the same candidate in 100% of the elections since the candidates names began appearing on the ballots. Originally, people actually voted for Electoral College members. These representatives then selected a President.

Answer 3

I know I will get thumb's down for giving an accurate answer to this question.

The electoral college is part of the Constitution. The only way to change it is amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires the agreement of 3/4 of the states. That means that any 13 states can prevent a constitutional amendment.

As currently structured, the electoral college gives each state the same number of electoral votes as that state has representatives and senators. However, each state has two senators. That means that smaller states have more pull in the electoral college than they would in a popular vote. That creates a big disincentive for those states to agree to a change. Since the majority of the population of this country lives in about 13 states, it is highly unlikely that enough of the other 37 will agree to any constitutional amendment eliminating the electoral college.

Answer 4

There would be so much corruption and pocket lining there would never be a fair election again.

Let's take the extreme example where the bastions of the predominately liberal media, concentrated primarily in California and New England, are able to coax 100% of the voters in California and New England to vote for the Democratic candidate. Now, even if every other state in the Union were to vote primarily Republican, the Democratic candidate would still win the popular vote. All the states without shoreline would all of a sudden have no voice.

The Electoral College system is effective in balancing the needs of the states with the needs of the people. A popular vote would not be.

Answer 5

Your right and wrong. Look the constitution was drafted to set down our voting procedures. And they set it up this way so that more populous states wouldn't have such a huge advantage over smaller states. Think about it, if New York with its millions voted by popular vote that in this day and age would swing the election automatically to Dems. The idea has been tossed around to get rid of the electoral system but what would replace it. Not the popular vote. That has to many flaws.

Answer 6

No we will not give up the electoral system. If we did a candidate could promise New York and California the world at the cost to the rest of the country. You would see the bulk of federal funding going to those state while the rest of the country rots.

Answer 7

despite the best efforts of out of control liberals today the electoral college functions as it should. it draws a careful line between popular support of a president and having large metropolitan areas like nyc and la elect a president on their own. if not for the elec. how would you go about giving...lets say wyoming a voice thats largely vacant.

Answer 8

No. I'm glad we don't. If we did, candidates would cater to large metropolitan areas and ignore the interests of large areas of the country. This was precisely why the electoral college as well as the method for determining the membership by state for the US House and Senate were devised by our founding fathers. This map helps to highlight the purpose of the current method.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap2000.htm

Answer 9

the universal vote and the electoral vote have long previous to a similar guy or woman in ninety+ % of the Presidential Elections indoors the rustic's historic past. each and each states consumer-friendly vote and its electoral vote have long previous to a similar candidate in one hundred% of the elections because of the reality the applicants names began to look on the ballots. initially, human beings easily voted for Electoral college persons. those representatives then chosen a President.

Answer 10

No. The electoral college works fine.