Would you get rid of the electoral college if you could?

Answer 1

Yes. Democracy should mean one vote one person. If you get rid of the electoral college, then it doesn't matter if California, or New York have more people, it would be irrelavent. For instance if I lived in California and voted for Candidate A, I probably would have voted for Candidate A even if I lived in South Dakota. The Electoral college has nothing to do with state representation, that's what congress is for. I say one vote one person, and even though I would have moved out of the country if Al Gore would have won, at least it would have been the true will of the country for the person with the most votes to be president, instead of having a person who lost the popular vote still get into the White House. That would be virtually impossible if it were a truly democratic process.

Answer 2

Honestly, I would!

Think about it, the bigger states wouldn't control the presidency more, they will be controlling it equally. Like Texas a predominately large republican state. When using the electoral process, the democratic votes are basically thrown away.

Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost because of the electoral college.

With the electoral college, bigger states control the election now. It's not what the people want, it's what the larger party wants in that state, it's almost like the United States isn't united anymore. Larger states get more votes for who they want as president, rather than smaller states occupied by citizens with the same rights to choose the president.

The electoral college was created because when the U.S. was started, the founding fathers thought the citizens were not educated enough to make these decisions. (They've been ruled by a king and that's all they knew, the whole reason why they left Great Britain was to create what we know today as a democracy). However, today people are educated about the system and know what their vote will be doing.

The electoral college will be hard to change, it could happen tomorrow or years from now when you and I are long gone.

Answer 3

Not so fast! The one useful thing that the electoral college does is to give us a formula for deciding a winner when no one candidate gets greater than 50% of the vote. A candidate has to win a majority of something in order to win the election. In the typical (recent) election, one could say "close enough" when one candidate gets 49%, another gets 47% and a third gets 4%. But where do we draw the line? What if it wasn't 49-47-4, but 40-36-24, or worse, 30-25-20-15-10 among five candidates? Sure, we could have a runoff under some of those scenarios but that would be cumbersome and expensive. . . and who knows what turnout would be like. Besides, how would we decide what's "close enough" and what needs a runoff? In the current system, the electoral college avoids that mess. We get a clear winner almost all the time that reflects someone who won not just a good number of votes, but the votes of many different states -- and in the very uncommon instance that the electoral college numbers don't decide things, the US House of Representatives is our runoff. I felt I was on the losing side of the equation in one recent election, but I still feel that from this perspective, it still makes a lot of sense. Be very careful about casting it aside and taking on other problems!

Answer 4

Yes; It's an abomination when in a supposedly "freely elected representative" society, A leader supported by simple majority of the people cannot take the reins of government. And I think we've seen the perfect example the last few years how it can put a country on a contrary track to what the majority really wants (As Bush took office 7 years ago when Gore was actually the majority choice.)

Yes; Our founding fathers designed this system to protect the rights of the small states, But hindsight simply reveals that it takes that too far. The more popolous states SHOULD have more influence because they are where the people are! If all people of the country have equal rights; That stands to reason. The founding fathers committed to the electoral college at a time when a fragile collection of states were trying to find compromise to forge a nation. They let the small states twist their arms too hard. The rights of smaller states are protected enough in the Senate - Witness how even though polls show the vast majority of Americans want out of Iraq right now; The small state's Senators hold enough power to prevent the Senate from enacting that course. The electoral college should be abandoned so that the election of a President is a truly Democratic process. Anything else, however well intended, is archaic to what kind of country America is supposed to be.

Answer 5

Not sure simply because there are strong arguments for and against the current system. The idea of the larger states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida controlling any election is frightening but even then it would seem that if enough people voted in the other states then perhaps these larger states would be vetoed.

However, on the side of realism, I am not sure what would really replace the electoral college. All of this talk of wide democracy is nice but what would really happen? The question isn't just a matter of voting but how the Federal Government would still work. The electoral college doesn't affect the House or Senate outright but it is reasonable to believe that if someone wanted to change how population influences the presidential elections then would they what to change these two as well?

This isn't a matter of simply doing away with a system. The importance of this change would affect everything and that cannot be ignored.

Answer 6

No.

The Electoral College is structurally part of the reason why we have been more stable than other democracies such as France or Italy. Most of the pitches as to why it does not work do not hold up under closer study.

There are parts that do need reform however. It works on the idea of a balance of representation from Congress (both houses) . . . but the House of Representatives has not been properly updated in its number of members for generations . . . so a lack of Reps skews the present count towards smaller states (though not enough to catch up to the higher influence that big states enjoy). This creates something like the "Rotten Boroughs" situation that the UK had to deal with two centuries ago. Fix this and most concerns with the Electoral College will be answered.

Answer 7

Well, the electoral college was a masterful piece of work in its inception at the beggining of the country. The demise wasnt so much the politicans, as many suggest, it was the Political partys in general. The electorate was simple, whomever came in first, won the presidency, second place would go on to be the vice president.

During the regime of the Federalist and Democratic Republican parties, the vice President became a 'runningmate' to the front runner, from his own party, at this new inception, the balance of the electorate became unfair, often siding for the big winner, and leaving the other states voters without any say in whome became president.

This problem intensified when the new Democrats and a suffering Federalist party, and the new Republican party decided to hold 'primarys' to clean out an often crowded ticket (most elections had roughly 5-10 candidates from all three major parties) this inception would allow party loyalists to only select, one candidate from thier party, who would later pick his runningmate.

This wasnt a problem for awhile, not until politics became so decisive, that polarizing the states votes down to afew hundred that "take all or nothing" was a huge problem. Florida, in 2000, was ultimately the beginning of this debate.

out of my own personal beliefs, and history, i believe the electorate is a good cause, but now has many flaws, and which, we have never addressed, i believe the winner should take a percentage of the electorate, and the opposing party take on a smaller fraction of it. ex: Guillani takes West Virginia (5 EV) by 60%, Clinton loses with 40%, so Guillani will carry WV with 3 electors, while clinton takes 2. this creates a logical split, though it wouldnt be flawless, it would help minimise another 2000, or even, a 2004.

For more election history, or Bio on the Electorate, i suggest you check out www.270towin.com, they have alot of information, with trivias, fact sheets, as well as interactive 2008 Electorate Map and Historical ones from 2004 to washingtons presidency.

Answer 8

the congress can't get rid of the electoral college. that would take an ammendment to the constitution, and only the people can do that. each state has to vote on it, and like the electoral college, each state would get an equal vote. the smaller, less populated states are not going to vote it out, because it was put there to make sure they had an equal voice in the first place, people are going to vote against their interests. The electoral college was put in place because some states are more densly populated than others. it is designed so as to give the smaller states a voice to be heard.

Answer 9

The electoral college was established by the founding fathers for a reason. The idea is to preserve the federal character of the union by allowing states to vote as a unit, rather than collecting percentages from the people without regard to the region of the country that they come from.

The electoral college recognizes the nature of our government. Remember: the american states do not have a pure national form of government. We have a federal form. It is a federation of states, each of which retains its own government. Under these circumstances, the electoral college is the most rational means of allowing a state to preserve its voice on the federal level. States take a ballot internally, and whichever candidate the majority of the state's residents select is the candidate to which all of that state's electoral votes may go.

Why is this desirable? Why must states preserve their voices on the federal level? One need only look to the truly regional character of our country to answer this question: there are vastly different concerns and customs in different parts of the US. Consequently, different laws exist in different parts of the country. That is how we have survived as a nation. For example, if the same gun control laws that we have here in Massachusetts were forced upon people in Arizona, there would be an insurrection!! The electoral college recognizes this, and recognizes that the geographical unity of voting patterns must be preserved in order to allow individual regions to have a real voice. This is the same reason is why when electing to the US House, each district votes for a candidate to represent that district, and the particular concerns of that district.

If all political candidates were elected "at large" then the densely populated regions of the country, on the coasts for example, would always determine the elections, and more sparsely populated regions of the country, such as the mid-west, would never have any voice at all. The electoral college effectively dilutes the votes of large population centers, requiring candidates to appeal to the legitimate concerns of all americans, not just those in densely populated regions of the country.

That is the crux of the issue. The founding fathers believed in the local control of democracy. This is not only logical, it is practical. If the regional voices of less densely populated areas were not maintained, the residents of these states would rightly become highly disillusioned with the political process, and knowing that they could never influence the system by voting, would be more liable to turn to other means of making their voices heard, such as violence. It has already happened several times before, and it is thanks to the electoral college that regional conflicts have not occured more often.

Answer 10

Of course I would end the electoral college. The people of this nation who vote usually have informed decisions. With every single minute detail of the candidates lives and policies under constant scrutiny by the insurmountable number of news networks making an uninformed decision is by choice. America is a democracy and the people's vote should count for more than a guide for the electoral college. The end result should be clear and concise with no room for doubt; the popular vote should decide the presidency. Because we all do not want another dimpled chad fiasco.