Would you support replacing the electoral college with a national popular vote and WHY?

Question

Please only give valid reasons.(That means no bitching about not changing the constitution.) I know I already asked this question but I'm hoping to get more opinions

Thank You all so much for your opinions. And for the person who asked what "no bithing about changing the constitution meant", I was refering to the last time I asked this question when someone said "now is not the time to be ******* with the constitution," which I feel is not a valid reason by itsself, because it was changing he constitution that freed the slaves. Personally, I see the electoral college as the biggest flaw in our country today. But I gave everyone thumbs up as long as I felt that you backed your answers up well, even if I personally disagree.

Answer 1

No. As I said in your previous question, we are a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. If you want a pure democracy then we'd have to get rid of all representatives and senators and give every person one vote on every little thing in this country. We would soon bog down in minutia, and our country would come to a grinding halt.
Personally I dont think its broke so am not in favor of trying to fix it. Do I always like the results...of course not, but that doesn't mean the process is wrong.

Answer 2

Of course it needs to be changed. As the previous poster alluded to, the electoral college was a logistical neccessity back when the technology did not allow votes to be collected. Nowadays, the electoral college has the opposite effect. It has become glorified jerrymandering. If you live in Oklahoma and vote left of center, you're wasting your vote. If you live in Illinois and vote right of center you're wasting your vote. Only in the supposed "battleground states" is your time spent going to vote a worthwhile pursuit. Doing away with the electoral college would get rid of the late buffoneries like getting the universal vote and not winning elections. The electoral college is another way our "democracy" is nothing more than mere lip service in a society who's already enslaved by the real corporate oligarchy that controls government. Of course as long as most folks can *barely* make their payments on their overpriced suburban homes and their Yukon XLs there will be no real pinch to spearhead the collective effort to make this change. So this discussion is purely academic.

Answer 3

The Electoral College was formed purely for logistical reasons. Counting the popular vote would have been almost impossible in 1776. Now, we can do it rather easily. All this nonsense about giving states a fair share of the power is so absurd that it's ridiculous to even think about it. You mean my vote should carry less weight because I live in Alaska and not New York?
All the Electoral College does now days is make it easier for candidates to focus themselves on states and not individuals.

Answer 4

I would actually support each state dividing its electoral vote proportionally (CA tried to do this last election but it got voted down).

What do you mean "no bitching about not changing the constitution"? That is a very valid reason. Changing the constitution requires consent from 38 states, and there is no way that states that benefit from the current system will be willing to change it.

Answer 5

I think the electoral college works well, even if i haven't always agreed with the out come. the thing that I would agree most with changing would be if you get 39% of a state's votes you should get 39% of that state electoral college. It might take a little longer to find out who wins but I believe it would make more people feel as if thier vote acttually counted.

Answer 6

No. The current process works well, but I do like the move by California Republicans to join Maine and Nebraska in allocating the state’s Electoral College votes to the winners of each Congressional District rather than statewide. This means that rather than winning an entire state, you win the electoral college vote of the districts that you win. So, in California, rather than Kerry winning all 55 electoral votes, Bush would have won 22 to Kerry's 33. This seems fair to me and doesn't favor one side or the other. It simply seems to be a fair compromise between a popular vote and an electoral college.

It's an interesting idea.

Answer 7

I don't know if that's a good idea. One of the things that the electoral college does well, is distribute the balance of voter's power equally. If we went to a popular election system, candidates would only campaign in places with the largest populations (L.A. and New York). There wouldn't be any reason to go elsewhere. This leaves fly-over country with hardly any voice, because of their scattered populations. Then there's also the problem that large urban areas tend to vote liberally, and rural areas tend to vote conservatively.

The way it is now, every individual Californian's vote has the same voice as every individual Rhode Islander's; even though the balance of voting power between the two states is dramatically different.

Answer 8

I do not believe that we need an electoral college. When our country first started the population at that time was not well educated as a whole. The electoral college was a safeguard to insure that able educated men were elected. I think we should use the National Popular vote to elect the President.

Answer 9

I'm against a change. Reason: the popular vote can be won by just a few states such as California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Oregon and the rest of the country's decision would be worthless. Candidates would focus their campaigning on the key states and ignore the others. Our current system gives everybody a more fair shake.

Answer 10

No. History has shown the electoral college works. It gives a balanced representation to all voters.
There are concentrated pockets of Democrat voters: Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco and others. These people usually vote 80% Democrat or higher. They would control all of the national elections.