The electoral college...?

Question

still a good idea, or one that has outlived it's usefulness?

I personally think it's outlived it's usefulness.

Answer 1

Time for an amendment. The electoral college has outlived it's usefulness.

Answer 2

I think we need more federal regulations on federal elections, but having the states run the presidential election is entirely better than having the federal government run the presidential election. The electoral college almost mimics congress, except as it currently exists, the senate and house electoral votes are lumped together. There lies the problem with the electoral college. Each district should cast one electoral vote for the most popular candidate in that district, and all those electoral votes should count as "house" electoral votes. Each state should cast two electoral votes for the most popular candidate in the entire state. Those would be "senate" electoral votes. To win, you would have to have the majority of the "house" and "senate" electoral votes. This would balance the right of the majority with the rights of the smaller states. The senate is an even playing field for all states regardless of size, and the house is an even playing field by population. If a different candidate wins the house and senate electoral votes, then a revote is done with only those two candidates on the ballot, and if that fails, the final vote would be done as it is today, in the actual senate. Gotta keep the feds out of the presidential election, but federal law requiring all votes to be captured on a paper copy is definately needed NOW! Keep in mind, the way the Republicans cheated the past two elections was in part due to polling, and finding the "battle ground" states. Last election, in Ohio, in areas where a lot of minorities lived, there was in some instances only one or two voting machines. It's really easy to engineer a defeat when the margins are so close. Do your part to deter election fraud, never participate in a poll asking how you plan to vote. If we all did that, it would make engineering an election harder.

Answer 3

Wow! It's been two whole days since I have seen a question about this subject.

(Copies, Pastes old answer. Since we get one of these questions nearly every day)
The Electoral College:
Pro: The Founders of this nation had a justified fear of complete democracy. They set up a system where supposedly wise men, elected by the people, and holding no other office at the time, would chose a President. They knew "There's a sucker born every minute". They made sure that there was an insulating layer of responsible people between the voter and the presidency. Thus there is some protection from the lies and deceit that went on during election season, then just as it does now.

Con:
1. Those who failed their civics classes, or who have never received any instruction in our system of government, along with those who wish to take advantage of the most ignorant portion or our electorate, continue to complain and question the Electoral College. This makes the sheep easily identified and led by the barking dogs.

2. Those who wish to take advantage of the gullibility of the average voter would like to do away with the Electoral College, in order to make their nonsense campaigns more effective.

Although the Electors of most states are "pledged" to vote for the winner in that state, and most face criminal penalties for breaking that pledge, there may come a time when the Electoral College is forced to muster its courage and go against the vote. This could happen in a scenario where massive fraud or corruption is found between the national election day and the balloting of the Electoral College. This could happen, and is what was intended by the founders of this nation.

http://www.hendrixcampaign.com

Answer 4

The electoral college is a failsafe measure. It does closely mirror the popular vote but allows for "saner" heads to prevail in the event that a hitler type won the popular election.

It does need a bit of revision though that would need be put in place at the national level.

The members of the electoral college should be chosen based on the district from which elected, hence large states like FL and CA would not send all of their electoral votes to one candidate. The majority from each state (statewide) would choose 2 while the individual congressional districts would send one. One state (can't remember which one) currently does this but few states would implement such a system as it would decrease the campaigning in that state thereby decreasing the promises and hence pork they receive from those Presidents winning their states.

The candidates would have to campaign in more widely held areas as CA (with it's 55 members of the electoral college) and NY (with however many it has) would no longer be a near given to the Democrats. The people of rural CA and northern NY would get more of a say in the presidential election as would the city of Nashville (democrat city in a republican state).

As far as revisions go, I'd strongly support that all of the caucauses be held on the same day as well. Iowa and New Hampshire have way too much power in choosing who will run for the two parties.

Answer 5

If you think we should get rid of the electoral college then you don't understand it. If you want your vote to count then you might consider hanging on to it. If you want a few metropolis cities to run everything then get rid of it. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. Maybe you don't understand the difference because of your dismal public education. If we get rid of the electoral college we would have something much more like a democracy. You probably think that would be cool but you would soon be spending all your tax money in New York, L.A., Chicago, Miami, Dallas and a few more of the larger cities. Unless you live in one of these cities your vote would become worthless. Ask the French how democracy worked for them. It turns out it was mob rule. It quickly deteriorated into a widespread blood bath. Just like it would here. In a representative republic with an electoral college the power is apportioned among the states just as the constitution stipulates. Do you really think anyone would care what they thought in Iowa or New Hampshire if we didn't have the electoral college? Maybe you should take the time to do the work to understand how governments (not just ours) work before you try to rearrange. You're trying to remodel the house by removing the foundation. I don't think it would take long before the house starts to cave in.

Answer 6

Um...to the person who said, "If you think it's outlived its usefulness...you don't understand it"...

...you have GOT to be kidding me! Thanks for letting me know that I'm an idiot, simply because I don't agree with you, no matter how educated I am about the electoral college.

Wanna trade IQs? Wanna actually debate the issue?

Although I've gotta admit...you have drawn an answer from me in a question where I would normally have just left others' answers stand...

Answer 7

I find that those who believe it has outlived its usefulness generally live inside one of the large population belts in the USA. I also believe it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to have the people elect the President. In fact, they created two legislative bodies. One to be elected by the people (House of Representatives) and one to be elected by the States (Senate). The 17th Amendment changed the system of electing the Senate and that may have been a bad idea.
The Constitution is a "contract" between the States and a Federal Government created under that document as a sort of new "corporate" entity. And the CEO of that "corporation" needs to be elected by the chief "stockholders", i.e.: the States. That way each State has a say in the outcome, not just those with people living belly button to buttocks in cramped pieces of real estate.
What is surprising to most people is the absence of "faithful elector" laws in many of the States. 26 of those States impose no penalty if their Electoral College delegates vote completely in contradiction of the way the people of that state voted in the November General Election. Perhaps Title 3 of United States Code needs to be changed to ensure faithful elector laws throughout the Union. But, such a Federal law could be challenged as being outside the scope of Federal powers and a violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
What is really needed is the end of the primary election system that has degenerated into little more than a beauty pageant. Let's get back to the selection of the ticket in a convention by the delegates attending the convention.

Answer 8

The electoral college would be a non-issue if Congress would re-grow a backbone and stop rolling over for President after President. Congress was supposed to OPPOSE and balance the President, not fall all over itself to please him. Even when an "opposition" party supposedly controls Congress, it's still so full of cowards and weaklings that it will not stand up and fulfill its Constitutional mandate of opposing imperial aspirations on the part of a presidency.

Answer 9

Outlived....get rid of it.

Answer 10

when Ross Pero ran for president, he recieved 20% of the popular vote. He recieved not one electorial vote. So one fifth of our countries people's votes got "shifted" to another candidate. It is not fair, it is not democratic. it is like pissing on my leg to give me a warm feeling.

not that I wanted that man as president, but do the math!!