Do you think the electoral college should be revamped?

Question

I understand the need for protecting the interests of the smaller states. But why should a candidate get the all the votes of a state if he only gets, say, 51% of that states popular vote?

My question is revamped, not abolished.Why should a candidate get all the votes from , say, NY, when they only get 51% of the popular vote?

Me2--If a candidate carries the vote, in I think the 12 largest states, he wins.
RED has the right idea.

Answer 1

The electoral college could be kept however, instead of a winner take all in the votes, it could be revamped to having each candidate get the percentage that he won. Like if a state has 9 votes. It could be split 5 - 4 or 6 -3. That makes more sense. The big states still have the most swing no matter which way it is. The candidates don't even campaign in my state because the know they cannot make the majority and if "winner takes all" they only campaign in the states where they think it is close.

Answer 2

There are three possibilities to the issue of the Electoral College. 1. Let it be 2. Abolish it 3. Modify it

Let it be: There had been little public opinion talk about the EC prior to GW's first term. Point in fact, it is very rare in the history of presidential elections that the EC is close to, let alone opposite the popular vote.

Abolish it: The claim here is that it is an antiquated process where each states' governor sent representatives to vote for their choice. That meant travelling to a single location or a postal run, both of which took time. Over the past century, advances in transportation, then communication (telephones...modems...internet) made travelling to a location unnecessary. Today, the EC supplies their vote based on whichever system is in place in their state. Here there are three possibilities. 1. EC votes for majority winner in the state's popular vote 2. EC votes the percentage (or as close to it) 3. Each member of the state's EC votes for who they personnally choose. There is not a standard for this, as can be seen on TV when they show the full coverage of the election. It's a shame that Hawaii has little ability to make a difference in that they vote last, and have so few votes that their EC really doesn't matter.

Modify it: Here, it is suggested to make a standard for each state's EC to follow. My personal take on this one would be for the EC to vote the percentage of the state's popular vote as close as possible.

While I disagree that the EC should be abolished, I do agree with those who would like to modify it. To do that, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be passed, which in and of itself, would litterally take an Act of Congress!

Answer 3

It won't go away, because it is still doing what it was designed to do -- to give smaller states a larger collective voice to keep a handful of large states from setting national policy.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing states proportionately split their electoral votes, but that's something that the two major parties don't want.

Answer 4

It won't ever happen. To change the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment -- needing ratification by 3/4s of the states before enactment. No way the legislatures of the smaller states would ever ratify.

Answer 5

That's the very thing that protects the rights of the states.

With that line of thinking, why should a person become President if he only gets 50.1% of the popular vote?

Answer 6

I think it should be done away with completely. The presidency is the only position that uses this cumbersome method - all other posts are based on the popular vote. It would eliminate a lot of hassle and expense and confusion.

Answer 7

The electoral college is no longer needed. The US is much more eclectic in it's population. The population is much more aware of issues, via media. Communications are rapid. It is time to go to popular vote wins the day.

Answer 8

Do you really want Californian and New York to decide the election