Every other election, the canidate with the most votes wins. The excuses that I have heard on this ,almost surpasses the excuses for our country being in Iraq.
2007-09-18 10:28:19 · 13 answers · asked by doug young 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Without the electoral college states with small populations would have even less of an impact.
No. The EC is needed.
hazeltine: without the Electoral College states like Montana would have ZERO representation. The entire area around Montana is a 'Red' area and collectively they do have an impact. Without the EC California alone eliminates the rest of the entire west.
EDIT: I hope people read ArmyGuy and my post. The EC is necessary. Small states would have NO significance without it. Politicians would only need to appease California and New York, maybe Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
2007-09-18 10:32:48 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The States elect the President. The people vote for electors pledged to a candidate for President and Vice President. The problem with a majority vote in the General election deciding the winner is that most of the States which lie between the two oceans which form the boundaries of the continent would be irrelevant to the outcome. The nation is a republic made up of fifty states. Each of those states has a voice in the governance of the republic. Getting rid of the Electoral Colege would be tantamount to electing the House and Senate as "At Large" candidates on a nationwide basis.
There is one "ticking bomb" in the Electoral College system as it now stands. 26 of the States do not have "faithful elector" laws that require the Electoral College delegation from that state to vote for the two candidates who received the votes for electors pledged to their candidacies in the General election.
I also find it remarkable that there was not all of the furor about the Electoral College back in 1960 when the popular vote majority for Kennedy and Johnson was razor thin, yet they won the majority of electoral votes. Also not a peep when the election of 1992 saw a popular vote majority of less than 50% for the ticket of Clinton and Gore. It seems that there is a slight bias to many of the objectors in this issue.
2007-09-18 10:42:18 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When the electoral college was developed, the intent was to give smaller states a voice against the political interests of larger states.
Today, the need is still there, and the system still works.
2007-09-18 10:36:58 · answer #3 · answered by Teekno 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the electoral college only stays around to maintain a two party system--it was an intentionally undemocratic creation by the founding fathers, becuase they weren't quite sure whether democracy would work, and wanted a safety net. The only way to get new ideas or real democracy would be to end the practice--otherwise your choices are Democrat or Republican, and if you are in the middle or on the outside of those parties, you are stuck picking the one that is closest. Democracy would be to pick someone who represents you, and if your opinion isn't as popular, it won't bear as much weight. But minority opinions shouldn't be rendered impotent.
2007-09-18 10:37:36 · answer #4 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. We are a federalist country. The states have rights and having the electoral college forces candidates to be involved in all states.
2007-09-18 10:33:05 · answer #5 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
ABSOLUTELY... when there were few people in this country and the news of who won the election took a couple of months to reach the outlying areas... the electoral college was a good idea. NOW.. in this age of instant communications... the Electoral College is just a way for the politicians to MANIPULATE the elections.
2007-09-18 10:37:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Oh Hell Yeah ! Then The Libs won't be able to cry about the elections being stole from them !
2007-09-18 14:58:03 · answer #7 · answered by Dale B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes! We would not be in the mess we are in if the popular vote was used. With the Electoral College, people in small states don't even count!
2007-09-18 10:32:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Nope, nor will it be. If it was to end it would mean Los Angeles, Chicago, New York & Miami would decide the outcome of all presidential elections. Those are all liberal cities, so no thanks!
2007-09-18 10:34:18 · answer #9 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Because the states with larger populations have more say and just because they have more people that doesnt mean that is how the vote would turn out.
2007-09-18 10:36:46 · answer #10 · answered by FutureFirstLady 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋