With the modern technology we have today shouldn't Americans elect their own president?

Question

I can understand using the electoral college to elect before 2000's when not everyone had some sort of access to internet and voting machines were not wide spread, but now it's possible. Why doesn't the U.S. have direct presidential elections?

Answer 1

I completely agree with you. We should be able to have our individual voices heard when we vote.

I don't understand some people's logic in regards to small states being able to have more of a voice with the Electoral College in place though... considering California has 55 electoral votes and my state (NH) only has 4, I still feel like my state has no voice, either way.

Well at least we still have the first primary...

Answer 2

Your view of the electoral college is kind of skewed. The purpose of the electoral college is to make sure each state has a fair say in the election. If Americans were aloud to vote directly that would be extreamly unfair to states that have a small population (mostly states where agriculture or tourism is there main business)
Although voting on the internet would be a big progression, if the electoral college ever got demolished the concept of fair voting is completly thrown out the window.

Basically the electoral college is there to help states with small populations and every vote isn't counted is's based on what percentage of the state has voted for whom.
That's why when the polls get to California you always be able to tell who will the elecion and the remaining states won't even matter.

(But I think voting online is great because I live in California but it's just not fair for others)

Answer 3

The teacher in one class I took stated that when the whole process of how a president is elected was being made, it was decided that the average citizen wasn't intelligent or educated enough to really know who to vote for. Hence the Electoral College was made to represent the unintelligent, ignorant citizens. ;D

(Thanks Rob S for answering my question)

Found the following for todays history lesson:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

-- After reading the first sentence it looks like there is some truth to what that teacher said as well as a safeguard against anarchy.


For all the people stating it was a measure to ensure every state had a say... the state representation of the electoral college does NOT have to be followed. It usually is, but sometimes it isn't. For example, a state that has mainly Democrats may actually end up with Republican votes.

But I agree with the asker - the Electoral College should be done away with. Times have changed.

Answer 4

If you have a direct election, and no electoral college, then outhouses like New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago will all decide the future presidents, while small states such as Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire will have zero say.

No politician ever again would set foot outside the inner cities when campaigning.

You might as well erase all the state boundary lines at that point and just have one huge nation called the Socialist Trashcan of American Leftists.

Answer 5

Because of a concept called "Tyranny of the Majority". The electoral college was started because the Founding Fathers wanted to insure that small states would have some influence, otherwise high population states like California or Texas would always elect who they want, and therefore politicians would cater to the issues of the large states, ignoring the smaller less influential states. They also believed voters were irrational, and likely to vote based on their emotions and fears, not their heads...

Answer 6

because of the fact Obama hates united states of america. He additionally needs to alter united states of america right into a banana republic. i'm asserting this yet i'm specific, in his own concepts, he does no longer think of of it this manner. He hates capitalism because of the fact he sees it as arising inequality between the individuals who stay in this u . s . a .. He thinks that capitalism is what's conserving down the undesirable and permitting some people to develop into obscenely wealthy. He does no longer comprehend that it is the "obscenely wealthy" that are writing the paychecks for people who're prepared to paintings to help their families and themselves. no person needs to be undesirable yet there'll continuously be the lazy, the incompetent, the loopy, addicts, and others who can not or won't paintings. He hates the form (i'm specific he would not experience that he does) because of the fact he knows it is the mechanism that has allowed united states of america to develop into the large and wealthy u . s . a . that it is. He sees it as permitting the grasping and wealthy to subjugate people who have not have been given any money or means. He trolls for prefer among the elite of the international because of the fact he thinks that they instruct a thank you to real egalitarianism. (i'm specific that there is a private desire to be called large approximately this too.) Obama won't know the destruction he's wrecking upon this u . s . a . till it is merely too previous due--or he, being so wrapped up in his own ego and insouciance, would by no skill see it. besides the undeniable fact that, this u . s . a . is going to get replaced continuously. The economic device will fall apart, corporation will come under the purvue of the federal government totally (fascism), and people would be divested of all of the comforts and rights that they've come to assume. Or it could merely be that united states of america will develop into so susceptible that some foreign places means will see it because of the fact the suitable threat to ruin us completely. you will would desire to flow with that's the kinder end for this as quickly as-large u . s . a ..

Answer 7

the system is set up to be equitable.. if we did not have the set up.. we could have three or four states that would elect the president.. the present system allows for the popular vote.. which mostly decides the winner anyway.. but we cannot rely on the popular vote.. it has to be a majority vote of the electorate.. which means that each state has equal influence.. by winning the electorial votes.. it is equitable.. and it is fair.. whether you like or not.. how would you like it if the people of 40 states voted for one candidate and the other ten voted for someone else.. and the populations of those ten states out numbered the other 40.. how equitable is that?.. This country is founded on the proposition of equality.. why would you want to change it?

Answer 8

the founders created the electoral college to insure that the rabble didn't elect the "wrong" guy. It's archaic, it should be done away with asap, and we should have direct election of the President.

Answer 9

If you are saying that you want it to change, I agree with you. I support amending the Constitution to repeal the El. Col. and have a direct election.

If you are wanting to know why there aren't enough people who agree with you and me, ..... go figure. I can't figure that one out.

I mean that in order for the Constitution to be changed, we do need to have a strong, nation-wide consensus to make the change. We haven't reached the point of having that consensus, but I don't know why.

Answer 10

Originally it was so that smaller states would get more representation, because people would worry that people in bigger states would overwhelm the people in smaller states in the popular vote.