The Electoral College System
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm
During the days of horse and buggy, the E.C. made sense. Not anymore. Agree or disagree?
2007-09-23 13:40:36 · 16 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
gcbtrading (below) Who do you believe my "team" to be?
2007-09-23 13:53:48 · update #1
Your objections would be more powerful if your team won the electoral college and then you complained.
***
I have encountered you enough to know well your team isn't President Bush. (I'm not being critical of your ideology in my answer)
2007-09-23 13:49:15 · answer #1 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Been somewhat some cities the place the mayor is elected and none of them are a majority (fifty one%). A plurality isn't adequate. So then they ought to take those with the main votes that upload as much as fifty one% (regularly 2 -3 applicants) and have a run-off election which takes weeks longer. interior the period in-between, that city is without an government chief. No difficulty for a city, regularly, yet for the richest, maximum effectual us of a interior the international, those weeks ought to be catastrophic. And with a vote casting turn-out of 60% at ultimate, there desires to be a thank you to certify a majority vote. So maximum individuals vote of the Electoral college makes a decision the President. Your vote (and all people else's) makes a decision which way the Electoral college of that state will vote. hardly does the Electoral college ever fluctuate from the familiar vote, or maybe while it does, it rather is nonetheless by way of under a million/10th of a million%.
2016-10-05 06:13:23 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the Constitution gets amended to remove it -- which is unlikely, but could happen at any time.
The EC has an entirely separate purpose beyond the horse-buggy time-delay issue -- it also attenuates the impact of large population states, so that smaller states have a slightly greater impact on the result (because of the +2 electoral votes each state gets besides the population based ones).
The EC can be easily fixed -- without a constitutional amendment -- by all allocating votes within the state proportionally based on percentage vote for each candidate within the state -- that allows for more candidates to get some votes, and a better representative sample across the country -- and no state actually comes out entirely for one candidate unless basically all of the population of that state really is for that one candidate.
That simple fix preserves the remaining value of the EC -- to prevent the top 5 states by population from making the bottom 20 meaningless -- without requiring a constitutional amendment, and better allow for the possible win of third party candidates based on total national support.
2007-09-23 13:56:54 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The electoral college is great if you own lots of land... like a Texas Republican...
But if you have a 1 bedroom apartment in a major city, it is a terrible thing.... your vote gets lumped in with the 1,000's of other people and eventually counted as 1.
This is actually what is tearing the middle class apart... the many workers get 1 vote collectively that is equal to the 1 vote that the few corporate CEO's down the street get.
2 or 3 rich people own a few big ranches = 2 votes
2,000 poor people rent apartments = 2 votes.
That's not a democracy... it's a land-owning Republican scam.
jeeper_peeper321 - ok, we'll just forget about Jim Crow...
2007-09-23 14:01:23 · answer #4 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The electoral college system is made up of people that accept money from lobbyist's. America will never abolish the system for that reason. There is too much money that comes in from special interest groups to both Republican and Democratic parties that gets these people elected( or re-elected) to do away with the current system. I don't agree with it, but it's the way it is.
2007-09-23 14:12:43 · answer #5 · answered by pussycatwannbe2006 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree. The electoral college system should have been abolished long before that travesty of justice in 2000. One person, one vote, countrywide. May the best person win. (That's why repugs will forever be against any change.)
2007-09-23 13:58:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
not so sure if agree
with electorial vote it gives people in smaller states a vote worth more than people in bigger states... may sound wrong, but when bigger states get control, why should they care about the smaller states? It can still happen with the electorial college, but less likely to with it this way
2007-09-23 13:50:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
States are free to assign their electorial votes anyway they want to.
They can assign them based on popular vote, or use the winner take all system.
So we don't need a new federal law, let the citizens of the states decide for themselves.
2007-09-23 14:00:26 · answer #8 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Completely disagree. Popular vote would lead to a tyranny of the majority, and make the largest states much more powerful. Candidates would have no reason to care about the citizens in the less populous states.
2007-09-23 13:47:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
I feel that it is still necessary, now more than ever (technology being what it is). I prefer it to a straight vote.
2007-09-23 13:46:47 · answer #10 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋