Eliminate the 2-party system and electoral votes and switch to popular votes. I don't think all American voters really understand the elctoral process/2-party system anyway- -I don't.
What is so difficult about switching to popular votes? Whichever candidate has the most popular votes wins.
2007-10-02 07:31:44 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You cannot eliminate parties unless you change the Constitution to allow the government to ban freedom of association. Of course then you will not be able to freely join any group or speak with those you choose. You should not be able to tell me who I can or cannot join forces with to participate in politics. Political Parties are the natural outgrowth of people with common interests coming together in common cause.
Changing the Electoral College is also a Constitutional issue and can be addressed with a change to the Constitution. While difficult it could be done at anytime. Furthermore the switch to popular vote for President would have only changed a few elections in our history. The reason for the Electoral College is to prevent the states with large populations such as NY/CA/FL/TX from dominating the elections to the detriment of the small states. By having the Electoral College the less populous states get a bigger say in electing the President.
To address the fact that many Americans don't understand the system, that is because there are many stupid people out there who for whatever reason have decided not to take the opportunity to learn. IMO if you aren't smart enough to understand what is going on then you are not smart enough to vote!
2007-10-02 07:45:50 · answer #1 · answered by Seano 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a reason why the electoral college exists. While flawed, it was designed to prevent the election of a sectional president who would terrorize the people of another region of the country. Yes, it failed miserably in that regard (otherwise Abe Lincoln would never have been elected, causing a war), but it makes absolutely no sense to go to direct popular vote.
However, I do think that it would be nice to adopt a system within each state similar to that of France. In France, if nobody gets a majority, a runoff is held between the top 2 candidates. That way, we can give the 3rd parties a chance to get elected (and it would be nice if we'd use this system for all elections). Nobody would have to worry about "wasting" their vote, as they would still be able to vote for their candidate of choice if nobody got a majority (this would have fixed the problems in the 2000 election).
To switch to popular vote would be a disaster, as it would reduce the value of each vote and might lead to the election of a sectional president.
2007-10-02 08:52:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Elena is wrong: the electoral college never had anything to do with the speed at which they could count votes, because 200 years ago, they STILL had to count all the votes anyway, like they do now. It's an urban legend that a lot of people fall for. The electoral college doesn't really remove any math at all.
It's about giving small states some say in the election. That's it, and most people understand that.
2007-10-02 08:10:11 · answer #3 · answered by Teekno 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the main reason we have electoral votes, is to get people across the country more involved in the election. For instance if we just determined the election by popular vote, none of the candidates would ever spend thier time in smaller areas of the country like Iowa. I think the downside to this is that people that live in states where there is no question of who is going to win, makes the voters of that state feel like their vote doesn't matter. But honestly I kind of agree with you
2007-10-02 07:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by Matthew B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ultimately, with such a system rural areas will completely lack representation because people living in large population blocks (aka "cities") will wholly control the vote.
The Electoral System was created for another reason as well: You simply couldn't count all of the votes fast enough to get an answer in the time you needed back when the Constition was created (though you can now), so they simply reduced the number of people voting to the Electoral College.
In any case, I agree that the system is more complex than it needs to be and the effect is to make one person's vote (someone in a rural state) count more than another.
2007-10-02 07:35:47 · answer #5 · answered by Elana 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We do have popular votes now. The electoral college only applies to the national elections. I think it should remain the way it is.
2007-10-02 07:35:54 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In this era that would be like putting the skillet under the flame while cooking. Forget simplification, How about good old merit?.Each elected official gets points throughout their political career based upon truthfullness...empathy... courage...results and selflessness,then the one with the most points to progress wins hands down.
2007-10-02 07:41:05 · answer #7 · answered by Raymond C 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. We could computerize the whole thing & verify the votes with either a blood or DNA sample or an optic reader. Why not?
2007-10-02 07:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I surly don't want Calif. New York and Florida picking my President, pick up a book and read a little . if you can.
2007-10-07 22:10:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ya, sure. Only one candidate who is picked by himself and few corrupt politicians.
That's as simple as it gets.
2007-10-02 09:01:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋