I understand that it made elections simpler back before votes were submitted by computer, but isn't it kind of moot to have it now? Especially since there's a possibility that (as in the 2000 election) the candidate that receives the majority of the popular vote won't win? It seems like the electoral college just makes things more complicated.
2007-10-20 13:06:29 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Presidential election is actually a vote of the 50 states. The vote of each state is weighted depending on it's population. The intent of the founders were to have strong state governments with a weaker Federal government........
2007-10-20 13:14:44 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It has one very significant effect beyond merely adding an intermediary layer to the voting process...
It skews the results in favor of smaller and less populous states -- otherwise, 10 of the states voting a particular way would make the results of 30 other states completely irrelevant.
The electoral college adds the +2 per state to the popular vote calculations -- meaning that smaller states don't get lost in the shuffle the way they could without that.
But the problem isn't the electoral college itself -- it's the "all or nothing" way that 48 states allocate their electoral votes. Changing it to a percentage allocation based on the percentage each candidate gets within the state would solve a lot of the problems -- while keeping the advantages.
2007-10-20 20:14:51 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a lot of work to change the constitution, and not enough politicians feel like trying that hard. So the archaic system will stay the way it is.
2007-10-20 20:37:58 · answer #3 · answered by Duffman 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary or Gore, is that you?
2007-10-20 20:34:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We don't, it is an archaic concept.
2007-10-20 20:12:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋