The Electoral college hurts both large and small states - unless they are swing states with approximately an equal number of voters who are likely to vote Republican and Democratic - After the primaries, none of the candidates pay any attention to the California or Hawaii, because the candidates know they are going to vote Democratic - nor do they pay any attention to the big state of Texas or the small states of Idaho and Utah, because the candidates know they are going to vote Republican. - In recent years the number of swing states has been getting smaller. Our next president will be picked by Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Whoever wins 2 out of those 3 states will become president, just like the last two presidential elections.
But there is a way to make the Electoral College irrelevant without a constitutional amendment. See:
http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
and http://www.nationalpopularvote.com
2007-11-05 08:23:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Franklin 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Replacing the Electoral College in favor of electing a President by a simple majority seems reasonable. However, this would take an amendment to the Constitution. So, write your Senators and Congressmen.
2007-11-02 07:35:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tom H 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
What is best for California is NOT what is best for a little state like Rhode Island or Connecticut. Thank God the electoral college balances the issues so that the most populace state does not not decide what is best for the entire country. Doing away with the electoral college will move us even further from our original Constitution.
2007-11-02 08:56:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It always stuns me how this topic reveals how little the average US citizen knows about the structure and design of their own government. It shows that most people do not understand that this country was born of a collection of united STATES, not simply a collection of individuals. The founding fathers provided for representation of individuals through the House of Representatives whose numbers are based on relative state populations. The Senate buffers the population-heavy states from imposing their will on smaller states by providing equal numerical representation from each state.
Finally, the President is selected based on the balanced representation provided by the Senate and House in that a set of electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives for each state makes that selection. The states have the responsibility of deciding how these electors are chosen. There is no provision for a popular vote for the President at all. The states can choose their electors by drawing names from a hat, by lottery, or simply by having the state's legislature make the choice. In essence, the President provides the adhesive that holds the States in the union since he or she purely represents the States.
To adopt a nation-wide popular election of the President would thwart the founders' design for balanced representation based on the numbers in the House and Senate. It would be equivalent to diluting the balance that the Senate provides since there would be two branches of government overly influenced by populous states and only one branch that would give weight to the less populated states. It would be a constant "two against one" situation that would lead, eventually, to a weakening of the United States and the possible secession of the smaller states.
2007-11-02 09:36:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dr.T 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Majority vote must replace the electoral college in order that true winner will become the President.
VOTE for your choice as US President and know who will likely win on a majority vote.
2007-11-02 07:29:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yeah, it sucks. The normal citizens of France get to directly elect their president, but our lovely founding fathers thought that the normal people were too stupid to be trusted to elect their president (many people were illiterate) so that's how they came up with the electoral college. Talk about not having faith in people, geez. We should be able to elect everyone, from the committee members of Town Hall to the President and all of his sidekicks. When we go out and vote for the President, we're not voting, we're submitting our opinion. It doesn't count.
2007-11-02 07:29:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋