Should the Presidential vote somehow bypass State ratification of the vote? Should you be able to vote for President from anywhere in the US with proper ID, not just in your home district?
2007-11-02 10:55:56 · 11 answers · asked by amazed we've survived this l 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
in 2000, the popular vote went to Gore, but Bush won in the electoral college
2007-11-02 11:06:45 · update #1
Yes, it should be. The intent was in case everyone voted for an idiot that the election would be decided by more informed people. It's a relic of time before vehicles. The Electoral College should have been removed after cars started to become popular. With most of the voting population having access to the internet, the Electoral College is completely irrelevant in concept.
2007-11-02 11:01:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you want the candidates to completely ignore the smaller states and concentrate only on the states with a significant population then abolishing the electoral college is the way to go.
I think a better alternative is rather than the all or nothing of electoral vote distribution that currently holds sway over most states, the votes could be divided up by congressional district. This would even out the playing field a little more by giving states like California a more accurate representation of how the state feels.
2007-11-02 11:21:23 · answer #2 · answered by QBeing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. If it wasn't for the electoral college system the president would be elected by California, Texas, New York and Florida. That's not the way things should be. It means that people in places like Alaska really don't have a say in how the election turns out.
No, the current system is the best system for the country.
2007-11-02 11:48:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The electoral needs to stay right where it is. It is the only mechanism in place that ensures each states has equal voting power. We are a nation of 50 states and those states have states rights (you may recall the civil war). I do not want every election decided by California, Texas, and New York.
2007-11-02 11:02:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I believe in the Electoral college, it gives small states a place in the system. Other the big states could gang up and rule the country, and it wouldn't be a United States for long at that rate.
2007-11-02 10:59:09 · answer #5 · answered by Steve C 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Presidents are not elected by technique of the final vote. it is befell two times. Do you imagine Republicans are the in easy words ones to gerrymander? both area do it. Their are congressional districts that for miles the in easy words way you would possibly want to stay there will be to lived on a parkway. isn't that gerrymandering?
2016-10-23 07:05:25 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don`t know why we don't count votes the normal way. I think whoever gets the most votes should be the president. Electoral votes are a waste of time
2007-11-02 11:02:19 · answer #7 · answered by I'm Chris Hansen 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Republicans might want to think about it, however it might meet resistance with the Democrats. I don't think people should vote anywhere but their own district. If you are going out of town then there's the absentee ballot.
2007-11-02 11:04:36 · answer #8 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes! Let's start monkeying with the way this country has functioned for the past 200+ years since a handful of people are pouty over the way it turned out last time!
2007-11-02 10:58:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, that would make our nation much more democratic.
The current system is antiquated, un-democratic, and unfairly favors the underpopulated red states of America which all vote Republican and still get most of the federal dollars that the blue states are paying.
2007-11-02 10:59:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋