Is the Electoral College voting system wrong? Shouldn't it be changed to a more responsible format?

Answer 1

I don't think wrong would be the right description. I prefer outdated. The Electoral College did serve a purpose when it was created because the country was sparsely populated and large population centers would have ruled absolute. Today this is not the case. You can argue that places like New York and Los Angeles could influence elections, but there are 2 reasons why I believe this not true. First there are many more people in the Heartland than there once were. Second the College actually discourages some voters. Consider this, if you live in California it is almost a foregone conclusion that your electoral votes will go to the Democrats. For this reason many voters who might vote Republican do not vote in that state. The same could be stated in reverse in a state like Texas. In the last Presidential election, John Kerry did not even bother to campaign in the state. Why do you think this is? It is time to eliminate the Electoral College and allow the popular vote to decide the day.

Answer 2

I support the system we have in place, and I'll tell you why. First is that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism the president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire.

The second point is that far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a state may make the difference between winning all of that state's electoral votes or none of that state's electoral votes. And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those state with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.

There are other points that can be made (which I can expand on if you so desire), but what it boils down to is that the current system ensures stability, requires a diverse base of support, and all the while expands the power of each individual vote. Think of the election in terms of the world series. Do we play seven games, tally up the runs scored, and then declare a winner? Of course not. One game where the Yankees outscored their opponent 17-3 would dominate the remaining six close games that their opponents kept winning. You have to be able to win each game (state) on its own without undue influence from the others. If we went to a straight popular election then unless you lived in one of the top ten most populous cities then you would never have a representative in the White House. Every policy would be aimed at the cities and the votes they represented. This is one of the reasons we have an electoral college to begin with, to protect the interests of the less populous states. When you have a straight popular election it becomes two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That's just not reponsible in my opinion.

Answer 3

No and no. The Electoral College system is what protects this Republic from "The Tyranny of the Majority". I'm not saying the majority is wrong, but minority interests are protected with this system just as the Filibuster does in the Senate. For instance, 49 out of the 50 states will support keeping the Electoral College because you don't want the candidates spending 99% of their time in one state (like California) and making the other 49 states bend to California's will.

The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

Please refer to the following link:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm

Answer 4

This is the United 'States' of America not the United People of Amerca. It's not a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers recognized that a simple majority rule had led to devastating consequences for prior civilizations. It's essentially a tyranny of the majority (i.e. two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner). They recognized that there needed to be a geographic balance of power in the Federal Government to keep the populated areas from feasting on the less populated areas.

That balance of power comes from two elements of the Constitution. First - The Senate. Each state gets two votes, regardless of population. Second - The "senatorial" votes of the Electoral College in the Presidential election.

We elect our Representatives and Senators by majority. Each state gets a number of Representatives based on population size. It's fitting that the election of President mimics the power structure of Congress.

If the Electoral College isn't a good thing, then perhaps the Senate isn't good either. Why even have states at all?

Answer 5

Very bad idea.

Without the electoral college the five most populous states will choose the president - effectively disenfranchising anybody who does not live in one of those states.

The electoral college forces politicians to pay attention to all voters - not just the ones in the big cities.

Answer 6

Changing The Electoral College system would take forever, given the 12th Amendment.

We are very slowly working towards a change in though thanks to states: Maine and Nebraska

There may also be a change in California as well.

The Electoral College may get a complete overhaul one day, but not in my life time.

Answer 7

States, not individuals, elect the president. When the people vote, they are voting to determine who their state will support. I dont think it is hard to understand the concept.

Answer 8

I think it and the primary system should be sidelined.To a more reasonable ONE general election with any native born citizen who is qualified entering.Top vote getter becomes president with the runner up being vice-president!

Answer 9

I prefer the Electoral University, but I hear you can get Electors on-line from the University of Phoenix...

Answer 10

Yes it should be deleted on let the popular vote win, that is the only fair way and be sure the Republicans haven't rigged the voting machines.