Should the US elect the president by popular vote?

Question

advantages/disadvantages

Answer 1

The advantage is that the it would be a simple vote by the people.

The disadvantage is that candidates would only campaign (and thus when in office only pay attention to) in larger metropolises like New York, Chicago, LA, etc. The Electorial College is set up to allow for smaller states to have a louder voice in the election of the President. One of the things that you must remember is the US is a Federal Democracy. That means that the states have the power in our nation, and in the voting of President. This means that the President has to be more well rounded with the electorial college.

Answer 2

NO.
The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a republic. With that, the public does not elect all of it's leaders, they elect representatives. And for the Presidency you vote for electors that in turn vote for the President.
This is by design to avoid mob rule. The ultimate example of democracy is a lynch mob. The electoral process is a part of the system of checks and balances. It is akin to the idea for each State having 2 Senators, it's to avoid the centers of the population from controlling elections.

The trouble is with the States. All but 2 have a winner takes all policy. The idea is that the electors should represent specific divisions of the population. And even though the votes are delivered to the Senate State by State, the TOTAL is all that matters and State lines are irrelevant. But with winner takes all that is not the case. If the electoral college were implemented as intended there would NEVER be an instance of the popular vote and electoral vote in disagreement. There would be no such thing as a "blue" or "red" State.

There is nothing wrong with the electoral system, only it's implementation.

These policies were done by Democrats and Republicans specifically to control elections. The only way to fix it is to petition the States to change their policy back to the original method.

Answer 3

No. Electing by popular vote would ensure that a candidate only have to meet the desires and needs of the large population centers. And he would only have to be beholden to those same population centers should he seek re-election.
I know this doesn't go down well with the folks who have crammed themselves onto the two coast of this country, but there is an entire nation out there who don't think the way the "coasters" do.

Answer 4

unsure that I understand your question, yet i think of that what you're asserting is, if there are two hundred million REGISTERED electorate, and the optimum volume of votes that one candidate have been given grow to be a million vote decrease than a hundred,000,001 there could be no winner-- as hostile to the way that that's now, wherein fifty 4% of registered electorate ( = a majority of the votes that have been solid) final 365 days gave Obama sixty six million votes and McCain in basic terms have been given fifty 8 million... is THAT what you have been thinking of? if so, the present gadget works large. whether decrease than 50% of the registered electorate actually voted, simply by fact there is not any provision for needed balloting (yet there is in different international places: in a number of those, in case you do no longer vote, you don't get government advantages... hiya, that sounds "exciting"...), the character of OUR variety of participatory democracy helps "the vote" to communicate. that's why whilst human beings do no longer vote, yet then whine and cry approximately what happens as a effect of even if marketing campaign they did no longer vote in makes them disillusioned, I haven't any sympathy for them or the tantrum that they throw as a effect. ultimately, i could guess that on an identical time as mathematically achievable, an absolute tied-vote is quite unlikely to happen. yet might desire to it ever happen, i could bypass with a nationally-televised turn-of-the-coin to verify the winner. after all, if there are in basic terms 2 applicants, the prospect is 50-50 besides that a million of them is going to win ....proper? as some distance simply by fact the electoral college is going, it's time to do away with it. people who're FOR it say it facilitates to guard the small states from being trampled; yet I see it any different way 'around: the small states have an unfair enter right into a a million-for-a million vote state of affairs. .

Answer 5

The advantage would be everyone's opinon would count. The disadvantage would be only some people would vote (like it is now), not everyone knows about the candidates, and it would take a lot more time, energy, and effort. You decide which one is better.

Answer 6

No popular vote -- keep the Electoral College.

Look at a population chart ... we now have cities with more population than entire STATES. For example, NYC has a population of 8 million+... that makes South Carolina (population 4 million) completely unimportant. Montana (population 997,000) is really left out. In fact, New York City, by itself, has a higher population than 39 STATES.

So all you would have to do is win NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and almost any other city.

Answer 7

Yes! It makes the most sense.
Advantages
-everyone's vote would count equally, with the Electoral College people who vote for their states 'loser' don't have their vote counted
-more incentives for people in really red or blue states to vote

Answer 8

Popular vote determines that the winner is selected by the majority of the people and not by mere representatives. Majority rule must prevail over the votes of a few representatives.

VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.

Answer 9

Yes. Advantage - We actually get the person who had the most votes.

Disadvantage - Electors in the electoral college lose their power - o, wait, that's only a disadvantage to them.

Answer 10

It should be by popular vote only. Nothing wrong with that. This way would be more honest. No disadvantage as I can see.