Should the electoral system of voting be revised or eliminated?

Question

List your reasons for or
against this proposal.

Answer 1

I believe that the Electoral College should be eliminated mainly because
the reason why it was created has long been expired. I believe that the
main reason why the founding fathers created this system was because of
the ignorance and uniformed people that existed. This ignorance was
mainly because of the many restriction of communicating the runner’s
stands on issues. Another factor was that states were still worried of
the federal government overpowering them so they wanted to have this
oversight over the presidency to ensure this wouldn’t happen. Also the
difficulty of creating such a large election would in those days take a
large amount of time. Now that in recent years the huge advancements in
technology and the better means of communication, the electoral college
is outdated and perhaps more influenced by politics than by the views of
the majority (I.E. Gore Vs. Bush 2000 election).

Answer 2

I favor keeping it. The country's name is the United STATES. Because of that every state has a say in who is president. Bill Clinton did not have a majority of popular votes in 1992 or 1996 because of Ross Perot, but he won the electoral college. George W. Bush had fewer popular votes than Al Gore in 2000 but won the electoral college, so years like 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000 would have had the House electing the president because no single one got a majority of the popular vote, and there it is even more unfair. California gets one vote just like Delaware or Wyoming. John Quincy Adams was the only president elected by the House, but there would have been many more if not for the electoral college.

Answer 3

The Electoral College system WORKS and is supported by the US Constitution. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm

Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in eleven key states.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political Preserving Federalism
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.
Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Electoral-College-13750.html

Over 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. All have failed.

Your State Senators and Congressmen/women will vote on behalf of your state. After the polls close, the Senators and Congressmen cast their votes for the candidate that their state chose.

A total of 270 votes are needed to be elected President of the total 538 possible votes.

In 2000 there were only 2 states that did not operate under the "winner take all" method. They were Nebraska and Maine. The other 48 states and D.C. are winner take all electoral votes.

Here's a map with the electoral points for each state in 2004:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/electorl.gif

VOTE TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE!

Answer 4

it should be eliminated because it only holds for a 2 party system. If 3 candidates split the electoral votes until there is no clear 270 for one of them, then the vote goes to congress, how many times will we let that happen? not to mention that the states don't have to vote accoridng to the popular vote, the elecoral votes can be split between candidates and even given to the state party choice instead of the populace winner . Besides it still favors larger populated states instead of falling to the consessions of the original reasons for the electoral vote.

Answer 5

No, the people are too dumb to elect a president. We still need well informed, hand picked rich people making that decison for us.

Did you notice the sarcasm? Yes this antiquated system needs revamping. I kind of like the previous idea. I think that each state should be subdivided and the electoral votes should be diluted into regions.

Ya_staff_sux if I could give you 4 thumbs downs I would. It is people like you who cause racism, hate, and intolerance. Why not try process improvement rather than accusations? Every process can be improved.

Answer 6

There should be national voting to reflect wishes of the whole country.Abolish the electoral college it doesn't reflect the will of the people as in Bush vs Gore

Answer 7

no because it protects the small states , it make the low population states count in the election, hence why they are in iowa and new hampshire, if there was none they would never go to those states they would go to NY PA CA FL and TX thats about it



i would like to ask how to revise it thats a good question i hope a few will go there

Answer 8

the people of america are still as stupid and ignorant as they ever were the only problem is the goverment has more power and socialists get into office just because they look good and talk well
If you want proof listen to glenn becks more- on trivia

Answer 9

No. It works fine. If the states want to go to proportional voting like Nebraska and Maine have, that's fine, but that's the state government's call, not the Feds.

Answer 10

It should stay

Will dems try anything to win a national election?


Gore tried discounting military votes


Whats next from you people?