In your opinion is the electorel college that we americans use during every presidential elcetion necessary?

Question

Once again I am that same african american high school student and i highly believ it is not because it at times over rides our vote and our choice for such an important position. I would very much appreciate it if you would share you opinion on this subject and your reasoning as to why you believe that.

I am in no way trying to say, to anyone who chooses to read this, that my vote should count more than yours. Im just asking a very honest question that was influenced by a debate between me and my AP US history teacher so please do not get bent out of shape.

Answer 1

No, but it's part of the system. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the system to a direct popular vote, and the Amendment would require ratification by three fourths of the states. But well over one fourth of the states feel they benefit from the system as it is, because it increases their influence.

So I'm afraid we're stuck with things the way they are, at least for a while.

Vote for Rudy!

Answer 2

Hey, Liz. Well, it's an excellent question, but I think a good question to answer first is why they had an electoral college in the first place. First, the framers of the Constitution decided on this indirect system of election for an important reason: so that radical candidates (no matter what their political beliefs) would have a more difficult time getting elected. Second, it was created so to help avoid the rise of candidates or parties that had the interests of one geographic region at heart. In other words, it would keep the states of the Midwest (for example) from taking the Presidency simply because they had a majority of the population.

To a certain degree, then, it is a conservative system and it has for the most part worked quite well in these two areas. I think, too, that particularly in the case of political radicals, the Electoral College has kept some real loonies out. People like Strom Thurmond (who ran as the Segrationist candidate of the Republican Party in 1948) or Gus Hall (for many years, the presidential candidate of the American Communist Party) simply have no real chance of being elected.

If you feel that those are not good reasons, then you can start discussing why a popular vote is better.

Cheers.

Answer 3

The electoral college is ridiculous. The idea that only New York and Califorinia would have any influence if it didn't exist is misinformed nonsense. Those stste generally go to the democrats and so all the electoral votes for those states go to the the democrats. If you voted in NY for a republican in any election since 1988 your vote was not counted. This is why the Republicans are trying to get Calfifornia to split the electoral votes in the 2008 elections. We should go to a popular election system. One citizen = One Vote, In every state.

Before mass media it might have corrected some injustice. People tended to vote for the candidate from their own state. Now I don't think people care if a candidate is from their home state any more. They listen to the debates and campaign speechs and decide that way. The idea that Strom Thruman might have gotten elected if there was a popular vote is ridiculous. He would have never won the popular vote. The idea that the founding fathers were conserned about vote is the midwest is laughable. There were no states in the midwest then, only 13 eastern states.

Once again I'm astounded at the level of ignorance in this community.

Answer 4

The electoral college was put into place to make the election fair to all the states, the delegates representing population in each. They are bound to vote the way their populatin segment has voted. It does seem kind of redundant and archaic, especially in light of modern technology. However, modern technology has also been shown to be inaccurate and breaks down big time occasionally - so the electoral college can ameliorate that situation. And, if you're complaining about the last presidential election, you're wrong.
There's a new one coming up, and the people will speak their voice once again, and the system will prove that it's working, and all will be well. The sides may change, but the "sound and fury" will continue no matter who wins.

Answer 5

The College is one of the most absolute safeguards, and despite your clearly misinformed and deplorable lack of understanding of the American Constitutional process, it does not deprive you of your vote and underscores its importance. You will be amazed to learn this, (a) you live in a democracy within a REPUBLIC, as the 13 original states, are older than the nation (see my best answer under government),
our system is unique, as opposed to the British House of Parliament or French or German types for that matter, wherein those nations enjoy the rule of the mindless mobs, where their lower houses of government elect prime minister, Italy has had over 80 governments since World War 2. (b) That it only takes the winning of 17 states to win the Presidency, that can give you the 270 electors required. (c) did you read today where the people of Venezuela did reject their future dictator(Hugo the lair) for life,where as if they had our system the question would have never came up.(d) We are a UNION of 50 states, in true all 50 are independent and sovereign states within their boarders, and the overwelming distruction of the Constitution has when to long out of hand, we have a House and a Senate for good reason, and a system to amend the Constitution, if 2/3 rds of the states agree, within 7 years. Don't like it work to change it, or move.

Answer 6

No. I have nothing new to add except, it would NOT take a constitutional amendment, per se, to change it. The states may cast their electoral votes any way they choose. For instance, if the state of Indiana decided they wanted the current Governor to decide which slate of electors to send, regardless of the popular vote, then they are allowed to do so. Right now California, among other states, is trying to pass a law where they will have all of their electors vote for whoever received the popular vote in the entire country, regardless of what the people of California wanted. The "catch" to this rule is, it does not go into effect until enough states pass a similar law so that this group of states represents 270 electoral votes.

Answer 7

It is not my opinion that matters but the establishment of it under the US Constitution. The Constitution says it is necessary and until that is amended it is just that.

Would I be for amending the Constitution in this regard? No I would not.

There are numerous reasons but two I think that are especially important:
1. To eliminate such takes away power from the states, and to me this is not a good thing.
2. States regulate their own elections. Many states have numerous bad rules and allow for numerous problems. As a Texan for example I do not want my vote co-mingled with the votes from California in that many of those votes are from illegal aliens (as just one such example).

In my opinion it should not be amended nor do I believe the states will amend it.

Answer 8

Presidential elections are continually thrilling - whether this season has been probably countless and that, blended w/ the historic potential of a win on the two part, makes this beautiful astounding. The stakes are very severe - NBC insurance stated that seventy 9% of the individuals they interviewed in go out polls stated that fluctuate replaced into the ingredient that performed the main important ingredient of their balloting judgements.

Answer 9

I agree, it would add more overall value to the individual vote, as well as encourage higher voter turnout in states which always go one way, such as Massachusetts, California, Texas, etc.

Unfortunately, not many people are willing to overturn over 200 years worth of electoral precedent, not to mention that it would take a huge constitutional overhaul and many years in order to change it.

Answer 10

I believe we should ditch the electoral college because we preach democracy. The electoral college was made because communications back then were very crappy, but now in this day and age we have computers, phones, etc..

We need to get with whats happening here and now, and not let the past reasons hold us back from a better and brighter future.

One condition though, if this were implemented, all the states would implement it at the same time. If not, our system will be screwed up and worthless for a couple of years.