Do you think the Electoral System is good or bad? please explain for me to understand?

Question

please

Answer 1

Under the Electoral College system, citizens vote for delegates who in turn cast votes for the president rather than having a direct vote by the people. This was designed to give the smaller states a voice in the election and to keep the population centers from controlling the elections.

Each state has at least 3 electoral votes. This is based on the number od senators (2 each) plus the number of congressmen from each state (each state has at least one). Washington, D.C. also has three delegates even though they have no senators or congressmen.

In most cases, the winner of the popular vote in each state gets all of the electoral delegates. Maine and Nebraska, however, split their votes based upon the election outcome in each congressional district. California will have a ballot proposition next year to change to that method.

Personally, despite having flaws, I think the Electoral College system is appropriate. This ensures that the small states (Idaho, North and South Dakota, etc. for example) are ensured that they will have an actual say in the election process. I live in New York (which has 31 delegates) but I think it's very fair that Hawaii (for example) has as much say as my state does.

The key thing to remember is that America is a republic rather than a democracy, and the Constitution was built around the idea of state's rights.

That Senator Tom Daschle from South Dakota (which has the minimum number of representatives, and thus delegates) could at one time been the most influential senator is an example of the fairness of the system. Theoretically, he should not have had that much power based on his state's population. Or that a senator from a small state has equal voting weight as a senator from a large state is another example.

I do, however, agree that changing from a 'winner-take-all' system to one where electoral delegates are apportioned according to the election outcome in each congressional district is more fair. But ultimately THAT decision has to come from the individual states.

Answer 2

The number of electoral votes a state has is based upon the total of Representatives and Senators. Each state has two Senators so all states are equal in that regard. Each state has Representatives based upon population so that greater number of people means greater representation.. It all seems fair. But it did not take our wonderful Founding Fathers to figure out a way to cook the books and rig things so power stayed more or less with the original colonies. What they did was make new states further to the west progressively bigger. So what you see today is this. The original 13 Colonies with two Senators each have 26% of the power of the Senate. But wait, two of the states split so the original 13 Colonies are now actually 15 states. So they have 30% of the power in the Senate, even 200 years after the country was founded. Then look at the size of the new states east of the Mississippi vs the states to the west. Over HALF of the states are east of the Mississippi so the power is still in the East. Now add to that the electoral votes is ALSO based on Senators and again the eastern half of the nation has the advantage. Pretty sneaky!! All the other arguments about keeping the electoral college still apply but thought you would like to see our Founding Fathers were not as honest as everyone thinks.

Answer 3

The Electoral system, as originally established, voted for electors from each state based upon the number of representatives and senators it had in Congress. The electors were to cast their state vote for the candidate who garnered the largest number of votes within that state. The framers of the Constitution felt the need for some equality in representation and this method did give larger populated states great advantage in the House with the smaller states getting equal representation in the Senate.

Answer 4

The system gives every state equal importance in the national election. Though it seems to place some candidates squarely into campaigning in the large electoral college states to try and garner as many votes by winning few states.
The last 2 elections large metro states were won by democrats, but there weren't enough of them for them to gain the number of electoral votes required to win the Presidency. 2000 for example Gore won the popular vote by a substantial amount drawing votes from metropolitan areas that tend to vote democrat but he didn't carry southern and rural areas and thus lost in the electoral college after he LOST in Florida, despite numerous recounts and hanging chads and "disenfranchised" voters. Every analysis of the 2000 Florida vote has come to the same conclusion: Bush won the popular vote, thus won Florida and the electoral votes that put him in office.
Gore had to go home and cry that his own state didn't vote for him. Must be they know him better than the rest of the country.

TAKE THAT LIBS! BUSH: 2 DEM'S: 0

Answer 5

If you are speaking of the Electoral College, it was created during a time when it was inconvenient for everyone who wanted to cast a vote for President to travel to the federal capitol to do it. The Electoral college was created to represent the electorate because it was easier to get 2 people to the capitol than 222,000. If you speak of the entire electoral system, the last two presidential elections where the Supreme Court elected Mr. Bush and in Ohio 4 years later, when they stole it at the polls. There hasn't been a fair election in this country in decades.

Answer 6

I don't care for the system if 51% of the people of a state vote for a canidate he gets 100% of the electoral votes, I don't agree with this system if you are one of the other 49% your vote doesn't really count. They should either split the electoral votes or just do away with the system and whoever recieves the most over all votes should be the winner.

Answer 7

I think the Electoral College should go. I think in the 21st century we have the technology to count individual votes. Maybe at the post offices? Every town large and small has a post office, and, the larger the city, the more post offices it has. If the voting was spread over a couple of days or even a weekend, everyone could get to vote. Maybe more people would vote if they knew for a fact that their individual vote would count on a national tally.

Answer 8

Without the electoral system some states would be overwhelmed by cities like NYC, Miami, Los Angeles. States with cities like Kansas City, Little Rock and Detroit would be crushed.
For that reason I support the electoral system.

Answer 9

i dont think it is very good. it helps break down the voting into states so it makes it easier to count the votes but it takes away the peoples choice to vote because the electoral college is made up of people who under certain circumstances can change their vote which means presidents can get elected with having the majority vote by the people like what happened in the 2000 election. hope this helps

Answer 10

Which electoral system?