do you feel like the USA electoral voting system should be used anymore is it outdated??

Question

I am talking about electoral votes which won Bush his presidency even though the overall vote totals in for instance Ohio was in favor of Kerry. Our forefathers created this system because it didn't believe that the people of the time weren't smart enough to vote for the right person due to widespread illiteracy. This time of illiteracy (not educational level) has come and gone so should we change the electoral vote process?

I implied I did not like Bush but never implied I like the Clintons...please dont put words in my mouth. I do see your point but last election cycle there was definently a flaw (not just in the Diebolt software machines)and you cant make someone vote they way their constituents want them too even if in some states its a felony to misrepresent them. Many republicans would love to change this process also do to California...I never said I was a democrat or republican (I wonder what gave you that idea) many Republicans don't approve of Bush moto. This is simply about the electoral voting system and improvements or updates in the last hundred years the reason they used this process has changed..I hate the argument of this is what has happened the past hundreds of year this why we need to update it for our children so they dont get a sham election like e had republican or democrat. Why cant we focus on the issue like the first poster had a suggestion.

liberals and arch have brought up excellent points and maybe these two guys are right...I wasn't saying that popular vote was my only plausible solution but trying to think of other examples...

Answer 1

I happened to be at Novato (CA) when the electionas were being conducted.There were many flaws them.
We hope all the changes needed will be incorporated

Answer 2

No. It was set up for very specific reason to insure that small population states would have a say in elections. It has worked for over 225 years. Are what you are proposing is that a candidate must have 51% of the poppular vote or just more than the other guy? Remember, Bill Clinton won both of his elections with a majority of the electoral college but with less than 50% of the popular. If he also needs 51% of the popular, then should there be a run-off of the 2 top vote getters? If that were the case, then Clinton would have lost once Ross Perot was off the ballot. Then you would have been happy with just the electoral college determining the winner.

Answer 3

Yes, but not strictly popular vote. Why not take 50 of the votes representing half the senators, and give those votes to national popular vote winner.

Then, open up each congressional district as 1 vote - not a whole block of states.

Now, let each state use its left over vote representing the other senator be for the popular vote winner in individual states.

This way every vote counts no matter where you live. Republican in NYC, your vote counts in the national popular vote. Same for a Democrat in Texas.

Answer 4

I think you are wrong on all counts. Kerry did not get the popular vote in Ohio.
The electoral college was set up to prevent an imbalance in the voting system. If we went by strictly popular vote, liberals and Democrats would always have the upper hand. In a few concentrated areas, virtually all of the votes always go Democrat: Philadelphia votes 90% Democrat, in almost every election.

Answer 5

*IF* I was dictator of elections.....

#1) Electoral College reform.
Two Senatorial EC votes go to the winner of the popular vote, the rest go to the winner of the majority votes per congressional District
#2) Primary Reform
First week is Iowa, Second Week is NH, third and Fourth week are awarded by a lottery and no one gets to have it two elections in a row. In Februrary we have 8 primaries. March we have 16. April we have the rest

Answer 6

Yes. Howeve it should not be based on the popular vote.

It should be re-done by congressional districts and the total vote within a district. That way you'd have well over 435 districts that would decide who the president should be. This would keep large population areas from deciding who should be Prez if popular vote were the only thing considered.

Answer 7

the unique purpose for the electoral college, in accordance to the founders, is to help shield the presidency in case there grew to become right into a demagogue working for the race. If there grew to become into somebody who grew to become into needless to say risky to the rustic yet someway swayed "the mob" to vote for him, the factor of the electors interior the electoral college grew to become into to help shield the yankee human beings from themselves via ignoring the conventional vote and intensely choosing the superb candidate. human beings like Alexander Hamilton have been extremely careful of letting the human beings rule, and he even advocates the Electoral college in Federalist sixty 8, wherein he writes "and since the electors, chosen in each and each State, are to collect and vote interior the State wherein they are chosen, this indifferent and divided project will show them much less to heats and ferments, which would be communicated from them to the human beings, than in the event that they have been all to be convened at one time, in one place." Hamilton grew to become into petrified of the means of the yankee human beings being whipped right into a frenzy and making a bad decision for President. All good intentions aside, even inspite of the undeniable fact that, the electoral gadget not extremely achieves that objective as we've a occasion gadget, and people who chosen the electors are the events. They confirm you elect the main religious followers of the events, so whether individuals befell to vote for somebody very undesirable for the rustic -- say, somebody from a Fascist occasion -- the electors would be hardcore Fascists who will eagerly forged their vote for reported candidate. inspite of that, many human beings, extremely those in smaller states, nevertheless assert that the electoral college is the only reason they are nevertheless correct in presidential races. without it, applicants could be lots extra probable to concentration on the massive city centers the place the each physique is placed. whether or not this would be a alluring consequence is exterior the scope of this communicate.

Answer 8

i think a lot of things have to change. like how the constitution discriminates, and even how we vote. yes a change needs to be made. so many changes need to be made to make things better. but people are willing to change. it sucks.