A winner takes all approach to our elections doesn't really seem to represent the will of the people. If a candidate wins a small majority of the votes they win all of a states electoral votes. For example, in 2004 George W. Bush received 66% of the votes in Nebraska and John Kerry received 33%. If we moved away from our current electoral system to what would be a true representation of our votes, Kerry would've received at least one of those electoral votes. And in California, Kerry received 54% of the votes, and George W. Bush received 45%, so by moving away from our electoral system we're now using Bush would've received 25 of the electoral votes and Kerry would've received the remaining 30 votes.
Here's what America really looks like
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/elec...
Why are Republicans trying to do this in only California?
Any thoughts?
2007-12-19 06:59:24 · 14 answers · asked by It's Your World, Change It 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
In 2004 Bush won 286 of the electoral votes and Kerry received 252. Under a system that would be truly representative of how Americans voted, Bush would've received 279 and Kerry would've received 259. Kerry still would've lost, but it would've been closer to the real vote. My results are based on the election results provided here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
You can double check my math if you'd like.
2007-12-19 07:01:24 · update #1
they should do away with the electoral vote completely and go by popular vote only. The electoral college is a joke. It is a big costly joke and has no place in the elections other than to allow those with the most money to get voted in.
2007-12-19 07:08:06 · answer #1 · answered by Diane B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Take a look at the British Parlimentary system of democracy we have in Canada -
There is good points and bad points to it
One of the things I like about the American system is that members are free to vote against the party Here because a government can fall by loseing a vote there is a strict party whip system -
There are free votes but they are few and far in between - so the idea of me voting for an invidiual MP is lost I am voting for the leader of the party who will call the shots for what his party does and does not support
But at the same time - for instance , right now we have a minority Conservative government
The Liberals are in Opposition meaning they have the second largest amount of seats - then the NDP and then the Bloc Quebecois and then a few independants
Should all the opposition parties choose to vote against the government at one time it would fall and the Prime Minister would be forced to go to the Govenor General to resign -an election would be called - There is no confidence in the government
A lot of good and a few bad points
One bad point is that if one party gets an overwhelming majority it can operate as an outright dictatorship of the other parties for up to 5 yrs
But the party itself if free to dump it's leader with no fear of losing the government
All government members are of one party - because of the number of seats they have won
So the PM can be and has been in the past voted out by the party and a new guy is in the next day
2007-12-19 07:25:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Electoral College should be eliminated altogether. Its time has passed. It was created at a time when very few people could actually hear or read about the candidates positions, so the votes would actually select "Electors" for the presidential candidates. These "Electors" would be educated people who were knowledgeable about the issues. The Electors were not legally bound to vote for "their" candidate, however very, very few, if any, actually excercised this option.
In the modern day, however, with almost everyone having access to magazines, newspapers, television news and the internet, the time for needing Electors has passed, and they should be done away with.
.
2007-12-19 07:12:45 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I used to think so. I think the 2000 election may be a warning to us.
I can just imagine 20 or 30 states doing statewide recounts during close elections, trying to figure out every single vote, because they need to allocate those elector votes because the margins are razor thin. Imagine Florida times 20. UGH!
2007-12-19 10:45:51 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
HOW the electoral votes are determined is a matter for the states to decide. Believe it or not, in some states, the Electoral senator who casts the votes does not actually have to follow what the voting results indicate.
2007-12-19 07:08:24 · answer #5 · answered by Edward S 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The electoral system is a joke...always has been...The direct popular vote is the real democratic method for electing a President. PEACE!
2007-12-19 07:07:53 · answer #6 · answered by thebigm57 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"A winner takes all approach to our elections doesn't really seem to represent the will of the people."
What do you mean it doesn't seem to? It outright doesn't.
51% or greater = 100% in the winner-take-all system. That's not fair.
2007-12-19 07:12:06 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The popular vote is the only real, clear way to decide the winner.
2007-12-19 07:11:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
This made sense a long time ago, but with the technology available today, there is no reason that we should not use the popular vote.
2007-12-19 07:10:39 · answer #9 · answered by nicolerichieslovechild 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The are trying because Cali is considered a Dem strong hold. It is simaler to what Tom delay did with his redistricting stunt.
2007-12-19 07:05:05 · answer #10 · answered by Steam 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋