2007-12-21 07:24:39 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Absolutely not. It is a guarantee that the voters in all states have an equal say and a safeguard against a tyranny of the majority.
2007-12-21 07:27:47 · answer #1 · answered by Sordenhiemer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Depends on what would replace it.
Three of the last four presidential elections have not had a single candidate win a majority of the popular vote (1992, 1996, 2000). I don't think a plurality should be enough. Would the selection then go the House (and Senate for VP), as currently? Or would there be a runoff election? The latter would take time and money to administer... who would be acting president during that time?
Also, one of the effects of the Electoral College is that smaller states are not disregarded in the process. All states have some role in a campaign's strategy. With a purely popular vote, a location's importance would depend largely on how densely populated an area receives the local media's broadcast signals.
The electoral college isn't a perfect system by a long shot, but I don't think a straight popular vote is a viable alternative, either practically or politically.
2007-12-21 08:52:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
NO. The electoral college is one more form of checks and balances in the election of a President. If it were popular vote only, then the President voted in might mess up big time.
The founders of the Constitution provided for an Electoral College because they believed the American people were not wise enough to vote on their own.
2007-12-21 07:31:23 · answer #3 · answered by ARAX 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Only if all 50 states do away with it.
The states with small populations get more power with the electoral college. In 2000, when W got all of Florida's electoral votes,
there were over 2 million of us here whose votes didn't count due to this winner take all system. I'm still sore about it.
2007-12-21 08:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by topink 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that a few states do not hold all of the political power.
2007-12-21 07:52:26 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes we should do away with the electoral college as it is only a fair election when you have one vote for one person. Also different states have different ways of allotingthe votes.
One person one vote is the only real fair way to run elections.
2007-12-21 09:43:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
in basic terms one election grow to be arguable, yet you pronounced it occurred time and time back. it quite is a faux fact by potential of you. in case you opt to declare, time and time back we hear approximately it from complainers, that could be real, even though it nevertheless in basic terms occurred as quickly as in our history, and the argument being repetitious isn't making it any further credible. in fact, it makes you seem ignorant to the info by potential of asserting that it quite is a recurring problem. enable's faux, case in point, for the sake of argument, because of the fact this would by no potential take place, a torrential hurricane or devastating earthquake disrupts a severe share of electorate in 2 liberal states, and forestalls them from attending to the polls. Their voice will nevertheless count because of the fact the will of that state continues to be properly worth its weight, no count how many human beings take place on the polls. in any different case, we would hear all human beings say that their election grow to be "rigged" by potential of each and every little thunderstorm or blemish that comes by way of. further, if voter turnout is 50% bigger in a single section for the reason that section can locate the money for to purchase votes by potential of having greater transportation provided to those polls, this section can't take benefit of their place and take over the country. The Electoral college prevents everyone from paying for up great parts of votes in a community, by potential of proscribing the impact which you may ought to each guy or woman state, which additionally forces each and every campaigner to get onto the pollin multiple states and not in basic terms dominate the vote casting from one dense and likeminded area, as some dictatorships or civil wars ought to result. ultimately, The electoral college protects minority states pastimes from being thoroughly surpassed over, or bullied by potential of the enormous states. In our present day device, the presidential candidate has to get on the polland campaign to a majority (if no longer all ) 50 states. in the event that they only ought to pander to specific maximum frequently happening pastimes on my own, their regulations ought to all be very anti environment, anti farmer, anti business enterprise, anti hard artwork, or regardless of different minority maximum folk can squash!
2016-11-04 05:43:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the entire idea of an electoral college is unfair and illustrates that the gov't does not have faith in their own population. But, it will never go away.
2007-12-21 07:33:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. We need to stop the 'secret vote' - we need to have a receipt with our itemized vote before we leave the polling place. Then the system works.
2007-12-21 07:35:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes.
It made sense in the "horse & buddy" days, but with the technology available to us now, we should be able to go by the popular vote.
2007-12-21 08:14:55 · answer #10 · answered by nicolerichieslovechild 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋