What about getting rid of the Electorial college?

Question

http://www.petitiononline.com/ECjrh/petition.html

With all the talk of the President I urge you to truly take a simple action and get rid of the Electorial College. Make it so that our vote really does matter. Until then it doesn't matter what age, race, religion or any other crazy difference we can pick out to make certain people better fit then others. We don't have a say until the people's votes are the only thing that matters.

All good answers. However I believe in the National Guard and I don't believe they effect the election at all. Sometimes though old laws need to be revised and this has been done through out history. Lots of things in the constitiution have been amended and if more of the people sign the petition it gives the people power to vote. Remember if it wasn't for the Electorial College Bush would not have gotten a second term. Maybe the old mens game isn't working for us anymore. That war and then peace and then scare them with war bit.

Also if everyone is stuck on sticking up for the minority then why do we shove the words republican and democrat down peoples throats. There are other parties; how about we just vote for the person we want.

So now we have gone the route that a Californians vote would mean more then a person from New Jersey. Why if each vote is a seperate vote then each person would have a say. I live in California but believe me I don't have the Californian image and beliefs most people impose on me. We are all people living in this world why should my vote count less because I live in a populated enviroment. States can still have control in so many ways; I just don't want them to control who I want for President.

I know several people who currently don't vote because it doesn't matter. How does our electorial college know to vote without this people but since it doesn't matter they don't care. If the electorial college was tossed out and more people came out to let their voices be heard you might be shocked to find out that the people don't care when the candidates role through their states if they have nothing good to say. Again who cares how many people live in what state; how about how many people would vote better if they had the responsibility to do so. This people would know that they affect history.

The truth is the Constitution was made for the people by the people. People are more intelligent then they were then and each one deserves a say. Why would we have states determine the President it should be on the people.

Answer 1

The Electoral College is total nonsense. The problem to get rid of it one needs to go unbelievable obstacles. Amending the constitution is very , very difficult and it is designed as such. So first order of business is to simplify the requirement for Amendment of the Electoral College or getting rid of it completely.
One reason for the low turn rate in presidential elections is because what is called in the bag state that is extreme red or blue the minority voters need not go to vote because their votes are useless to change the outcome.

Answer 2

Gang, I am Not an expert here, but I do know one thing:

If you eliminate the Electoral College, then your One Vote WILL count...... as long as you live in:

California (36 million), Texas (22), New York (19), Florida (17), Illinois (12),
Pennsylvania (12), Ohio (11), Michigan (10), Georgia (9) or New Jersey (8).

Those Top-10 Population States will be the ONLY States that ANY contenders for national office will EVER be seen in, because those are ALL THEY NEED TO WIN.

( Now, of course, the "36 million" isn't voting age constituents, but neither is the one-million in Montana. )

The Electoral College helps to level the playing field in terms of population density throughout the States.

So, be VERY CAREFUL what you wish for, folks... 'cuz you just might Get It.

Peace. Rick

Answer 3

I would strongly advise anyone who is opposed to the Electoral College to actually look at some of the reasoning behind its existence.

The United States is a republic, not a direct democracy, and there are reasons for that. Direct democracies tend to quickly reduce into tyrannies of the majority, or split into civil wars. The EC protects the rights of the minority of the people, even if it is sometimes (and very rarely I might add) inconvenient for the majority.

The EC assures that a candidate running for President has broad based geographic appeal, which is made even more important today by the size and diversity or our country.

The EC also considerably reduces the chances of demagogues being elected, as it requires that someone need not merely win a plurality of the popular vote in order to be elected. At the same token, it has acted, throughout history, to legitimize election of presidents who did not receive a popular majority.

BTW... The EC is specifically in the Constitution. Simply sending in a petition isn't going to change that. You would need an amendment, which would never pass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I've benn wanting that for years. THhe Electorial College was a good idea 231 years ago, but it has out lived its usefulness. the way it stands now all a canidate has to do is to carry 12 states and they win, even if they lose the popular vote. I think we need to go with just the popular vote, one person-one vote."
----------------------------------------------------------
A quick glance at those 12 states would show you that the odds of any one candidate taking them in anything other than a total landslide is nearly impossible. No one is going to win California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, PA, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey and Virginia in anything other than at least a 45 state wipeout.

Answer 4

The electorial college makes most people's votes useless. Lets assume a very close election in popular vote. Even in the last two very close elections, most states had wide margins one way or the other and only a few states were up for grabs. So the candidates ignore the states they have in the bag or are beyond reach and only focus on swing states. So really only the voters in these key states have the power to decide the election.

Answer 5

I've benn wanting that for years. THhe Electorial College was a good idea 231 years ago, but it has out lived its usefulness. the way it stands now all a canidate has to do is to carry 11 states (California 55, Texas 34, New York 31, Florida 27, Illinois 21, Pennsylvania 21, Ohio 20, Michigan 17, Georgia 15, New Jersey 15, and North Carolina) and they win, even if they lose the popular vote. I think we need to go with just the
popular vote, one person-one vote.

"A quick glance at those 12 states would show you that the odds of any one candidate taking them in anything other than a total landslide is nearly impossible. No one is going to win California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, PA, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey and Virginia in anything other than at least a 45 state wipeout."

Tell that to Ronald Reagan who won all those states in 1984, and took ten out the 12 in 1980. Bush Sr. took 11 out of 12 in 1988. Clinton took 11 out of 12 in 1992, and 10 out of 12 in 1996. Now that its down to 11 staes, and maybe down to 10 or even 9. after the 2010 census, it bound to get even easier. Soon all one will have to do will be to win California and they'll become president.

Answer 6

The main problem with getting rid of the electoral college is one of the overriding principles of the Constitution: federalism. Without the states, there is no national government. Without the states directly choosing the President, the power of the states is vastly diminished.

It also helps neutralize the differences in voter turnout, especially on the West Coast of the U.S.

People in large states can't complain, because their state basically helped determine the outcome with a large number of electoral votes. People in small states can't complain, because their individual vote is worth more per electoral vote than someone from a large state.

An Athenian-like democracy would lead to increased sectional tensions and a more chaotic, and in essence, corrupt, system.

Answer 7

I think the popular vote is better. Our leaders, including the president are supposed to be chosen and voted for by the people, not just the bigger states that the candidates always fight for because they have more electoral votes. Last election I lived in a Republican state but in a highly Democratic community and of course our state's electoral went to the republican candidate. I actually think more people would vote if it went by the popular vote because it would definately feel like our votes mattered more.

Answer 8

I too feel the Electorial College should go. There are too many presidents getting in that don't have the population vote.
I have thought this for several years now.
I didn't like when I have seen the the Electorial College vote get elected and not the populate vote

Answer 9

no I'm against getting rid of it , it just needs one reform to make it open and fair for all, other than that it is a good system making the little states as equal to the large states in electing power

and the change it needs is to get rid of the winner takes all award system of votes, it needs to be representational to the votes cast , if a person gets 60 percent of the votes he gets 60 % of the electoral delageates for that state not 100 %

if its a amendment needed (and it is ) have it so that it is that same represantaion of delageates for all the states

caspian8... i agree it could be done at the state level but never will be the 2 partys are just to strong , a amendment is the only way it would get done. because going to a representaional awarding of electoral college votes , will open it up to more 3rd partys winning, the leaders of the reps and dems know that and will never pass it

Answer 10

I believe that the electoral college should be scrapped. It's a throw-back from when people weren't believed to be intelligent enough to be able to cast their own vote or, more cynically (as I list myself) to be able to cast "the right vote".

It serves no purpose nowadays other than to give votes to people who, maybe, don't deserve them.

It's not the only clear and present danger, though. Getting rid of rigged voting machines and campaign contributions (or at least levelling the playing field), making the US look less like a bought and paid-for subsidiary of whatever corrupt corporations are bank-rolling whichever party happens to be their favourite at the time would start to clear up this mess.