The way I understand this, it doesn't matter if everyone in the entire state votes for a partcular candidate, the ONLY votes that count are the ones from the electoral college, and these votes do NOT have to match the votes of the masses. So, I ask---what's the purpose?
2007-12-27 12:12:57 · 16 answers · asked by sharon w 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You have my COMPLETE agreement on this one!
The "college" is not only archaic but IRRELEVANT in this day. Besides, who wants to trust someone to vote the way you want him to? And....
1.) Did you know that if a candidate wins 75% of the vote, the candidate is NOT required to vote for that person and can vote--LEGALLY-- for the person at 25%? (It happened--as a protest vote--in the 2004 election)
2.) If you thought the X-files were scary talking about a "shadow government", just try and find out where these "College electors" come from and HOW they get chosen! I have NEVER been able to find out.
3.) Popular paper-ballot voting in this era of corruption in politics is the ONLY sure fire way to choose a candidate. PERIOD. Will it ever happen?
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha! NOT with the corporations in control of the government!!!
2007-12-27 12:24:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The electoral college has only become relevant because the last two elections were close. We live in a republic where ideally our presidential election results shouldn't have too great an impact on our day to day living. Unfortunately we have a style of government that is degrading into a democracy (democracy is a history of failure and corruption, if you support pure democracy, you are a bit of a tyrtant). The electoral college is a remnant of republicanism, If you are a lover of liberty, you must support the idea of the electoral college. Democracy is a system by which the majority slowly erodes the rights of the minority by popular vote. In a republic, with libertarian values such as ours, the majority can not steal the rights of any minority by majority vote because certain God-given rights are guaranteed and voting on such subjects is forbidden. Should the majority be allowed to forbid speech that the minority approves of? Of course not. The electoral college is one of the checks and balances in American government. You must understand that the president was never meant to hold such direct power over the people. We thought the states should hold much of the power that the federal government has usurped. Under our original system of government the president had some say in interstate matters, but certainly not in intrastate matters, so it made sense to allow the states to elect the president rather than the people directly. It gave the smaller states a proper voice in the election. With our current understanding of presidential power, it is probably more logical to allow direct election of the president, but from the point of view of a constitutionalist, we should strive to restrict presidential power to its constitutional boundaries, and keep the electoral college. The electoral college preserves states' rights and helps to prevent dictatorship by a populist leader. It has its faults, and it has its benefits. Americans once trusted the constitution, and surprisingly we were very successful. We should seek to reclaim our national destiny and return our trust to the document that made us the people that we are. It is not old. Our constitution is a very new idea. We should recognize its greatness and seek to educate those who fail to understand the principles of liberty.
2007-12-27 22:52:57 · answer #2 · answered by mick t 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that we should get rid of the college, but I disagree on a simply majority vote. A candidate could be supported by California, Florida, Texas and New York and win the election. What we should do is have each state (and Washington DC) count as one vote. The candidate with the most states backing him wins. That way a state like Delaware is just as important in the election as a state like Florida.
2007-12-27 21:02:40 · answer #3 · answered by The Vigilante 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for that, I think the popular vote win just like in School and any other election. That electoral vote is the corrupt crooked thing that could ever be used in our Presidential or any other elections. This woman in Florida in 2000 after the election was given to Bush, she stated , "I am a housewife and I didn't even know what the electoral vote stands for in fact I don't know anything about Politics. They came and pick me to be a electoral voter and told me what to do. I don't know George Bush from Al Gore.
That is your electoral college vote , Shame, Shame , Shame.
2007-12-27 20:40:00 · answer #4 · answered by Nicki 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have never heard of a state that doesn't award it's electoral votes to the candidate who won their state. You can't do away with the electoral system because then EVERY president would be elected by New York and CA with help from few other states. Many states would never have a chance to be represented in the White House.
2007-12-27 21:06:06 · answer #5 · answered by Cinner 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
people also complain about the money needed to operate and fund campaigns these days. If the electoral college is done away with, candidates will have to campaign in every state, not just the competitive ones like Ohio and Florida. Candidates will instead appeal to heavy populous areas and not campaign in rural ones. To sustain a campaign in all 50 states will require a staggering amount of funds. This is a bad idea. These same fools who want to do away with the electoral college complain that too much money in campaigns dilutes the process and creates corruption/.
2007-12-27 20:34:01 · answer #6 · answered by aCeRBic 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We were set up to be a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We are to be represented by the states and the elections are settled in a states matter. So basically our election system puts more emphasis on importance of the state you vote in rather then the overall concensus of the whole nation. Also reason why electoral college was set up was so power can be shared between the federal gov't and the state gov'ts.
2007-12-27 20:26:32 · answer #7 · answered by archy 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If we didn't have the EC, presidential candidates would only have to campaign in the 3 or 4 most populous states, and the rest of the nation would be neglected. The EC was designed to keep all states on equal footing.
2007-12-27 22:27:06 · answer #8 · answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the electrorial college should be eliminated. It was formed at a time when communication across the country was a long process, mail was slow and there was no TV or radio or computers that can make communication instant. I think they should also do away with political parties. We should be able to vote for the most capable individual regardless of party. The one with the most votes should be president and the one with the second most would be vice-president. Technically we should be able to have a president and vice president from two different parties if that's what the people want.
2007-12-27 20:23:49 · answer #9 · answered by older mom 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think it is a good idea. It has worked for over 200 years. The electoral college prevents large urban areas from deciding who wins the Presidency.
If it were to change, I would like to see it be counted by congressional districts instead of states.
2007-12-27 20:51:00 · answer #10 · answered by cat_lover 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋