Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

Should they get rid of the electoral college

I asked myself this question all the time. If we got electronically machines to give votes to the whom ever gets the votes faster than back then with a horse. Should the Government have given up the electoral college? If so please give a valid time they should have and the reason they need to get rid of it.

Report as

The founders made it so that even our elections systems were representative. They did it in such a way, that a few large states, with large population centers, can not dominate the electoral landscape. It forces the candidates into a full, nationwide, campaign. Without the Electoral College, candidates could just saturate media and only go to the large population centers. This way, they have to at least visit some of the smaller states and get their votes.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
Star!
Report as
Wish there was a star for "full disclosure."

I figured you were a "ringer" in the positive sense---not only for the content of your answers, but also because of what threads you do NOT pursue.

Always a pleasure.

Regards
Report as
Another question for you: Does it still work as intended? Or are the voters in large states now just getting credit for large masses of people who don't vote. This hasn't happened of course, but theoretically 500,000 voting people in California could have more of an impact than say a million South Carolina voters. It seems to me the fairest way to do it is by the Popular Vote. States still get left out in the Electoral College System. All the candidates do is chase the States with the most Electoral Votes. Whats your take on it?
Report as
Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
Report as
There are as many electors as we have elected representatives and senators. This gives smaller states a slight voting advantage, and is probably the reason why the founders did it. It was to give small states a seat at the table, too. This is the essence of the grand bargain, and why we have both the Senate and the House.
Report as
The question was not about the winner take all system, but was about the electoral college. Nevertheless, that was a first rate comment sir.
Report as
Add a comment...

nope. This is more easier : P

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I'm not quite sure of your question in its entirety, however, I will address the main inquiry regarding abolishing the electoral or not, when and why...the electoral college goes against the very foundation of democracy this country was built on. It also negates the concept of govt for the people by the people. The EC is supposed to represent the majority however if this were so Bush Jr would've been president not Obama. When should the EC have been done away with? It never should've been created!

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Bush never ran against Obama.
Report as
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Bush Jr. won the Electoral Vote but not the Popular. Shinypate is right. Bush never ran against Obama. Bush Jr. served two terms as President and then John McCain ran against Obama as the GOP candidate. After defeating McCain for the Presidency, Obama successfully defended his Presidency against GOP challenger Mitt Romney for a second term.
Report as
I lost track...lol
Report as
Add a comment...

The Electoral College is a method the founding fathers devised that insures maximum participation for all states. As shiny pointed out, without the college, a candidate could win an election by carrying a small number of key states;that would disenfranchise the voters in the other states. It may not be a perfect system, but it provides opportunity for all voters to have input in a national election.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Okay. I'll put up with it, for a while longer, then. ;)
Report as
With the current system, winning the 11 biggest states, with 56% of the pop. of the U.S., a candidate could win with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

The current system (not in the Constitution), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not care about 80% of the states and voters, where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Report as
Thanks for your reply , will look into it further, always willing to learn more!
Report as
Add a comment...

no, as shiny pate said our government was designed to protect individual, and state rights. we are not, nor should we be, a democracy. recent events prove the point. I don't want 51% of the people making the decisions.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Exactly!
Report as
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.


The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Report as
Add a comment...

Senator John F Kennedy was elected president in 1960 because he won the electoral college.

Richard Nixon actually won the popular vote.

Ironically, shortly before this outcome, Senator Kennedy had given a speech presenting the case for the electoral college.

(I have a copy of this speech. Unfortunately, it is archived in one of about 75 boxes in my attic---perhaps you can track a copy down.)

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches