The Electoral College respects each states right to choose the president however it sees fit like the founding fathers thought it should be. It also maintains an even distribution of power throughout the country and does not allow a concentration of focus. It also prevents people from deciding the election that are not politically informed.
We are not a democracy, so majority doesn't matter. The Founding Fathers said time and time again they opposed majorities. Anyone who does not understand how the election system was meant to be should not be allowed to vote on this. Rule by majority is awful. This means the 51% could take my car, my house, my life if they wanted too. Democracy is the thing that is unfair. In our legal system, the Jury must be unanimous. That makes it fair. Again, majority is irrelevant to this issue! Also without the EC, the small states would be irrelevant in elections. So, the current system is the best out of a mediocre situation.
Same upinion vicea versa with I would have to answer yes because if the United States of America only used popular vote, a candidate aka: Obama and Romney would only be concerned with states with high populations, for example (Texas, New York, California, and Illinois, etc.) Obama and Romney could promise those states many things while leaving lesser populated states out in the cold. There for this is a very justified system of government because it includes all the nations’ stats and makes sure that no one is unheard from.
Because the United States is made up of large and small states, there is a need for the Electoral College. Without it, candidates would simply promote themselves in the states that have the largest populations. States like California, Texas, and Florida would have more influence than the small states, like Rhode Island and Vermont.
I see the "NO" side arguing that it makes your vote null and void, but a popular vote system would do the exact same thing. For example, rural areas typically go to the Republicans and urban areas typically go to the Democrats. In a popular vote system, you'd just see Democrats winning massive landslides in urban areas and in effect overwhelming the rural vote. If you want an example of this, look at Texas in the 2012 election. While it is true that the Republicans overwhelmed the urban vote with the rural vote, Obama carried 26 out of 254 counties and still won 41% of the vote in Texas. Another example is Ohio in 2012. Obama won 17 out of 88 counties and still won 50% of the vote to Romney's 47%. A popular vote system would render the rural vote null and void, since Democrats would win elections by just winning large margins in the cities.
Only 3 occasions as the electoral college has not given a president who has lacked any mandate or has low legitimacy to be president (recent failure was in 2000), it has given a representative president for the vast majority of elections with a clear mandate and legitimacy to govern, why change the system when it has worked ? Anyway the change in the system would require constitutional amendment which is very hard in the US from my experience as a UK politics student.
There are only two (or maybe 3) systems, which are the proportional system, the winner-take-all system, and a dictatorship. No one wants a dictatorship, so it is safe to take this option out. The other option is the proportional system which means that the electoral college is based on popular vote. This system is bad because third parties can form easily, which would make the U.S.A become one of those multi-party systems of Europe. Then the winner-take all system is the other option. This does not voice the opinion of the people that well, but it voices it better then the proportional system. Here's an example, if they are 5 parties and each have 20% of the popular voice, more or less. Then is one candidate wins, 80% would not like the country. In the system we have now, its a 50 50 chance, and when one candidate wins, only only 50% of the nation wouldn't like the President. Which is better only 80% of the nation not liking the President or only 50% of the nation not liking the President?
Having an electoral college is really fair because there are a bunch of simple minded citizens in this world that vote based off race and if we did it by the most person with the most votes then someone would be winning for no reason. If you don't know why youre voting for the runner, and you don't know what they have to offer you in the long run then there is no point of you voting.
If the presidential election was based on popular vote only, less populated areas like Wyoming and Colorado would be skipped by the candidates which would campaign only in cities with dense populations. Small states would never be visited. With the Electoral system, it extends the presidential battlefield further into the small states.
it is a fair way because the Electoral Colleges are the people who know what the economy needs and what is the best for America. The president and vice president are not to be picked by the people because of the protection of the country from what they saw as an ill-formed populace.
Ok, I've see the blanket argument, "The popular vote is so much more fair! If the majority of America like someone then they should be president." This is entirely untrue. Nobel Prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow, created a theorem that starts by establishing four major Criteria that have to be true for a voting system to be considered fair. I have to go but look it up. XD
It ignores the other smaller states that have a smaller population. It will give the smaller states a voice in the election. The Electoral College also limits recounts because popular votes would require recounting each vote to make sure there are no errors. It helps represent the country as a whole and keeps it balanced.
The reason why we are a republic is because we have three branches of power. Through the procedure that has been en-scripted for more than 200 years, we have created the country we have now. If we change that tradition, we are ignoring the universal principle of stability.
We chose the people who should govern for us it is not right that we limit their powers in account of the people's whims. The people who become presidents have been representatives themselves for a body of people. The group of individuals who know the candidates the best is not the general public, rather the people who have been representatives themselves. We do not know exactly what happens within the court room. Who listens to filibusters and courtroom debates intently everyday? Do we know what the candidates do in the face of chaos except for the empty promises the candidates make during their campaigns? We do not know what the candidates stand for as well as those in the electoral college and do not have the intensive political science background as they.
The public tends to criticize the president when he does something against them in some way or another, but did they vote for him? No. In fact, the representatives the people voted for voted for him; therefore, the people should not accuse the electoral college for being unfair, they should blame themselves for voting for the wrong representative who can reflect their popular thought. Representatives are needed and should not been kicked out of the electoral college; in fact, they should be there to inform the public of why they made the decisions they did and as a teacher for the public who do not know what is good for the country when they see one.
The electoral college should stay, should always stay as a means of checks and balances, not as a popular rally where the best images wins.
Everyone complains how the candidates only travel to 9 states. However, if we had a national popular vote it would be the exact same thing. The candidates would only travel to large cities where the population is the greatest so they can get as many votes as possible. Also, we would lose voting power as a person unless we were living in California or Texas or the other heavily populated states which is not fair to the smaller states. We are called the United states for a reason and we should respect that .
With all the problems that are currently cited with the Electoral College, the problems become worse if the US elected Presidents using a national Popular Vote. The entire election would be decided in New York City, LA, Chicago, DC, and all major populous areas. Presidential candidates would not be inclined to campaign in smaller or more remote areas.
I believe that the reason our Electoral College does not work is because the size of the House of Representatives and, by extension, the Electoral College is too small. Our Congressional Districts should be smaller and more localized. We should increase the size of the House of Representatives which would then increase the Electoral College.
It keeps down voter fraud and costly campaigns. It keeps people from voting for individuals without really knowing who they are voting for and why. American voters typically vote for the Party and not the individual. What we call the "election" is actually the electors nominating an individual for that office.
The Electoral College is a process designed by the inital founders of the country itself. They decided that it was necessary to have a voice from the political powers as well as the people. Even so, the Electoral College itself is made up of members based on population of the States, just as the House is. This means that each State is represented by opinion by legal officals who vow to vote a way they promised at the beginning of time. Basically, when you vote for an office like the president, you are voting for an elector who has pledged to vote that same way. The electoral votes are counted just like the popular votes are, so, basically the two are a sort of mixed form of the public's ideas squished into one. There is also a winner-take-all system, that allows the candidate who has won the most of the state with the electoral votes wins the state, because it is the MAJORITY. The majority rule is a system commonly used in the USA anyway, so what's the harm in contining with the traditonal founding princples that got the country started and sitll maintain it today?
The Electoral College does not totally voice the opinion of the people as individuals - - it is based on the popular vote out of the 538 electoral votes cast. Although it appears to be an unfair distribution of power within the 50 states, it prevents presidential candidates from focusing on states with large populations and forgetting about the smaller less populated states. It also ensures that those making the determination are those that are politically informed i.e.; voting based on the intelligence factor and not voting based on emotions.
I lived for many years in a state (Pennsylvania) where the dominant political party in Philadelphia (currently, Democratic) can manufacture votes at will. When I voted for the first time at the age of eighteen, I was asked to sign my dead grandfather's voting slip. (We had the same first and last names.) The record indicated that he had voted in the three most recent elections - well after he had passed away. I also witnessed a Democratic committee person enter the voting booth with an elderly woman to help her vote.
A more widely known scandal in Philadelphia occurred during the Stinson-Marks campaign for the Second District (State Senate) race in 1993.
Eliminating the Electoral College would provide a nationwide opportunity to rig elections by controlling major metropolitan area political parties where corruption is rampant.
First, in the event of an exceptionally close election, we would have a recount in not just 1 or 2 states, but across the entire nation. Imagine the turmoil in the aftermath of Florida 2000 on a national scale.
Secondly, it helps to localize election fraud and vote irregularities. Again, consider an election in which the margin is razor thin. Voting fraud and tampering with the results would have an impact on the entire national result. With the electoral college system, it affects only the electoral votes of the one state in question, making it less likely that such activities would decide the election as a whole.
Third, it helps to preserve the form of government of the United States as a federal republic. The United States is not, never has been, and never was intended to be a democracy. The states were always intended to wield a large amount of power. They were to act in large part as a buffer between the individual and the federal government. The electoral college preserves this by giving the electoral votes to the states themselves, while the states have given the power to choose how those votes are cast, preserving a balance. Even in the days that electors were chosen by state legislatures, the voters of the states in some measure played a role in choosing those electors, as they were the ones that elected said legislature.
Fourth, the electoral college allows smaller states to have a say in the election, whereas they would not in a national popular vote. California or Texas would be coveted by candidates in either system, but in a system in which the popular vote is the deciding factor, candidates would be unlikely to spend much time in places like New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, or New Mexico. But, with the electoral college system, those states have provided key swing votes in recent elections.
Fifthly, the electoral college helps give stability to the electoral system. Although many do not like the two party system that has developed in the United States, too many parties can cause chaos. One need only to look to nations that have a proportional electoral system to realize this. While it is true that a Presidential election could not be determined by a preferential ballot, the fact that the Presidential electoral college limits the number of parties that can run effectively prevents total gridlock in the Congress. If the chaos and deadlock that we currently see in Congress can happen with only 2 parties, what would it be like with 5, 6, 7, or even more parties. It would be very difficult to pass legislation in such a system.
If we allow the popular vote, there are those who would take advantage of this method. With the popular vote, others can sway the majority of the people their way ( remember the majority could be sincerely wrong). On the other hand, with the Electoral College, this dilemma has been eliminated.
If we did not have the system of electoral votes, the country would be in chaos when it came to who won the last election. And even so, most of our votes still matter. Take California for example. Who they give their electoral votes to is determined by who gained the majority of the popular vote in that state.
The Electoral College ensures that every corner of the country has a strong pull in the election. Even if one percent of the time it does not reflect the popular vote, I would say that a successful run ninety nine percent is another success story for the United States system of government.
First of all, the United States is not a pure democracy. This assumption, has unfortunately permeated the U.S. Educational and political system. Contrary to popular belief, America was founded to be democratic republic. There are several reasons why America is not a pure democracy. Firstly, a pure democracy can create a tyranny of the majority. Secondly, the Founding Fathers never intended for America to be a pure democracy.
The Founders acknowldged that unfettered majorities found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.
Madison stated it this way: "In a pure democracy, common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Alexander Hamilton agreed that "the ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."
John Adams, said, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . Is one of the greatest of evils."
The Founders reconized the importance of the people's involvment, but also saw the damage cause by a pure democracy. (The French Revolution is a fantastic example of the tryanny of the majority....It often ends in anarchy) Regardless, the Founders were also strong advocates for self-government, and they often spoke of the need to allow the will of the people to operate in the new government. They saw the intrinsic value of the individual, yet still saw the need for a federal entity. The Electoral College embodies this balance between the individual and the government. It provides a necessary check on both the government and the individual.
Unfortunately, the concept of a republic and federalism are rarely understood. In order to preserve the great heritage and future of America, we cannot embrace the idea that the Constitution and other Founding ideas are evolving or arciac ideas.
In conclusion, a 1970 Senate report said it best, "The genius of the present Electoral College system, is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"
Yes for if it was on others hands it would be messed up and our founding fathers wanted us to make sure that it was for the states rights not for the peoples rights. For also you have not way of changing it popular vote should have majority for people have smaller states that then wouldn't get represented at all.
Swing states are a microcosm to the rest of the country. If it was a popular vote election, the candidates would have to span out throughout the entire country, which would be much more difficult to campaign. One person's vote has never made a difference so it isn't as if swing state voters have a more significant vote
The Electoral College is an embarrassing anachronism. When the Constitution enacted this system, only white male property-holders could vote. Obviously, the wisdom of the founders was imperfect. The prospect of someone losing by popular vote, and then becoming president is hardly hypothetical - it happened as recently as 2000. The Electoral College promotes the interests of rural people and small states: constituencies that already receive disproportionate and unfair advantages from the makeup of the Senate. Given the vast powers of the presidency in modern times, it is long past time to move toward a popular election of the president, so that at least in this substantively and symbolically important choice, every vote matters equally and the person who ends up with power is the choice of the people.
Without the electoral college, states with extremely small populations would have little or no say in electing the president. With the electoral college, at least the smaller population states have some say and it is not controlled exclusively by the larger population states. While it is not perfect, it is a fair way to determine the outcome.
The largest states would get the most attention every four years under a direct vote. It isn't as often that the largest states by population change as it is the "swing states". Think about how many of the same "swing" states during the 2012 election were also "swing" states twenty years ago. Now think the largest states in terms of population twenty years ago and how they are almost all the same. And they will be the same again twenty years from now, whereas the "swing" states will be dramatically different.
Should the Electoral College disappear, the president would only be known to a very few states (i.e. NY, CA, FL, TX, etc). whole states would forevermore never even lay eyes on a candidate. the president represents all of us and should make an effort to know all of the country's concerns...not just the high population centers.
If the president won by popular vote then we would be like the Czech Republic and have a tattoo artist as president because lots of people that live in the cities know the hardships of living in the country and when the prices go up(the experiment called, Obama) then they have to work harder. The Electoral college has made some mistakes but without them I think our government would crumble.
Though the electoral college may seem anti-democratic to some, I believe it is the best system until more citizens learn to make choices based on their own research. Too many (perhaps the majority) of Americans rely on partisan media to make their decisions. As it is now many of our leadership seems to be in the pocket of corporations and the wealthy. The electoral college provides those who have made a decision, based on facts that cannot be refuted, a voice against those who would vote because they have been persuaded by negative or partisan media. They may not be voting for whats in the best interest of the country (even though they believe so) but indeed what is in the best interest of the voices persuading them.
It makes sense that our state as a whole puts forth a vote for a candidate that is preferred by its citizens. We should want our "state" electing a president, based off the individuals' opinion. We elect representatives and senators to send to Washington. This is NO different. It is better for states as a whole to be pleased/displeased with the winning candidate. It puts the responsibility back on the voter to vote. It's easier to compete for a 'win' in your state than it is to compete with the entirity of the country. This process protects the small states AND the big states. Popular vote matters. It matters in your state! The winning candidate in your state gets ALL of the electoral votes (exception of Maine and Nebraska). So your state's electors just vote according to the popular vote of the citizens that showed up to the polls. I'm thankful that my vote has as much importance as it does instead of no wieght on a federal level (no electoral college).
The majority of the population is in a few states. It provides a situation where some people vote mean more depending if you are in the few area with a majority of people.
"The Electoral College discourages candidates from pandering to specific regions of the country. In 1888, Grover Cleveland basically ran a one issue campaign that was only popular in the south. He swept that region during the election in stunning fashion. In fact in six southern states he received over 65% of the vote! The rest of the country in the north, mid-west, and west supported Benjamin Harrison. Cleveland ended up just beating Harrison in the popular vote by about 90,000 votes -- less than 1 percent of the 11 million cast. But without the votes of those six southern states, Harrison won the other thirty-two states by over 300,000 votes. Harrison ended up handily winning the electoral vote 233-168 because his appeal was to a much wider swath of the country, while Cleveland limited his to a specific area with an issue that would bring them out in larger numbers. The popular vote didn't reflect the real will of the country as much as it represented an overly zealous region. The Electoral College rewards candidates who draw votes from around the county rather than in a limited area."
Keeping organized is most important. What if votes were lost or changed or purposely thrown out. The Electoral College is a great way to keep the presidential election fair and orginized.People need to pull their heads outta their butts and realize that people fighting for power is ruinning this country. We need to worry more about our economic crisis and our debts we owe china. Like seriously its just an orginized way to elect a president!
I would let all the little states matter other ways people would just campaign in the bigger states and the states with the bigger population, then some people aren't as educated and can't vote and make it unfair, then it would cost a lot more if in the case of a re tally it would take time and money the u.s doesn't have
In a perfect world, every voting-eligible person in the United States would be polled individually, thus created a true "popular" vote for President. This, however, is wildly impractical. The electoral college, while it can often lead to problems, is a workable system for electing a President that has served this country decently well. Until a more technologically-based system can be perfected, the Electoral College will continue to suffice.
The electoral college takes away our right to vote. If they really voted based on our votes than why'd Obama win? Romney won the popular vote. Now thanks to the Electoral College we're stuck with Obama again. And no president that has won only electoral votes has done the country any good. Bush screwed up the economy, and Obama's made it worse now we're stuck with him again! All because of the Electoral College!
Doesnt make any sense, a person wins a popular vote, but still looses the election!!! Each vote should count and count equally! No state is more important than other, so no state should have more electoral votes. This way it is only fair for the Democrats because California, Ney Yprk and other big states always vote Democrat! It is not fair!
I fully support getting rid of the popular vote. However; there are many things that either side will probably do in order to win the election.
For one, you may be able to have a massive surge in population-either by immigration reforms, allowing an additional 13 million ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to basically decide the election, or you could have a situation where ghettos basically become even worse, as the residents are encouraged to have more kids than they can handle.
It should be clear enough that the mass-density populations of big cities in States like California, Illinois, and New York are the ones that decide where the electoral votes go; many people in Illinois disagree, politically, with Chicago's liberal residents, but the electoral college rules that the residents of Chicago are right. Making these even larger wouldn't really be a hassle.
On the other hand, you have all of these people in one big area. What does that say about logistics? In the 1940's, the Nazis would have creamed in their pants if everybody they hated lived in one city. Political rivalry can be bloody. If you know the people who are causing you every pain in your life live in one city, then it seem beneficial to just wipe it out so they lose the popular vote in the future.
If San Francisco were to fall into the ocean, and a tidal wave were to hit New York, the Democratic Party would never win an election unless the opposing candidates were completely retarded.
Regardless, I think it's screwed up enough now that no matter what we say, we're going to have to keep the electoral college until they decide to base it on how many resources a State produces.
We should elect presidents on popular vote. One state
should not matter more than another. The demographics
vary & therefore the electoral college is unfair. And as for
me a resident of CA my vote never seems to matter but I
vote anyway as it is my duty. Each persons vote should &
Barack Obama won the last election, but the overall vote said that John McCain won the election. When we vote for everything else, it is done by the overall vote. Why should the presidential election be any different? Besides, why should some states be more important that others? How do you feel knowing that you are not equal to people living a few miles away in another state? We should all be considered equal.
In a democracy majority rules. So why should our representatives vote for us while we vote just to persuade them. Also, the Electoral College way of election has failed a fair amount of times against the popular vote, Look at the Tilden - Hayes campaign where Hayes won the Electoral vote yet lost the popular vote by more that 50,000 citizens.
When two states (New York and California) make up 31.11 percent of the electoral vote and at least for the forseable future will always vote for the liberals, it makes for an unfair advantage to the democrats. With todays technology and telecommunications systems, there should be an easier way to get the vote in a popular status, just pretend you are voting like on American Idol, maybe the turnout would be better. Electoral College is now defunct.
I think it is stupid because we don't count. Even if all of us say yes they can say no and over rule us. Our votes don't matter the president can bribe them and they can vote against.The president might do anything to get the swing states that bad on our behalf so why even vote. It doesn't count.
People should be able to decide the president and vice-president. The Electoral College is a way for the Government to control the way politics are decided. People should decide the president, people know the truth. Republican like me Or Democrat We can both agree People can decide government better off than the Government. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan or Barack Obama and Joe Biden, people need to decide who leads the country. I'm a fan on non-electoral votes.
If the whole state goes red but the major city why should all the votes go to the one the big city votes for that's silences the votes for anyone not in the big city its a crime against the democratic way. The votes need to be split apart for the people by the people
Anything else is garbage, 48 of 50 states go by a winner-take-all rule meaning that people in that state are having their representative cast a vote for the candidate they didn't choose. I don't understand how that is even remotely defensible. One person, one vote direct democracy is the only far way to elect our country's leader.
The reason we have the electoral college is because the founders thought people were stupid. They wanted to prevent mob rule, so they wanted rich, educated landholders to decide president because they would not vote for the person who would give them the most stuff. The way it is now, the people do decide, but it is not equal representation, as the voters in swing states decide for the nation. A republican in Massachusetts, or a Democrat in Texas, has absolutely no say. We should either go back to the way it was before, or we should get rid of it and go by popular vote completely, so it would be equal representation for all or go to the people who are not affected by trends or who's popular.
I feel that the United States Electoral College isn't a fair way to conduct the presidential election because the Electoral College has more of an impact on the election than the popular vote. The popular vote represent the people and exercise a more fundamental aspect of democracy rather than the Electoral College which isn't based on the people's decision.
3 times in history a president has been elected by the electoral college who did not have the plurality of the popular vote. 1 time is too much. YOU CAN'T HAVE THE LOSER WIN IN SOMETHING THAT HAS SUCH HIGH STAKES. EVER. This is the President of the United States, and the people must choose him, lest we lose what makes us Americans.
In a nation "by the people, for the people" shouldn't the people's voice be the first to be heard? Instead, we are given a government that chooses our own government, giving us a false sense of reality. The popular vote is a mind game our government plays with us, allowing us to be believe we have a say.
The Electoral College doesn't and isn't designed to represent the popular vote by Americans. Look at the Bush/Gore situation. Gore won the counties by popular vote, but by Electoral College Bush won the vote. Also the way the system is designed it is set up to be a two party system. When in reality it is shown that independent parties can and should be greatly considered for influential reasons.
Instead of the electoral votes for an individual state counting 100% towards one candidate, why can't we make each states electoral vote a split? For example: California's electoral vote = 55. In counting the vote, 55% vote for candidate A, 45% candidate B. 55% of 55 electoral votes = approx 30 electoral votes towards candidate A and 25 votes towards candidate B. Then we are presented with more of a clear picture instead of one winner per state taking 100% of the electoral votes....
Seems pretty simple.
Technically constituents don't get to vote. Although we vote for which president we want, our representatives in Congress are the people who actually vote for the president. When we vote we really just tell them our opinions. But it's up to our representatives to determine who will become the president.
The electoral college is a flawed system made for times of the past. This system was made for a nation of states with autonomy- acting simultaneously like states and provinces. It virtually forces a two party system, and neglects the minority. This system is also undemocratic, as votes in smaller states mean more than those in larger states, and allows the majority's verdict to go in the trash bin because of the system's calculations. Also, in states where the voter is in the minority, there vote is not taken into consideration to the final tally, which discourages many citizens from voting, as they believe (or know) their vote won't matter.
How is it fair that a presidential candidate win the popular vote and still lose? The electoral college has overridden the will of the people on several occasions since it's inception. It is a huge flaw in our election process that needs to go so the will of the people can be heard and not ignored.
In our currrent stsyem the electoral college is taking away votes from the people that it is made up of!
We deserver to have each persons vote heard and count and the electoral college is not that system! It needs to me taken down. We deserve our own vote! Freedom of speech right???
The constitution permits two senators for each state large or small. California has a population of 33 to 36 million, larger than the population of Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Vermont, you name it combined. Yet they have only two senators equivalent in the Electoral College, compared to the 6-8 states that I mentioned, that is, the country is not fairly represented in the Electoral College by at least 20%, thus giving the minority party an advantage in the Presidential elections. This Constitution as presently configured, with amendments to it virtually impossible to pass, is hence prima facie unfair, despite Madison's wishes that it be a evolving set of rules to govern.
Each vote should count Individually. It is not fair to give one state 29 electoral votes, and the other 9. That makes no damn sense at all. The election can be rigged this way. Why would I waste my time to cast my opinion when my state only has 9 electoral votes, and 95% of the States population votes for one guy yet he only gets 9 electoral votes? It would be more fair the other way.
Each and every one of us goes to the polls to vote, yet the results of the individual vote does not matter. The electoral votes count. My state only has 11 electoral votes. Amongst millions of voters in the state, how is it legal or fair for 11 people to ultimately decide. My county does not allow rural residents to vote in the primaries. How is that the "Right To Vote"? Seriously, we do not get to vote in the primary elections. Honestly, had the rural community been allowed to vote in 2008, the primary elections would have had a different outcome in 2008. The demographic changes when the rural community is involved and not just the inner cities.
Watch C.P. Grey on youtube. He will tell about how the Electoral College is unfair. The very basic concept of the Electoral College is unfair. The Electoral Votes aren't proportional to the state's population at all. In fact, each person in the smaller states have more say than people in California. Just do some research.
Because the bigger cities control the states. A better way to do it is a candidate wins an electoral district. A candidate wins sections of a state. Each district counts as one electoral vote. A candidate doesn't win the whole state. A candidate wins by getting 270 electoral votes. That is why I believe it is unfair.
In many states these days no matter who the candidate is the election will wind up 45% one person 50% the other. If you support the candidate that always gets the 45% your vote will never count and it will always fall on state such as Florida who vote might change and not on all of the votes. Everyone should vote and whoever fairly gets the most votes should be president. Everyone should vote on one day and only once with valid identification.
With this system, every vote is not equal; in fact, some don't count at all. Because it is a winner-take-all-system by state and most states have become locked into one party or the other, the votes of those in the minority in their state are completely worthless. For example, Democrats in Kentucky and Republicans in New York might as well not vote because their states will go for the other party's candidate barring extreme circumstances. This applies to about 40 states because only about 10 are known as "swing states." It is blatantly wrong and undemocratic that so many Americans' votes are totally ignored.
Therefore, we should switch to a simple popular vote. While it may be more fun to hypothesize about which way Florida will go in the next election, going with a simple popular vote would be much more fair to those not privileged enough to live in a swing state.
Gore was the only Presidential candidate since the 1800's that has not gone into office that has won the popular vote. And of course, we know why...FL! The only state that has been shown to have voter fraud...And not necessarily with the voters. Gore should have taken office that year.
By having the electoral college we are promoting a two party system and by doing that the election is preset with either a democratic or republican president and that's not right towards the minor parties like the libertarian or the green. Who knows maybe the minor parties might be the best thing united states has ever had or the worst we wouldn't really know until we tried
Going by the popular vote seems to be the best option because we no longer in this day and age need representatives or electors to vote for us. Some people claim America to be a democracy but until we are truly ruled by the people and every vote is individually counted and used instead of the electoral vote, I know this information to be false.
In fact, we are a republic.
There have been times in the past that the people vote for one candidate, but the electoral college votes for another. This leads to a president that the people do not necessarily want. George Bush is a prime example. He did not when the popular vote, but he won the electoral vote. Therefore he became the President of the United States. The American public deserves the right to choose who they want to govern over them. The Electoral College gives a lot of power to a select group of people. Overall, the Electoral College chooses the President. There are complaints of a decrease of people voting for the elections. This is because the people's votes don't amount to much anymore. Also, some states have more electoral votes than others, so this give them a heavier stance in choosing the President. The people should be able to have the power to pick their President. This would increase the number of people that vote, and it would increase the moral of the people.
The 2000 election was the most controversial election in history. Al Gore should've been the president, bottom line. Some people probably don't vote anymore because of the electoral college. They feel like they're wasting their time because we have the right to vote, but it doesn't count when it should.
It is confusing, studies show that people don't vote as much because they think that the electoral college wont count their vote. U.S. Voting averages have always been low. As Americans we have the right to vote and everyone should vote, it's just that the electoral college is making people tentative about voting. I am in 7th grade, and I can even see how the electoral college is hurting our country.
I simply believe the popular vote is how the President of the United States should be chosen. By what the people want. The electoral vote sounds like nonsense to me. The Electoral vote is confusing, why does a state with a higher population get more votes? The only fair way is by popular vote, a child could tell you that!
I agree with points above. However, it would be hard to get rid of it because it benefits both Republicans and Democrats by not requiring Independents to be noticed and therefore gain votes, so the two "big parties" can keep a competition when they aren't honestly all that dissimilar. (both vote for big governments and higher spending)
Right now, all states except for the dozen or so biggest are largely irrelevant. It is ridiculous that all states except Nebraska and Maine have a winner-takes-all approach to the electoral college. California has 55 electoral votes, and if 51% of the people vote for one candidate, and 49% for the other, the 49% have their voices silenced, all their votes in essence go to support the president who the 51% voted for.
It takes 270 electoral votes to win. California: 55, Texas: 38, New York: 29, Florida: 29, Ilinois: 20, Pennsylvania: 20, Ohio: 18, Michigan: 16, Georgia: 16, North Carolina: 15, New Jersey: 14. Those 11 states alone account for the 270 votes required to win a presidential election, so hypothetically a presidential candidate could win bare margins in those 11 states, even just 50% to 49%, and it wouldn't matter what happened in the other 39 states, they'd win.
The only reason for having such a system early on rather than direct democracy was that the voting technology didn't exist when we founded the country. Direct democracy literally meant a mob of people running across the countryside stirring everyone up to support the cause. Now we have voting booths and people can vote on things as frivolous as American Idol. There's no excuse for not switching to direct democracy and letting everyone vote directly on a president by popular vote, and possibly even on other issues like ballot referendums so the people themselves decide major issues.
Our vote doesn't count down in Southern Illinois, Chicago determines who Illinois elects. Only about 10 to 15 counties vote democrat where as the rest of the 102 counties vote republican. The electoral college just does not properly reflect the entire population. We should just get rid of the electoral college and go to a process where EVERYONES vote counts. Which ever President Elect receives the most vote wins that way every single person is properly represented and their vote counts.
I do agree with part of the Electoral College. The part I don't agree with is that the winner-take-all system. Like, if you win a state by only 1 vote (highly unlikely), you shouldn't get all of the electoral votes. This is just common sense. Though I believe in this, honestly, the U.S. will take forever to change the way to elect the president, if they ever consider it.
As said below, I dont agree with the popular vote deciding the election either, but if you win a state by 10,000 votes, you should not gain all the electoral votes for that state. This is acting like you got 100 percent of the votes. If the majority of America wants you to win, then why shouldn't you? If you give a canidate the amount of electoral votes based on the popular vote for that state. Every vote would count in any state, and it would be much less unlikely to win the popular vote, but not the electoral college.
You can also win the popular vote and lose the race.This has happened several times. While I disagree with the popular vote because it would give higher populated states a huge advantage, the Electoral college is very rigged. A proportionate electoral vote would do much better. It combines both by taking the percentage of votes in a state and that's the percentage of electoral votes each candidate gets.
The current system is not fair, it now represents the politics of a minority groups in certain areas of the country. Its outdated and we need t have the popular Vote elect the president. If we continue to elect a president by votes in less than half of the United States then we will fail.
It give too much power to certain voters that wasn't imagined when it was created. The way it does this is the population of Wyoming is 568k people, and they get 3 electoral votes. The polulation of Montana is 998k people, and they get the same amount of electoral votes. A voter from Wyoming has almost 2 times the say as 1 from Montana.
I do not feel that everyone's vote is counted. I believe we should count everyone's vote. If we counted everyone's vote we would not need the Electoral College to make the decision for us. We would not know who was going to be president until ALL votes are counted
In certain states like California, the is almost completely one-sided. Those who are voting for the other side do not want to voice their opinion because they believe that their vote won't make a difference. Every vote should count for something. There's 310 million people in this country, their vote should count just as much as the 538 electors.
Our country was based on BY the People not by the Politicians. The Electorial College is suppose to keep Politicians from promising larger state special favors-how about we just have politicians that are honest and fair-I am appalled that the last two elections the PEOPLE spoke but were not heard.
The votes should be a populous vote, this is not fair to the citizens of the U.S. We are given the option to vote for who we want, but when it comes down to it, our votes makes no difference, unless we live in a high population area. I vote because its my right, but what is the point? The Electoral College is a JOKE! The election should be based on the one who receives the most collaborative votes! Not based on the electoral votes, but the government we have now, the rural areas will never have a real say! We aren't being treated as equals.
Every vote should count! The electoral college was established in the 1800's because they believed fellow citizens were not as educated. But now majority of people are educated and have graduated from college. But there is no point on voting if every vote doesn't count! I believe a petition should be signed.
The electoral college was established in the 1800's because they believed fellow citizens were not as educated. But now majority of people are schoold and have graduated from college But there is no point on voting if every vote doesn't count! I believe a petition should be signed
Hard to trust the government with a seemingly simple task of counting votes, why would I trust the electoral college? Just like gas prices mysteriously dropping around election time and the Petraeus scandal coming out a few days after the election, when you allow this much power in the hands of the few it corrupts.
I believe we need to have an election for the way we elect our president. The way this electoral college vote works is crazy to me. I can see how they believe it to work, but when everything is all said and done, people feel as if their vote does not count. In reality, it doesn't. I voted for Romney, but my state gave all of their votes to Obama, I feel as if I voted for nothing. Especially when the votes in Florida were so close it was crazy. They should be divided fairly, or better yet, make every single vote count, period.
If you vote and the electoral representative sends the "official" vote the other way, it's like your vote didn't count. If 2/3 of the votes are for a Dem, and 1/3 are for a Rep, then 2/3 of the electoral votes should go to the Dem and 1/3 to the Rep. But it's not that way, instead the winner-take-all approach is unfair and when added with other states' electoral votes it would matter a lot. Either the electoral college should be changed so that proportions of electoral votes are given to both parties, or elections should be settled by popular vote.
It seems to me it should be by voters and not by states with high electoral votes. If the majority of the people vote for a candidate that's who should win. it almost makes me feel like my vote does not matter because the state I live in is not a big electoral vote state.
Even if you are a liberal voter in a liberal state, your vote still doesn't really matter under the electoral college scheme as compared to more proportional or popular vote scheme. For instance, if you live in California, all 55 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate whether or not you voted or whom you voted for. I don't like the winner-take-all format of the electoral college. I thing the electoral votes should be awarded proportionally. It is a compromise between our current system and a popular vote system.
There are over 300 million people in this country and only about a 100 million vote because they know their vote won't count. How can this be called democracy whenever it only comes down to a few battle ground states? Make it by popular vote and watch the people turn out!
to get republicans to vote in a democratic state and to get democrats to vote in a republican state.... I am not saying that the current and past presidents wouldn't have won, but with this system it feels to all the losing side that their voice wasn't heard. If it was done per votes instead of the electoral college system then the citizens of america would feel better with the winner than they do now. Because then it would be evident that the one that the people wanted won. Also people having to use absentee ballots would feel like their vote counted. since winners are currently decided without them as "they don't matter" except in states that it is a close race
Why bother to vote? If your single vote does not matter, we shouldn't even vote. West coast shouldn't even vote because decision is made before even getting their numbers in. With todays media, I'm sure the small regions of every state can find enough information on a canditate to make an informed decision and not need. No Candidate ever came to Tobaccoville, NC & I am still an educated voter.
It was obvious Gov.Romney was the choice that most citizens wanted. We shouldn't complain about the way other countries conduct their voting rights. Our government is just as bad. We definately need to change the way we vote. It's unfair no matter how you look at it.How can we with a clear conscience say this was a fair vote by all states? I think not!
Not only is this system discourage some people not to vote. It completely go against the spirit of the country that all men are created equal. How could you claim to believe in equality when you don't weight the opinion of all people the same? I am sure that some people will try to make the argument that small states will be ignored in popular vote. However, if you think about it now, it is not like most of the small states are valued (unless they are a swing state). Most small states are going to vote for a particular party regardless of the candidate or treatment anyway.
The popular vote should be what counts, i hate election time, I realize it would not have helped this outcome for 2012, however it would have many times in the past. I feel it becomes useless to vote only to be out by an overal electoral vote. I think the american people should have that right, just seems to not make common sense
I live in New York my vote doesn't matter as a republican. The government derived itself from the PEOPLE not the states as wholes. People wonder why other people don't vote and in many cases its because they feel their vote doesn't matter, and for example in New York it doesn't if you are a Republican. Presidents shouldn't focus on winning swing states because it makes it seem they don't care about the votes of political party supporters in states that always go the other way.
I understand that saying people base their vote on media, but regardless of where our sources of information come from our vote SHOULD COUNT for something! Electoral votes should be a TIE BREAKER if anything! We are becoming more and more communistic. We are surrendering the very thing we stand for and what so many lives have paid for...Freedom. Distracting America by saying to get out and vote to make a difference has proven moot.
This is almost like a point system being shown here. It's like when your kids are playing some cap gun shooting game on a game console, and there's all these different cans that they could shoot at but don't, and then a platinum target comes out of nowhrere, they light that up, and it gives them a million points or something like that. That's the electoral college, with the states as the "targets" and a few "platinum" targets determine the way that the election will go. It's sad, because it doesn't represent the majority of people.
I believe that state's electoral college votes should be divided within the state. For example, if 75% of Ohio voted for the Republican candidate, then 75% of the electoral college votes should go to that candidate. This should not be based on population because minorites are mostly found in the urban areas which elevates the population in those areas. It is an unfair advantage.
I think the current way electoral votes are determined is not fair. In a state like Oregon all counties can vote Republican but if only Portland votes Democrat then Democrat will get all of Oregon electoral votes. Not a fair system at all! I think every county should be able to be in charge of their own vote and not lump them all together. That would at least be slightly more just.
The 2011 Census lists the United States current population at 311,591,917. The election is determined by 538 votes. Americans are out in large numbers to cast their vote and voice their choice, and yet, it hardly matters with the Electoral College in place. Winner-take-all, takes equal representation out of the equation! Even if the popular vote per state was determined and each state declared its vote (26 or more votes to win), seems a better reflection of the people's vote/voice than the current system!!!
I do not feel like the Electoral College is a fair way to choose the President. This system is antiquated and unfair. It was created for a valid reason many many years ago. Time to revamp.Why do all the electoral votes have to go to one candidate? Let's just say, if 75% of a state's population votes Democrat and 25% vote Republican why can't 75% of the electoral votes go to the Democrat and 25% to the Republican? If you are married to this system, then wouldn't that be more fair? Why should people who live in a party dedicated state not have a voice? Would this not eliminate the importance of "swing states?" Why on earth should the election be determined by a few states that are not dedicated to one party or the other? The whole thing makes no sense to me.
I believe the President should be chosen by the American people. They already tally the popular vote anyways. It should not matter where more people live, but be based on the majority of the national population.
If people were to feel their votes counted, they would be more likely to vote. I was an absentee voter in the state of FL and they have 11 days from election day to tally absentees. Yet the electoral votes have been cast and the president has been announced. How many military votes were not counted?
It is so very unfair for us to even try to make a difference. I won't vote the next time. My two children didn't want to vote because they knew their vote made no difference. I argued that. You know, they are right. I'm done voting and I'll encourage it to others. I've had it with our democracy. It is a fixed choice.
Not only do I believe they should use popular vote as it is much fairer way but I think parties should also be dimolished and make people have to choose a canidate based on their research of the canidate and what the canidate has done.Not I am this party so shall vote that way.
Picking president is the country as a whole. Every vote should count. Picking governors and reps are state affairs. So states should go by everyone in that state. Federal matters should go country wide Majority should rule. It's the only way for everyone's voice to have equal say.
I've always believed that each individual vote counted. Now I feel like I live in a foreign country where leaders are chosen for us. The electoral voting system is corrupt and immoral. "By the people and for the people" is what this country USED TO stand for. Now the people of the United States are hurting because corrupt politicians are living off of our dollars. I used to back up our government 100% but not I cannot wait for the people to stand up for our rights as Americans and impeach our entire government. Out with the old and in with the new. It's time to clean house.
The electoral college system of calculating votes is unfair and anticuated. This system gives more of a voice to those who choose not to speak and silences those who want to voice their choice. It is unfair to decide elections on population instead of popularity.
There are three ways to cast a vote giving every potential voter an opportunity. If someone chooses not to exercise that right they should remain silent. With the present system, the candidates are more inclined to tailor their platforms to win the swing states as opposed to "earn" the votes of the nation as a whole. The results of this election will deter others from voting in the upcoming years setting us further back in the democratic process.
I live in a liberal state and on some elections before the polls are even closed the electorial is already given to the Democrats. When we look at a map of popular votes the majority of the country is red but the blue party wins. I believe out elections should be called after every single vote has been counted and do away with the electoral vote system.
Why vote for president when our voices aren't heard, why have our presidents win states? we are supposed to be the UNITED States. We hear about a winner even though ALL the states have not be counted. We should have the Popular Vote count. No more of states electoral votes as it states in the constitution "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES"!
It is unfair that one little State in the USA should determine the outcome of a Presidential election. The electoral voting system should be changed. If you looked at the map of the United States in Obama's re-election, you could clearly see that it was mostly red indicating a preference for Romney. However, one little State of Ohio made the difference in the thousands of people that voted in the Presidential election. Not only does our nation have a primitive system for voting, it also makes it difficult for people to vote. How many people would stand in line for six to eight hours to vote? How many people did not vote for this reason? How many single mothers or fathers cannot vote because they have no one to keep their children? How many would be able to tolerate their children standing in line for hours so their parents could vote? Everyone in America should be able to vote without it becoming such a burden. Doesn't anyone care about these things?
The argument that large states like Texas, California, and New York would decide the majority of the vote if the electoral college was eradicated is completely erroneous. There are people in those states who are not in agreement with how the majority of the state votes, but since those states are notorious for always voting one way the people of the state have become apathetic and stopped voting. Maybe if they felt their votes counted more people would get out and actually submit a ballot and the person leading this country would actually need to work harder at winning over the people who keep this country afloat.
When the founding fathers made this decision they could not have imagined how many people would actually be living in the United States. Just like the House can only have 453 delegates and is based on population, is it really fair that California has over 50 delegates and others less than a handful? The popular vote really tells us who the people want, not the electoral.
The idea that the electoral college is somehow sovereign and beyond reproach is laughable. The same time it was implemented, women were still not allowed to vote and slavery was legal. There are better ways for smaller states to get their voice heard under the current system, 15 percent of states are the only ones being catered to during elections, the rest have to watch the candidates on TV to ever see them. It has turned the whole process into a chess match - and how many potential voters in states simply do not vote because their state traditional votes D or R, and they know they might as well out their ballot in the shredder because it doesn't count? What the majority of the people vote for should be the deciding factor for the country. People live in different states over the years, this is no long a horse-drawn carriage society where people rarely travel more than a few miles from their house. States can have complete control over their own governments and elections, but as far as for the Presidency, you are a resident of your state but a citizen of the United States - in that election, for the nation as a whole, each vote should count.
I would prefer my vote to actually count. As an American citizen i feel that it is only right that we the people, who are going to have to deal with the consequences of the decisions of our Presidents should have our votes to be equally important rather than only 538 Americans. It would be a more fair equal way to select our country's leader. I have never seen the point in everyone making a big deal to go and vote when our votes count for nothing in reality! We tell our electors what we the people want, and if they do not agree with what we want they do not have to vote for what we actually want.So why do our politics really want us to "vote" for president when our voices aren't heard why have our presidents win states? we are supposed to be UNITED, but the sad truth is we no longer are.
I would prefer that the popular vote decide the election. But if we cannot do away with the electoral college, at least make a few adjustments to it. Why not use the popular vote to determine how the electorate votes will be distributed? If you get 60% of the votes in a particular state, the presidential candidate would get 60% of the electoral votes.
In a democratic society the citizens should be granted the right and the privilege to cast their vote and have it count. The ability for all Americans to choose to be informed of the candidates and their agenda has completely surpassed the argument of ignorance due to disparate peoples out in the fields sod-busting...therefore being out of touch with mainstream society. Let the people of American state their vote and permit that vote to be counted in the election of all of our government officials. This is the 21 century, right?
How is a winner takes it all system fair at all? I'm a Republican in California and I NEVER see my vote count because as you probably know already, California always has a Democratic majority. Is this fair? Why doesn't my vote get to count for the person I voted for instead of just having the candidate I don't want to win, take my vote? This system clearly is not fair and is completely outdated.
The electoral college was created for fair representation amongst states to form a united America. We no longer need it and each U.S. citizen should have the right to have his or her vote count. The popular vote is now a more just way of determining our nation's leader.
Popular vote is the ONLY fair way to vote. It is also the ONLY way to honor the right to vote of the citizens, for each vote is counted and has a direct impact on outcome. People would feel fair, satisfied, and respected because they feel they have a say and make an impact in the election.
In the contrary, with electorial college system, I feel my vote is meaningless because I don't know if anyone really care about my vote. For me, electorial college system is just a polite way to deny people from an actual voting! It fools people into the feeling that they vote for a president, but in reality they are not. The electors do this job for them, and to serve their (electors) purpose.
The electoral college needs done away with period! It was written into law in 1854 & population or issues wasn't what they are today. Popular vote obviously shows who the people want where electoral college does not give us who we want! I find it ridiculous & after this election of 2012 I will no longer be voting & I was faithful voter. The electoral college is too outdated!
I don't see the point in voting without the people's choice having any say in the elections. Right now all we are doing when we vote is giving the Electoral College an idea of who the people want in office. Then when it's all done the Electoral College doesn't follow the rules that say they are supposed to cast thier vote according to the most popular vote of their state they a lot of them vote for the other person.
The President is supposed to represent ALL the citizens of the country. It is possible for a candidate to have a majority of the popular vote and still lose an election because of the Electoral College which does NOT have to vote the same way as the popular vote. This gives too much control to a few people that the citizens of the state do NOT even get to know about or vote on! It is a breeding ground for corruption and allows 538 people to choose for a nation of millions as it allows the larger states too much power! This should be abolished so that the PEOPLE actually elect the President on a TOTAL of popular votes.
How many electors are there in the electoral college system? 5,000? 10,000? One hundred percent sure it cannot be more 20,000 electors, right?
And how many votes each elector can cast? At most two! right?
Can people trust them?
The population of the US is how many? 305,000,000 right? This mean there are at least 30,000,000 persons are over 18 years old and qualified to vote.
Therefore, the wisdom of 10,000 electors can't be greater than that of the other 30,000,000 voters.
One person, one vote. America is founded on the principal that all are equal, yet the election process contradicts that founding principal. Like slavery, we must abolish the Electoral College. Let everyone's voice be heard equally. The President is a Federal, not a State position. States can vote for representation in the house and senate, but the Presidency must be determined after erasing the state boundaries. It really does not make sense..and every other country around the world thinks we are nuts.
It seems to be the way of things in america anymore. A select few know what's best for everyone. Majority of people are not complete morons and know what's good or bad. The whole system stinks of communism. The whole election process has become so juvenille. It reminds me of class preisdent elections in school. Its a popularity contest. Whoever dresses the best and has crappy, cliche one liners wins it all. It's pretty scary
The electoral college made sense over 200 years ago when the "UNITED STATES" was created to form a union from VERY disparate peoples and interests. That no longer exists. For better or worse, the federal government 'rules'. Also, all citizens have equal opportunity to be informed on the candidates and important issues. Thus, the electoral college is a concept that has outlived it's value and actually undermines the entire concept of democracy in a federal government. Let's get with the times and eliminate the electoral college so that every citizen's opinion and vote matters. How can you possibly argue against this?
Here's my personal experience as to why the electoral college is unfair. This evening, my state's electoral votes were cast for Romney before even 5% of the votes were reported. My county hadn't reported at all. In my eyes, my vote didn't count at all, regardless of who I picked.
It is supposed to be the people's choice as to who runs this country. If the electoral college vote overrules the popular vote, then why should the people even bother voting; because clearly it doesn't make a difference. The people in this country are not getting a fair say as to whom they wish to run our country, the only people that really seem to matter are those in the electoral college. I suppose our country isn't so fair and equal after all.
Talk about being in someone's pocket! At least the general population is intelligent enough to do they're own research and not "drink the kook-aid" that is being passed out by most of the networks available on tv! When are people going to learn to make their own informed decisions and atop being like sheep lead to slaughter! That's where the electoral college is putting us by voting for someone that holds an office he never should've had to begin with. When he is done with this country that is The United States of America and was founded on a belief in God this was the lumps of the free because of the brave! When he's done with it we will not only no longer be free but what's left of this country will be in tatters because he has the electoral college in his pocket and our voices never really mattered to begin with because popular vote doesn't count. It should because America has spoken! We want a change and voted for it and no electoral college should be able to stop it!!
Education and population has grown to allow a popular vote. The electoral system was designed to level the playing field. Give weight to the uneducated working class. This has been a standard long corrected with the majority of voting citizens having a h.s. education, if not some higher Ed.
A lot of people on the no side say if the vote was based on popular vote only high populed states would count , they say the canidates would simply pitch to them and sway the election that way. Well isn't that whats happening now? They campain the swing states, the key states and win the election that way. It's 2012 it seems to me us as a nation could come up with a popular voting system that could work
Even if we vote for a certain candidate, and they win the popular vote they still have the chance of losing. What is the point of voting if we do not choose the candidates directly. America is for other countries appointing their leaders by voting, but when it comes to US voting, we, as American's, don't choose with popular vote, as it should be.
With 55 electoral votes, California gets to nullify 8 other states! How can that possibly be fair if the popular vote were to say otherwise? I live in Idaho and we get 4. My vote counts as 1/13 of a vote compared to a California voter. Shouldn't my vote count as equal?
we are told our vote matters and we are encouraged to vote. evidently my vote does not matter at all. The electoral college needs to go away as it does not truly represent our voice. I am angry with our country's leaders that allow this outdated concept of the electoral college to continue to be the deciding voice. it is wrong! why is this so difficult to grasp. as long as it is in place, votes will never mean anything.
All states should be equal. Isn't this country all about equality? If some states are more important than others then the candidates only have to try to win the states that take the most electoral votes. Totally unfair for the rest of the country. If a candidate has won 30 states and the other candidate won 20 how is that fair and an accurate way of taking the people's choice.
It makes some states more important than others, causing the President Of The United States to pander to those states that have more points to offer and ignore those states with little to offer. It is a polarizing practice that needs to be changed. It further divides us. United we stand, divided we fall.
One of our political system's primary components is the representation of the People in our government. Does the Electoral College represent the People? Or does it represent a political party? Does the Electoral College represent the controlling few? Or does it disallow the masses to select the leader of our Nation? The roots of our Nation is founded on what the People think and choose...Which good citizen wouldn't frown if the Electoral vote reverses what the People had decided in the election?
The answer to the issue is simple. If a majority of the United States of America votes that they want someone to be President, that candidate should be the next President. It is completely unfair in the event that a candidate wins the people's vote, but the state disagrees and swings the other way for whom they favor. A prime example of this would be in the larger electoral states, such as California.
Some people don't vote because they think their vote won't count. If they live in, let's say, a Democratic state but they are Republican, they may not feel as though their vote will count because odds are their state will vote for the Democratic candidate. Maybe the system should work based on popular votes only, so that everyone can really have a say.
One of our political system's primary component is the representation of the People in our government. Does the Electoral College represent the People? Or does it represent a political party? Does the Electoral College represent the controlling few? Or does it disallow the masses to select the leader of our Nation? The roots of our Nation is founded on what the People think and choose...Which good citizen wouldn't frown if the Electoral vote reverses what the People had decided in the election?
It could be 49.9 > 50.1 and 55 electoral votes go to the winner. This is really very important with the larger states like Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, etc. Maybe the allocation of electoral votes should be calculated by percent won of the regular vote. Also the bigger states should not be allowed to announce their results until all the smaller states have annonces their results. The way it is now most of the time the election is over before the little states have their votes tabulated. If I lived in one of those states I would feel unneeded or a second class state.
What is it gonna take for Legal voting citizens to stand up and make a change and make your actual vote count? We are the PEOPLE, WE are the voice, We work hard,(and struggle) WE, pay the taxes,(and struggle). WE, have the power for change..WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!
How can my vote make any difference when the Electoral College has already given one candidate the most votes. How does the Electoral College already know who their state is going to vote for when Nov 6 is voting day and a lot of people can change their minds in the voting booth?
I never did agree with the Electoral system. Why do we have two different ways to vote? Electoral is by someone we don't know and how can they read my mind on who I would vote for. And yes we have advanced in technology and it is about time we start using it.
The Electoral system is robbing us of our Rights as Americans and it is about time we should stand up for it.
I do not believe the Electoral College is fair. First of all, I do not believe we should vote by state, but instead have all US votes count. Using the way most states vote, the winner of that state wins all Electoral votes. Because of this, one of the presidents could be losing by one vote, but the other president would still win all votes. If we vote by US, everyone has a say in who they want to win. Because of the way we are doing it now, Democrats are getting more votes, which could be caused by Electoral voting. Republicans are not getting as many votes, which could also be caused by Electoral voting. Again, I do not believe the Electoral College is fair because of state votes.
We no longer need a system that took place in a time when counting individual votes was impractical. We live in a world filled with technological progress, so our individual votes should be taken seriously! The people should really be allowed to choose, not just go cast our ballot for fun.
Why should the electoral college decide on for a candidate when the popular vote say differently. No wonder people say that it doesn't matter how I vote, it will be decided by electoral college. The only fair way is popular vote. Spin it how ever you wish. If it were popular vote you would have more people voting because their vote would really matter!!
The people speak, point blank! Why should elected officials, on top of our vote, go a second step further to say maybe or maybe not on what we have clearly decided? Once they are elected, they forget about us anyway. In this so called electoral college, a stance is being taken that okay, the peasants have done their part, now what say you oh mighty manor heads.
With information technology we have these days, the excuse for using the college shouldn't apply anymore. The excuse of, they would only campaign, etc., to the big population states should not be used now that we infomation at the click of a mouse and everyone would get the political info and ideas.
How is it fair that if I live in a state that favors a candidate I don't want, they still have to vote for them? What if there was enough people altogether to vote one candidate, but because of the state to state breakdown of the electoral college the other guy wins? How can that be fair?
It's undemocratic and stupid and unfair. Al Gore should have been president, not George W Bush (as humorous as he was). Al gore would have had a more positive effect on this country.
This is the reason many people don't take voting seriously, because they think their votes don't matter. To a certain extent they are correct. I don't see how it's reckless for the people to choose their leader and account that a majority vote wins. If we want to claim that we are a democracy, we should act upon it. Electoral votes give the government power over the election of presidents which is not what a full democracy is, also, it lessens the people's voice.
Every single vote should count as it is, plain and simple!!! Why complicate things? It's an outdated system and maybe it worked back in the days. When the majority of people chooses one candidate and the Electoral College goes for a different one, what's the point of voting? People's voice is not heard that way!!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The 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.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
Some claimed that the electoral college helps overrepresent the power of the small states. This is bad. States are not political entities and do not deserve rights; people do, and their voices should be equal. The electoral college overrepresents the power of some people.
The electoral college was conceived and executed in a time and place when communication was limited, information dissemination was an elitist concept, and the general population may not be educated enough to vote for the President. Now, with communication and information being sent almost immediately, it is a system which lends itself to error and potential tampering.
The Electoral College violates the concept of proportional representation. Voters in lightly-populated states, such as Wyoming, have their votes count more than voters in Florida and California. In the 2000 election, for example, many more people voted for Al Gore than George Bush, but Bush took the Presidency, because of the way the election system works.
It is unfair that even if the public majority votes for one candidate, the Electoral College could still go for a different candidate. The public vote should be the only vote to count, especially since members of the Electoral College can technically vote for whomever they want. Each member of the public that votes should know that their vote actually counts towards that candidate.
I do not think we need an Electoral College anymore, because we have an open election in which anyone over the age of 18, and who is a registered voter, can go to the polls and decide for themselves. Millions of people vote with each presidential election, so why not just let the people choose? What is the point of allowing the masses to vote for who they want to run the country, if you're going to grant a small group of people the ultimate power to choose? It's an outdated system and it needs to be removed. Let the people vote, and let the votes determine who is president.
In the Electoral College, votes count as a "majority rule", not as an individual. An example of this is if there is a "yes" or "no" vote, and 5 of 9 people vote "yes", while the remaining 4 vote "no", only the "yes" votes are counted, and the 4 people who voted "no" are thrown out as if they weren't even acknowledged.
The Electoral College is an old antiquated system, and it has no place in the modern day American political process. Sure it made sense back in the day, when states like California had a lower population. But today, there are more people in California. The popular vote should be what matters. It's the way all other elections are processed.
How many electoral votes a state has is dependent on what percentage of people living in the United States live in that state. The current process we have for choosing the president is unfair because a candidate can have more individual votes than another candidate, but still lose if one candidate wins the votes of a larger state.
The Electoral College was invented at a time when the "educated elite" believed that the normal citizen could not make an intelligent decision on their own - they had to have a safeguard. That is much too elitist for our country.
Using the Electoral College is just an extra step that is not needed. We do have a popular vote, this could be used by itself.
One problem with the Electoral College is that there is no Constitutional law that requires an elector to follow the popular vote in their district. This makes it seem as if the popular vote does not carry enough weight.
Another problem is the all or nothing states. How can a state receive all of the electoral votes, when the popular vote could be close to even? This make no sense. If we just used the popular vote, there would no issue.
The only issue is from the people who want to do it "the way we've always done it". In United States history, this mentality would have kept us part of England still. And it is this sort of mentality that could eventually cause the downfall of our country. We have to move forward.
The Electoral College is an archaic way of electing the President. Look at the 2000 election - Al Gore won the popular vote, but George W Bush won the electoral vote and the presidency as a result, by a little over 500 votes in the state of Florida. In an example such as that, votes in larger states with more electoral votes are worth more than smaller states with fewer electoral votes.
In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.
When the founders set up the electoral college, they set it up as a means of eliminating the confusion and lack of unity that could result from a mass election system. They did this because the size of the nation was fairly small and those given the right to vote were few in number. Now that anyone 18 or over has this right, the number of people that can vote is so numerous that it has become a negative to be held to electoral votes. The largest part of the process that makes it negative is that it mostly does not allow for partial reception of votes. If the vote in a state is 51% to 49%, why not give the candidates 51 and 49 votes respectively. Instead we give 100% to the person who barely won the majority and thus, 49% of the people have their vote completely discounted. Therein lies the reason why this system is no longer valuable.
The Electoral College is an antiquated way of choosing our national executive. While it was appropriate at the time the Constitution was written, our nation has grown into a large, diverse country, so the Electoral College system does not adequately reflect the true opinions of the country. Recent elections prove that this is an ineffective and often divisive system for making choices to truly represent all citizens of the United States.
There should never be a case where a president is elected after not receiving a majority of the popular vote; however, this has happened in the past due to the use of the electoral college. The electoral college had a place in politics when a common individual could not be expected to understand what was taking place in the political forum. Today, however, the electoral college is used to swing elections in directions the American people did not wish. The idea that the decision to name a president lies in the hands of less than 1000 individuals is utterly ridiculous. Additionally, the electors are not bound to vote for any specific President, so ultimately the public election is pointless. This system is archaic and is the absolute opposite of a representative style of government.
There is no valid reason to continue using the Electoral system. We live in a different world, with the ability to transmit information instantaneously. People are mobile, and there is no danger of big cities overpowering remote areas since we are all interconnected now. Any change that encourages more people to vote is a good thing - including eliminating the outdated electoral college.
The electorate isnt the "real "voice of the people, they can pledge but but can change their mind on their vote. The number of electorate per state depends on the population of the state, so ca being a big state gets 55 votes. Its unfair because being a big state should not mean that state is more influential than other state. Each state should be influential by itself thorugh a popular vote. Its like if you have more money you are more influential, but if you have less then you're not influential. Each state should be influential, so electoral college is not fair.
The fact that the American people can vote for a candidate and still have their opinion not matter is just plain wrong. If the American people as a whole say guy number 1 should be president then that's how it should be. The US Congress that decides should not have the final say on who the president is. All I see in that is just a way for the candidates to pay their way into office, pay the fat cat senators and congressmen and women, then you are president! We need to relook at the way we vote for president!
I really don't understand why we go by electoral vote... Oklahoma had 3,344,110 people vote and California only had 1,507,676. Yet California gets 55 electoral votes and Oklahoma only gets 7. I understand the system in the instance of the Senate. The states with the larger population need larger representation. BUT, it isn't fair that when 4% of the population votes it outweighs the 88.2%. That is not right in my opinion. I think popular vote should decide on the Presidential Election. Then, and only then would it be the voice of the people.
Millions of people cast ballots for their candidate and counts of ballots show certain candidate has more votes but ends up losing because of the Electoral Vote that does not represent the people voted. the electoral vote needs to go. It had a purpose back in the dark ages but now in the electronic world, it's just proves that what the people want isn't what they get.
In a democracy all votes should hold equal importance. If a majority of the nation selects a candidate then that person should represent the country. It does not seem fair that some states should be more "important" than others. I am an independent voter and have felt this way for many years.
Technology now allows an opportunity for online voting and tabulation of the millions of votes. If Amazon and other retailers online can do this, so can in revamping our voting process. Not allowing duplicate votes, etc. Technology can set this up. So electoral college is out of date and serves no function. In a democracy the people's vote matters. And even public voting must end, because when I went to vote today my polling place was littered with FIRE OBAMA signs and an intimidating attitude. I was told that I had been sent a ballot, when I specifically know that I did not. Therefore I was forced to sign documents that I was now a proviisional voter and my vote would be verified that I was not votng twice and my vote would count tomorrow. Personally I felt at a Christian Church, my vote was being tossed in the garbage tonight. This has to end if we plan to continue to call USA a democracy. Then we need to prosecute those that are fixing elections for lifetime jail.
Obviously these processes are alive and thriving in the USA.
Each citizen who is legally permitted to cast a vote should have the opportunity for their vote to count. The two party political system is wrecking our country and often causes an entire population of voters votes to be negated because they live in a state that is distinctly left or right. A true democratic vote would allow the candidate with the popular vote to win and each vote to genuinely count.
Every citizen's vote should count. Allowing the President of the United States to be chosen by just 538 of its 315,000,000 citizens is absurd! Especially when the Electoral College does not have to vote for its States popular vote! There is no Federal Law that says the Electoral College has to honor a pledge to its state. Nothing like electing an offical to represent what your State wants and then doesn't!
They say every vote counts but with the electoral college that is not true at all. I don't think any state should count more than the other each vote should be counted individually. That's the only fair way. The person who wins could have the least amount of electorial votes but the most individual votes could still lose just doesn't make since.
we are a republic - by the people, for the people, of the people, therefore the peoples' vote should decide, not a handful of people. It is even more disturbing when the people of a state vote one way and the electoral college of those states that are not bound to vote according to the people's vote, choose to vote their own biases. Not listening to the popular vote of the people is also very unfair - again, what happened to by the people, for the people, of the people!
Ok, so what if bigger states are going to be more influenced by candidates than small states. This issue exists now with the Electoral College. Instead of it being about size, it is about swing states. The Electoral College presents a problem with the true vote, the popular vote. There have been three presidents that won the popular vote but lost the election because of the Electoral College. If the vote was 99 percent for one candidate and 1 percent for the other candidate, then technically about 49.9 percent of the voters vote didn't count. The electoral votes for the state would have been given out to the candidate if it the vote was blown out of the water like 99 percent to 1 percent or if it was a close call like 49 percent and 51 percent. Due to the way the electoral college is flawed, if a state has a large number of voters that vote one way, the true voice of the Americans will be watered down.
Some will argue what about small states? What about them? If you were to go off of the popular vote, every single vote would count. So even though the small states don't have a large population, their voice still makes a difference.
If you are worried about people voting off of political ads then what the candidate really stands for, then simply list all of the facts about the candidates where the election will take place. Then people can see what truly matters about the candidates and vote accordingly. Someone might commit on blind people, I mean obviously there would have to be a system in place for that (braille, audio, etcetera).
How can anyone argue for the outdated. Common sense, one word- Majority. I shouldn't have to use 50 words to argue an issue that shouldn't even be an issue. Lets talk about term limits, no more political lifers. The big question is how do we throw out the electoral college.
When technology and access to information was limited, the electoral college seems a bit more easy to digest. However, when the general public has so much more informed, so much more active in the process, the electoral college is now horribly outdated. It is a great example of a product of government that can go away - let the people of the country truly have a say without the borders of a state getting in the way (Voters without Borders!).
each vote should count, its the only fair way. more people would vote if that was the case. it makes no sense for such an election to come down to certain counties in certain states that's. just plain wrong folks! more people vote for singers and dancers than actually vote in elections and the electoral college system is why. if i could change it to each and every vote counting and scrap this old unfair way i would do it in a New York minute!
I believe there are 538 electoral votes to be counted? The idea is that these votes are to vote the way the people have voted, and based on facts to show who is the right choice for President, however, facts are not what electoral votes are, they are opinions. So if we are going to allow opinions to vote it should be of all the people of America, not 538.
Voters in 24 States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate. Generally, the political parties nominate voters at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each state. To imagine these few are not in the pocket of corporations and the wealthy is ludicrous. So the electoral college was set up to protect the smaller states against the larger states. Maybe this would work if voters voted their promise. They do not. If they do not, then Congress should refuse to accept the vote of the faithless voter and count that vote as it has been pledged, because faithless voters have deceived and disenfranchised those who voted for them. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No voter has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
It may have only happened four times in history so far, but it makes much more sense to have each person's vote be equal in the election and the electoral college process takes that privilege away from the voters. What is the point of voting, when your vote may not even make a difference?
If it were left up to the state representatives to have the final say in the elections, they may not necessarily vote the way I voted. This would, in effect, make my vote completely useless, which should never happen. What if there is one elected official representing my state that I never voted for? They would be voting in the electoral college without my best interests in mind. That's just insane!
Someone on the "Yes" side of this poll stated that people don't do their research and therefore should not have their vote weighted so much! What? I do, do my research and do not just vote the way the media or my parents tell me to vote! I listen to what the candidates say though I have to admit that I have never ever approved for Obama in any way shape or form! I can see right through that evil grin and know without a doubt that he scares me! He always has but my point here is that I feel that people would take voting much more seriously and do better research if their vote really mattered. In some states, like California, if you are republican or want to vote independent (which I have in the past) your vote doesn't matter at all. I’m a Missouri resident and it looks like MO will be seeing things my way which is great! If a "Big Business Man" wants to vote republican because god forbid he wants the president of our country to be good for business then he should have the right to vote accordingly. If someone wants more welfare (I'm not saying that demeaning it's simply fact that democrats increase welfare look at the stats!) then they should have the right to vote accordingly and we all should be more than willing to provide some type of picture ID to vote! It’s an hour or two of your tome to go get a stinking identification card! It doesn’t even have to be a driver’s license! These days they give out non-drivers identification cards! It’s our right to not have our vote cancelled out by illegal aliens or dead people!
We are constantly barraged with the message "Every Vote Counts!" and the idea that a single persons one vote can make a difference. But the fact of the matter is, because of the electoral college this is not true. Each and every American has the right to cast their vote for a leader of their country, and their vote should count and stand on its own, not be absorbed and neutralized by the amount of votes that their state of residence is or isn't granted.
What more is there to say? It is simple logic to understand how imbalanced the Electoral College is. Doing away with the Electoral College would solve many problems and make voters feel like they make a difference. The U.S. may be a great country, but certain things make absolutely zero sense as to why they were proposed in the first place.
Each person's vote should be counted separately! Why should a state such as California pretty much make my vote null and void? Many people do not vote because of the state in which they live. They regard their vote as valueless. The majority or each individual votes from the people should be responsible for who becomes president!
As long as ALL Electoral votes for a state go to the popular vote winner for that state, then 2 votes in a state can ultimately make a difference.
What this does is create a situation where 49% of a state votes for one candidate, however that state is then labeled as a state for the candidate that received 51% of the popular vote. How is that fair? How does that show a true representation of the popular vote in that state?
Why not? Let the electoral college and Ohio elect the next President of the United States. I think it's horrific.
For the first time in 50 years I've felt like I am not electing this president. Between the electoral college and Ohio and how the election is called before California's results are in - I live in California. Why bother. I want it to be where each and every vote matters - not only matters, but is crucial to our democracy continuing. Right now, today it seems threatened.
Does the electoral collage make sense?
In a lot of elections the candidate with most votes wins!
Some people think United State's electoral collage is not a fair way to conduct the presidents election (I think so too).
I think each person's vote should count and stand on its own without the need for an electoral college. It is unsportsmanlike based on the system. It doesn't represent the true winner.
Each person's vote should stand out for there own need.The electoral collage started about in August, when transportation was limited for most people and their ability to advertise. "Thus the information about each candidate for president was not well distributed to all Americans. Modern technology has eliminated these issues."
The electoral collage started way back when our country was just born.The electoral collage was fairly chosen by what the people wanted. Now, it is unfair and almost always favors the Democratic party because of how many votes California has. Our country means freedom, and expressing what we feel. The Statue of Liberty means freedom. If we have freedom in the electoral collage system we should have the right to choose who we want to choose.
Here's how the elector collage works:
-"Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes, based on its population"
( that is not fair because maybe someone whats to choose a thing that is not available because people already chose it ,so that means that they will have to choose something they don't want to choose)
-The 538 electoral voters are chosen by political parties in each state.
(That is not fair,maybe more that 538 people voted
Why don't they show all of the votes?)
How much votes does a candidate need to become a president?
What if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes?
Answer : The house of representative chooses America's new president.
I think their are a lot of people who do not vote because they feel their vote would not count because of the state they live in. I think everyone's vote should count. More people would vote giving everyone the right to choose their president, allowing our country to be 100 percent driven by the people and by not big government or big business.
What is the best interest of our country is left up to the electoral vote? What happens to the millions that vote and their vote is not counted? Freedom of speech is taken away from those who vote because that is the way the system works. The system is a body of individuals who think they know what is right for everyone in the country, but on the other hand those states who do not have electoral votes, don't count. These are the states that recognize a popular vote. A popular vote is the only fair way to vote and a popular vote is how we were brought up to vote in school: Congressmen, Judges, etc. This country has changed by taking god out of everything, allowed gay marriage and a whole lot more, but some things they change and others they don't.
Voting in schools for anything that is voted on, goes by popular vote. The gay movement is voted by popular vote. The voting of judges, congressmen, etc., is by popular vote. If these states that do have electoral votes are the only ones that are recognized, what is the point of anyone else in any other state voting?
Just because the majority goes one way it should not exclude the minority. There may be voters in the state that vote to the other party. Based on the popular vote in the area, it should be based on the electoral vote and not the state. This must be changed.
The electoral college in and of itself is not an issue. The issue is that it is a winner-take-all system. It should be changed into percentage-based electors. In the present way the candidates campaign in only about 15 states, so the rest of the people have no chance at all to form their opinions.
In states that always go one way or the other, the minority parties vote is worth nothing. It isn't fair.
ND has 3 votes. Yippee! The Dems should get as many votes (probably 1) as the percentage of the popular votes dictate. This might even open the road for a 3rd party person to get electoral votes.
The electoral college was started at a time when transportation was limited for most people and the ability to advertise to all people was limited. Thus the information about each candidate for president was not well distributed to all Americans. Modern technology has eliminated these issues. Each person should therefore have a vote that stands on its own without the need for an electoral college (who may or may not vote the way the people in their state vote regardless of party identification)
The electoral college was set up back in the beginning of our country to fairly elect the next person to represent the people of this country. Nowadays the electoral college is an unfair system and almost always favors the Democratic party because of how many votes California has. I'm a Republican and even I thought that John McCain was not the best choice to represent my party. But I feel that we should value the results of the popular vote more heavily than those of the electoral college. The popular vote says who the citizens of this country truly want to represent them. This country was founded on the idea that EVERYONE'S VOTE MATTERS, not that just only a select FEW's votes get to truly matter.
Say state1 has 10M votes for Democratic and 5M votes for Republican votes - so Democratic wins for this state1. While state2 has 9M votes for Democratic and 10M votes for Republican - so Republican wins for state2. But in a close race, if you add all of the Electoral votes the Republican wins. But if you add all the votes from the 2 states the Democratic would win.
It is the "people's" choice, not a select few's choice. Why should the president be chosen by a select few people rather than by the popular vote? If the presidential candidate wins the popular vote but not the electoral isn't that saying that the country wants that candidate? I think it is but now here is the electoral vote who makes it the other candidate. Its unfair!
People don't vote as much if they don't live in a swing state. Swing state votes are basically the only ones that matter. It's the old way of doing things and we need a new system fast. How can Ohio and the other swing states decide the next president? Everyone's vote should count equally.
I live in California and I am a Republican. I know mostly Republican people, however this is a state that seems to always go Democrat. If the vote in swing states is lets say 45-55 I think that all the votes should count and not just the 55%. In 2008 McCain won the popular vote but Obama won the election. I don't believe that's fair. They should simply report the percentages and not just a solid winner, or better yet report the actual numbers to be added up with all the other states and then declare a winner. I think people do, do their own research and are not as swayed by the negative adds on TV. After all, what candidate doesn't have negative adds about his or her opponent? People know to do real research and get the real facts before making their choice. Let them all count.
Every other race is decided on the most votes. That is the way it should be for President. The popular vote (or the one with the most votes) wins! It's that simple and if somebody tells you otherwise they do not know what they are talking about! Every vote should count and the Electoral College does not do that!
You show me an honest politician, I will show you a man out of work. Corporations own the electoral college, what better way to make sure they get what they want at the expense of general populous than to make sure our votes don't count. Supreme court gave President George W. Bush Florida, where clearly the popular vote didn't.
In this election a lot of us have talked about not voting because we feel our votes don't matter! Once that electoral count is reached why should we bother. Counting each vote seems fair. We do it for governor, senator, mayoral, etc., it should be the same way for the presidential election. Our presidential election is pretty much like our government, not by the people or for the people. If it was each individual vote would count.
Using this system "technically" means not everyone's vote counts. The votes that aren't in the majority of the state's vote are "thrown-out" sort of. Yes, they did count for something, but only in the state. I think the US should count everyone's vote, and the candidate with the most wins. This would also make it pretty much impossible for a tie. Thomas Jefferson thinks the people Are foolish in some sense and need this system. The people are the government! So we shouldn't use the electoral system. It changes the outcomes of elections. Everyone's vote should count!
I understand the need for a *system* of sorts, and not just the popular vote. However, the current system is JACKED UP! I live in Texas and if I want to vote for someone other than the Republican candidate my vote absolutely, 100% does not matter. How is that fair? Why not make it so that the electoral college votes in each state can be distributed according to the percentage of votes cast for each party? That way if 80% of the vote in a state went Republican, only 80% of the electoral college votes could go that way. I'm not a genius by any means, but that CERTAINLY seems more fair.
Because some of the states are swing states, they get more attention. In 2008, 98% of candidates money and time was just in 15 states. Also, each individual vote deserves to count, not just the 538 there are. Each person is a person, not just those select 538. Also, over two-thirds of voters don't get the attention they deserve in the elections.
The electoral college makes the whole election seem rigged. No matter who the people vote for, they get the final say, not us. So in what way is it fair to decide something as important as who the leader of the most powerful country in the world is by having a group of politicians decide it for us?
Everyone's vote should cound not just Ohio!!!! Get rid of the Electoral College!! Does that mean that only people in the swing states make researched and well fact-checked decisions? There's actually more threat of them making decisions based upon a barage of negative ads and questionable campaign "truths".
You could win the presidency by technically carrying just 11 states: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, NJ! That's a majority of the electoral college but not the majority of the states. How is this fair?
Second, "Anonymous" poster at top of the YES side says that "It is the best system until more citizens learn to make choices based on their own research." Hmmm.. Does that mean that only people in the swing states make researched and well fact-checked decisions? There's actually more threat of them making decisions based upon a barage of negative ads and questionable campaign "truths".
When all states within the Union of the U.S. all vote, then all votes should count to select the President. We are supposed to be united. Why are we allowing skewed numbers to make that call when the Electoral College prevails over the total number of votes? It does not make sense. We all belong to the same UNITED States. Our UNITED votes should be tallied and the highest number wins.
I am a conservative Republican in California. Every time there is a presidential election my vote does not count because the Democrat always wins my state. How is it fair that one party always wins the state with the most electoral votes? I believe the popular vote should win the election. Then I know my vote would count! Another thing that bothers me is how the media says whoever wins a particular state wins the election like Ohio. I have heard a lot about Ohio being the determining factor. Seriously? One state holds the future of our country? ITS NOT RIGHT!
If 40,000 people would have voted for Republican in the state of Florida,and 39,999 vote for Democrat ,and in Alabama 45,000 voted Democrat ,and 30,000 voted Republican . In the Individual voting the Democrat is the clear winner ,and this is the fair way to vote,but in Electoral College voting the Republican wins by a huge margin 27 Electoral votes from Florida vs The Democrats 9 votes from Alabama . This is very unfair,and very insulting to the people who live in these states .Its prejudice.The only fair way to have an election is to count all Individual votes ,and add them all together .Not this Electoral College B.S.
If a candidate wins 51% of the vote in Florida, do they deserve all 29 electoral votes?
Changing the system would also mean candidates visiting states otherwise ignored, and could lower the attention given to a very few swing states. Having candidates land in flyover states could benefit the state's economy, increase turnout and increase voter awareness. It could also diversify congress with some seats becoming winnable to Democrats in traditionally red states and vice versa.
The sooner it is done away with, the better.
The Electoral College has done nothing but create more problems than it has solved. First, it allows a candidate to be elected, yet not win popular vote. In 1888, 1976, and 2000, presidents were elected through the Electoral College system yet did not win popular vote. If the majority of the people do not want that candidate, they should not be elected. Second, each state is given a minimum of three electoral votes. However, smaller states are given greater representation than larger states. A vote by a resident of Wyoming is about four times more--electorally--than a vote by a California resident. It breaks the "one person, one vote" principle. Third, states area assigned votes regardless of their voter turnout. Fourth, voter turnout is drastically lower. If a person disagrees with their state, they are less likely to vote as they feel their vote will not make a difference. Lastly, as seen in 1800 and 1824, deadlock is a possibility. Then the vote goes to the House of Representatives, and arguably the president is not chosen by the people. The Electoral College is not the way to go.
The Electoral College keeps the citizens from having a fair vote because each citizen is not necessarily represented. Perhaps a President has won the Electoral College votes, but if he did not win the popular vote. Well, that is real proof that the majority of the United States citizens did not want him as their President!
Its not a correct voting orocess to have happen. Its not fair so we now need a new system to help us in our new process. It worked back in the day but not thses days. We need a change and a better system to help us. No no no
It causes less people to vote because they think their vote doesn't matter or count.
Its not a direct representation of what the people or majority want (Gore vs. Bush)
Electoral votes aren't evenly distributed amongst states ( an electoral vote in Wyoming is worth more than one in Texas )
While the Electoral college does determine the majority vote in each state, it's not always completely accurate to how much of the state really gets a say. For example, California will give 55 electoral votes for anyone who can beat their candidate by a margin of 50.1% to 49.9%. All of the people who voted for the losing candidate, all of their ideas go away. Not only in this sense is it not accurate, but in the past, there have been people who truly did get a majority of overall votes from people but the other candidate won based on the electoral college (e.G. Gore/Bush) All in all the electoral college is not as accurate as single counted votes and shouldn't be used in the government election system,
It is a insensible idea to have electoral colleges to conduct the presidential election because that would be the government deciding would be voted in office instead of the people. We the people of the United states should have the right to vote who we want in office instead of Government.
The Electoral College robs people of their right to have their vote count exactly the same as any other person's vote. The system we use to choose the most vital position in our government allows for a man or woman to gain office with only 22% of the popular vote. This is absolutely unacceptable, especially for a country that likes to pride itself on being democratic. A factor contributing to this is the "winner take all" way that electoral votes are given out by each state. This means plainly that if a state has 40 electoral votes and 49% of people vote A while 51% of votes were cast for B, every one of that state's 40 electoral votes goes to B. Some people agree with this, but in the long run it simply isn't fair. Maine and Nebraska, however have a "proportional vote", meaning each candidate gets the percentage of votes they actually won. I feel this is how every single state in the US should operate. Another problem with the Electoral College is that there is no federal law and nowhere in the Constitutional is there any requirement for the electors (people who cast the votes representing their state) to vote according to how the people of that state voted. This means that if 100% of New Jersey votes for A, the vote holders/ electors, can still choose to vote on New Jersey's behalf for B, instead of what the people want. This is genuinely just wrong, and there is no good reason why the electors shouldn't be required by law to vote the way their state wants them to. The Electoral College is clearly flawed, and almost all of America can see that. My final argument is a simple, and indisputable one. The American people have spoken, polls have showed for several years that the citizens of the United States do not want to continue using the Electoral College as the way to vote for their presidents. The people by a large majority disagree with it's use. That alone should be reason enough for it to be abolished. On this subject it may not seem like it, but America is a democracy, so if the people don't want it, it should no longer be used.
As a Green Party supporter, I feel that popular voting systems more accurately display the true opinion of the public.
Before I became Green, I felt that the Electoral College is a bit confusing, and to be put bluntly, pointless.
Smaller states that statistically are on the line between Republican and Democrat argue that their states views wouldn't count as much, but if you truly support your candidate, you should view their votes in a national, rather than state by state view. You should care more about your candidate getting the national vote rather than your state's vote.
The origin of the Electoral College comes from the fact that other methods were deemed ineffective or unfair by the creators of the Constitution. The cons of this system outweigh the pros. Although the pros of this include the fact that it only made sense back in the day due to the educated wanting the president who is more fit for the job, the cons are many. It is perfectly possible for a candidate to win the popular vote (vote by the people), but lose at the Electoral College. If the people vote for a President, but the Electoral College makes the final decision, the people will feel they are not being represented. Isn’t part of the goal of the United States to represent what the public wants, not what the government wants? We might as well not vote at all if this is really the way the Electoral College works.
The winner-takes-all system is unfair to the people who voted for the losing candidate. It makes it possible for a candidate who loses the popular vote to win the electoral vote just because many larger states have electors who vote for them. A third-party candidate could win enough electoral votes to prevent either major-party candidate from receiving a majority of the votes. The third-party could bargain to release the electoral votes to one of the two major-party candidates. When the House of Representatives must decide an election, each state casts one vote. If a majority of the representatives from a state cannot agree then that state looses its vote.
For those of us who may live in a state that only has a couple of electoral votes, such as Utah, it is discouraging to think and hear that presidential candidates do not even bother advertising in our state. They don't care about our 6 votes when they could instead focus on Florida or Ohio which have way more votes. Also, someone may win the election without the popular vote of the people which in turn is not directly reflecting the desires of the public, therefore not being truly democratic.
Not everyone has a vote, like in highly democratic states, republican votes won't count and vise versa for republican states. Everyone needs to have a vote in our country. Our country was set up to be run by the people but the electoral college makes our country run by a select few states with bigger electoral college or the swing states. Instead of being focused on those for votes, every vote should count, one by one.
If the majority of people in a country choose somebody to be their president, they should get their wish. They shouldn't have to worry about the electoral college, which doesn't depend on the votes of the public. In a democracy, it the majority opinion of the people that matters. We need to put elections back into the complete hands of the general public.
Say California was split 50.1 49.9 in favor of Democrats, so the Democratic Canidate will get 55 votes in their name while the other several million people don' get a say, just because a small number of people vote the diffrent way. That's so messed up how just because you have so many people vote for somebody while the other votes don't count in a sense.
There are many arguments about uninformed voters and states not receiving fair votes. There may be some truth to the first point, however although those representing us within the college may be better informed they also are the ones who potentially gain the most from supporting a specific candidate. I may not know everything about our country but I will vote based on what I believe is beneficial to America as a whole, and not because someone paid me to vote for them. As for the second point, as far as I know a state isn't an individual with rights to vote. Some states have a higher population but this does not make them more or less important to a vote. It simply means that there are more individual people who can exercise their right to vote. I have more faith in an average American who actually lives outside of political conflicts than I do in those that are right directly affected by it.
Bigger states have more say than the smaller ones like congress is..... Every state should have equal number of delegates...... Elections should include third party representatives, no matter if they meet 15% or not.....It is not fair.. Why only have two choices, you should demand 1 candidate per party's every time.
The Electoral College is ridiculous in that states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa determine the outcome for the entire country. I also believe it contributes to the 3rd party's disadvantages of getting votes and supports an unfair 2-party system that is corporate funded on both sides of the political spectrum.
Voting should be counted by each individual vote. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no reason for the electoral college. It's the reason Al Gore lost even though he had more votes. I mean it's called voting for a reason. You count each vote. No need for this complicated stuff. I don't know who's dumb idea it was to make this.
When the founding fathers came up with the electoral college, it was a great idea for the time since average citizens did not know much about politics. However, times have changed and citizens are more educated about the government. We are a people who can decide who we want for President, and the electoral college does not allow us to directly vote for that. The electoral college only lets us vote for who we want our electoral votes go to. Plus, when the founding fathers formed the college, only a few states made up America. We now have more states, and the electoral votes that each state receives is not proportional to the states specific population. The system is unjust and needs to be done away with.
The Electoral College makes it so that only a select set of twelve states are choosing the country's President. Remember, the President is not the President for only twelve states, but fifty, so he should have to campaign for every single vote. Votes in swing states have enormously more influence, which is undemocratic.
Plain and simple.... I think the popularity vote should count more than the College vote. Also, I think that the Government is crooked. I think that the Government only takes our votes in consideration; but in the long run it is who THEY want in office. But God has a plan for all....
The winner take all system works in a way that makes it close to impossible for third party candidates to make a legit run for the presidency. The electoral college also gives increased power to smaller states more then larger states. Now I see the good side in giving more power to smaller states, and in my opinion the electoral college should not be changed or abolished, but the simple truth is that it is unfair, predominantly to third party candidates and big states.
The EC needs to be fixed, not thrown away. 10 states or so shouldn't determine the outcome of an election. Voter fraud is also a large issue that needs some serious attention.
Looking at the last election, Romney won the most states, but lost badly. Those in the mid-West are largely irrelevant & ignored simply because of the EC.
I don't know how to fix it, but I can certainly see a problem. Perhaps votes per county would determine who wins the state and each state gets a single EC vote.
This would make the mid-West relevant and force candidates to campaign there.
I'm also of the opinion that the seat of the VP should be voted on. I don't like the package deal we have now. Many past VP's would have been horrible presidents had the president passed away.
Like I stated above, I don't know how to fix it, but I can certainly see a problem with the current set up of the EC. The EC is okay, it simply needs adjusted to make every state relevant.
In 1988, he 3.1 million people in the voting populations of Alaska, Delaware, D.C., North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming (all combined) received the same number of electoral votes as the 9.6 million people in the voting populations in Florida; 21. In the electoral college, the two are the same but in the popular vote, each Floridan's vote is worth about 1/3 of a vote compared to votes from the states mentioned before.
89% of the people on this website said no, so sorry for being so naive but I thought we lived in a democracy, 89% seems like majority, so why isn't it gone if everybody hates it? Left/Right party views don't reflect everybody's views, and everyone should be able to have a major political party that reflects their views. We don't even have a say in who becomes our president anymore, which is kind of depressing. The electoral college is a bad idea
While the fear that candidates would spend time in big cities and ignore the rest of the USA population sounds reasonable, it is mathematically incorrect. The top ten biggest cities in the US only count for about 1% of the actual population, meaning that unless there is a huge city with 50% or more of the US population, that is not a reasonable fear.
The electoral college can ignore the people and vote against them. Bigger states have more pull than other states. Reform it. Democracy never works. Our founding fathers made a republic for a reason power limits on the government. To prevent tyranny of our government. If the people's voices aren't truly heard we'll lose our first ten amendments like the right to bare arms. Our founding fathers gave us that right to protect us not from robber or a bad man but a tyrannical government. As they did in there time.
Plain and simple elections should be won by the person with the most votes from the American people. They are our leaders and each and every Amercian vote should count towards who wins and loses. All other voting type competitions are determined by each individual vote so why would the the big competition of who is to lead our country not work the same way
Plain and simple elections should be won by the person with the most votes from the American people. They are our leaders and each and every Amercian vote should count towards who wins and loses. All other voting type competitions are determined by each individual vote so why would the the big competition of who is to lead our country not work the same way.
The electoral college holds too much power in selecting our country's leader. The original point of democracy is to appease what the people want and the college is no longer doing that for us. If the college were re-evaluated or even abolished, America would have a more effective and efficient way of selecting a president.
The electoral college takes away the freedom to vote as citizens of the U.S. The electoral college doesn't let us express how all U.S. citizens feel about who should be the leader of the U.S. The U.S. should be governed by the person that the people think should be govern us.
NO our vote doesn't count if we have the Electoral College, why should we vote at all if our vote doesn't count. we need to get rid of the Electoral College if we want our vote to count. right now they have no use for the popular vote. the Electoral College does not provide nationwide fairness.
We may not be purely democratic, but our democratic ideals are still expected to be upheld. Three times we were not represented properly: 1876, 1888, and 2000. This is a major flaw in the electoral college.
If what we are trying to achieve is the popular vote with everyone represented equally, we should to straight to the popular vote and cut out the awkward middle man.
Also, 62% of Americans want the system to change to popular vote. Only 35% said they want to keep it.Voter turnout would increase significantly because people would begin to feel like their vote counted. All but 2 states use the "Winner Takes All" concept, which means if one candidate receives 51% and another receives 47%, all of the votes go to the candidate with 51% and those 47% of votes are lost.
If a state goes 51% democratic and 49% republican, 100% of the points go to democrat. The voice of the republicans is unheard in this situation. Your vote would not count. If it is popular vote that decides, people would be more encouraged to get out and vote because their opinion would actually matter.
Clearly the way to go to appease both direct voter and electoral college supporters is to implement a system that does proportional allocation of electoral votes by each state. Texas, for example, is a large state that always votes republican. If I were a supporter of a democratic candidate in that state, I would be discouraged to vote because I know that the state will go red anyway. I believe correctly allocating these electoral votes (ex. 60-40 split in Texas would give around 15 electoral votes to the candidate with 40% of the vote) would help voter turnout in all states and would greatly help elections be more fair and avoid the emergence of "battleground states" because everyone knows those are the only states where your vote really makes a difference. This appeases both sides because it implements a more fair system than the current one, while still keeping the significance and value of each state.
I believe we need a reform to the electoral college system. Not completly abolish it but reform! its not fair that some peoples votes have a greater impact than others because of the size of their state. The only thing i would worry about it if people got rid of the system is mob mentality
I'm rather certain that the way our founding fathers intended the election to be,the people ultimately have the power in choosing their leader. The politicians in our country think they can take that right away from us and select the leader of their choosing. I dont understand why we havent done anything about this yet! Clearly we are all in agreement, but now we need to focus on presenting this information to our elected officials. If they choose to ignore us after presenting them with a document that a clear majority of our population has signed then these officials need to be removed from office as they are clearly abusing their power.There is no need to focus on anything else because if we can return to equal representation within our country our political system and vicariously the ecomnomy will fix its-self, because that is how our country was originally designed; As long as there is equal representation. If our current election system is set up to represent the state as whole, why are the electoral and popular voting percentages not a proportional representaion of how a specific state voted? Our current election system is clearly flawed and does not accurately represent the population of every state. We either need to ammend our current system or redesign it all together, whatever we can all agree upon before we write the document representing the voice of the people.