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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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