In many elections in the past, Presidential candidates who did not win a majority of the popular vote, or even a plurality, were elected president because of the electoral college. Take Bush vs. Al Gore for example. Al Gore won more popular vote than Bush, but Bush was elected.
Yes, because this country is a democracy and the popular vote should count not the electoral votes. Also this should not depend on the government, for the president is serving us, not the government. In addition, the leader of the country should not depend on 538 members of the electoral college but the voice and choice of the citizens of this nation.
If we were to be able vote, then we should be able to actually choose who would be president. The electoral college takes that away from us. The electoral college is not really fair to our rights and our freedom. It mainly takes away the power to vote the president. DOWN WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
The electoral college was created in a time when votes were more difficult to collect and count. With everything done electronically today, a simple popular vote would suffice. I do not believe the electoral college was ever meant as a way to avoid the popular vote results. It is simply an outdated system that should be done away with.
The electoral college is far from perfect, there have been many fairly recent events in u.S election history such as the election of 2000 that should show that the system at the very least needs an overhaul and should be removed from existence. The founding father's originally placed the electoral college in the constitution because they were afraid that the general population wouldn't have enough information to make a wise informed choice on who would be the best candidate for presidency, but now with the increase in social media and the ability to get information on almost anything at a moments notice, this principle has become worthless and outdated. It's time to make a change and make our voice heard to our politicians.
The Electoral College should be abolished because it takes away our freedom. When will we really be able to elect our leader? We all know that the college makes the real choice so when will we be able to? Please comment on my profile if you agree. THE GOVERNMENT TAKES AWAY OUR FREEDOM!!
The electoral college came out during a time when the American people were undereducated and the government people knew what was best. Now, we have universal education and the media to help who we want to vote for. If we switch to popular vote people will have a bigger saying than they ever did before. There will be a voting system with highly reduced manipulation of vote. Everyone will get a better chance to get elected. The electoral college proponents made a claim there will be more voting fraud, but this is just an excuse to maintain the power in the hands of the few and voting fraud is only a small problem in elections which means there are only a few.
How can a system where the loser of the popular vote can win an election (In 1876, 1888 and of course, 2000) even be kept? Many proponents of the Electoral College argue that it protects smaller states in the Union and it forces presidential candidates to pay attention to smaller states. This is plainly wrong, considering that most presidential visits during the 2012 election were to Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the smallest of which (Virginia) is ranked 12th in population out of the 50 states and territories in the U.S. Furthermore, the electors for each state are not required to vote according to their citizen's wishes, which means with the Electoral College, a vote really doesn't count. Instead of this, we should use the outrageous idea of having a person's vote count directly to a candidate (a.K.A. The popular vote or "direct democracy"). We need to get rid of the Electoral College soon, because according to history, a mistake is bound to happen again with American elections.
Sorry for my inarticulate English here, as I am not a native speaker(from Taiwan).
Sorry if I am misinformed here, but I do not feel that the electoral college makes anything better. You see, through the past year or so, candidates went and rallied at these so called "battleground" states numerous times. Are you suggesting that any of these areas are low-populated?
Are you indicating that specifically these people in this area's voices are louder than the rest?
It doesn't take a genius to notice that your presidency emphasizes the most on these states-
what difference does it make?
I noticed that many of you argue that your founding fathers had a reason(and I sure believe in that),
but what about the equality of votes?
Surely a vote in California (where Clinton carried by +363580) would mean far, far more insignificant than Michigan(where Trump narrowly won by +17168). And if you divide by electoral votes.....
363580/55=6610 ; 17168/16=1073
Meaning that 1 electoral vote in Michigan would be 6.2 times EASIER to SWING than California?
Doesn't that sound a bit illogical to you? What makes them more important than others?
Another aspect of this is the flaw of the "winner take all" system, which I believe should be replaced by "proportionate awarding delegate" system.
Take Texas for example:
United States presidential election in Texas 2012:
Romney + 1261719
United States presidential election in Texas 2016:
Trump + 813774
The Electoral College does not whatsoever reflect any changing demographics until a breaching point when the two sides are almost equally divided and torn apart - do you believe this is a good cause for your nation?
Thank you for reading this.....I truly believe your system is....A bit flawed, and needs some working to do. Simply embracing it tightly and unwilling to see corrections to it.....Might seem unwise, as an outsider observing all of this.
I understand there must be a better reasoning behind all of this, as I am simply trying to present the statistics and doing the math(hehe....We Asians XD).
P.S. As I am clearly amused that it was the U.S that helped us through OUR FIRST DIRECT presidential election back in 1996....And we elect by popular vote, like so many other nations around the globe.....And have just elected OUR first female president this year! We remain grateful.....(however not so hopeful for America-good luck y'all).
5 times in American history, someone has won the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote, or a failure rate of just under 9 percent, and this is because of the Electoral College. In fact, it is possible to become president while just representing 22% of the population because of the winner-take-all system, and that is just in a two-candidate race. If there were more people running and the race went to the House of Representatives, the new president could speak for 1% or fewer Americans. Finally, it does not protect small states. All it does is give small states more voting power than large states, and swing states more than all of them. In addition, the Senate should be abolished and all elections should be run under the Alternative Vote system.
Suppose Trump won even though almost half of the United States hated him. That 49% would go away and 49% of US would be abandoned. The virus is invading almost 50% of the cells. To not let that happen, we need the Electoral College to vote. Nothing can stop the repaired cells now.
By the way, a nine year-old wrote this, so look at it carefully!
If the electoral college was abolished then presidential candidates would simply focus on highly populated areas. Rural areas that are less populated would be simply ignored, because they, as a whole, would have less impact on the election. The process of eliminating the electoral college would be such a complicated and time consuming process that it simply would not be worth it.
The current Electoral College leaves much to be desired. When voting in California, it can seem like a futile duty if you are anything but a democrat, as California is traditionally a blue state. If a person is a republican voter, he/she could feel under represented. Additionally, because of the way the Electoral College is set up, it is possible for presidents to be elected into office with the minority of the popular vote. This results in a failure to represent national will. Some argue that the benefits of the Electoral College are that it allows the more rural portions of the United States to be more equally represented. The reasoning being that if the elections were based only based on popular vote, the result would be large amounts of campaigning throughout large metropolises where the majority of the population lives. Although the Electoral College should be abolished, we need to have a better form of electing presidents.
Because u have swag money to be a swag master daddy so you could eat all the hassalfdls skss k sk k k k k k k k k k k k k k kk illumintataitiai acdonasdmfask conmirfed as i stated i like food if you dont kys bitachas a
Many people are under the mistaken impression that the United States is a Democracy. While we may embrace democratic ideals, the United States is, in fact, a Republic. One of the definitions of a Republic is the idea of Representative government. The electoral college was set up to reflect this view. I would pose that eliminating the electoral college could be very devastating to minority groups in America. As things stand as of now, candidates must be concerned about the thoughts and opinions of various states with various political beliefs. Were we to demolish the electoral college, candidates would only need to be primarily concerned with what the largest majority of the country thinks on one particular issue. Candidates would also only need to consider what is best for the most populace areas of the country. As an example, while it might seem absurd to some, a candidate could easily come out in support of changing the tax code so that those living in New York, Texas, and California owe no income tax to the federal government. While you might believe that to be absurd, if someone did something like that, they might be able to carry almost all the votes from those three states while needing very minimal votes from the rest of the country. In effect, by removing the electoral college, we would open ourselves up to the tyranny of the masses. Whatever the largest amount of people in this country thought about one particular issue would become law regardless of whether or not it caused problems for minority groups. That is more difficult in the electoral college system where minority groups can swing the outcome of an election in a particular state and, thereby, possibly swing the outcome of an election in a way that the popular vote cannot.
The Electoral College makes it so that voting is truly democratic. Allow me to explain.
If America did not have an electoral college, the states with small populations would not matter at all in an election. The candidates would merely have to dedicate all funding to the most populated states and the small states would not have much of a say in anything.
The mere task of campaigning with the electoral college is still ridiculously expensive, and most candidates only travel to the swing states. If a candidate had to travel to all over the U.S., it would cost exponentially more than it already does. It also would make it harder for poor candidates to run
The electoral college is working as it is meant to - it is allowing smaller states to have a larger voice in the process. All the states in this country, even though we are similar, have different laws, different cultures (albeit subtle). What is important in California, is not important in South Dakota.
The problem we actually have is apportionment. The amount of representatives in the House in Congress does not reflect the population. Capping it was bound to cause this issue. Case in point, in the election of 2012, even though Republicans retained control in Congress, the popular vote was in favor of the Democrats as a whole for the elections in the House of Representatives. This means that some states have more representatives than they should due to "fuzzy" math in order to spread out the number of Representatives available to be elected to that chamber. I'm not saying go back to the 30k model that we had at the beginning of our nation, but rather try to find a middle ground where these anomalies don't occur.
Since the number of electors each state is allowed, is governed by how many representatives they have, some states end up having a larger vote than they should because of the fuzzy math. This affects the electoral college.
Also, eliminating the electoral college could also discourage people to run later. Case in point, in 1976, when Ford lost re-election to Carter, there was a faithless elector who voted for Ronald Reagan after the November election. That can be construed as a "protest" vote - and also part of democracy in action. That "shot across the bow" if you will caused a stir in the leadership of the Republican party. A sign of things to come. Whereas i obviously don't believe Reagan's decision to run in 1980 was bound by that faithless elector in 1976 -- i do believe it cause the leadership of the party lessen their attacks on Reagan as a potential candidate.
In short, keep the electoral college - just reform the amount of representatives we have.
It gives rural areas a chance to make an impact. The founding fathers put it there for a reason. It has been in use for over 200 years and more than 50 presidential elections. It also keeps the United States stabilized with two major parties. The electoral college is part of the basis on which this country was formed.
We are not a democracy controlled by a large group nor are we a dictatorship control by a migratory. We have a country that helps protests the interests of the majority and individuals, Look our system has flaws, but some of it is useful.
Lets say that 60% of Americans vote for a man that wants to invaded Canada and kill all the Mexicans. Would it be OK since most people vote for him. No!!!!!!!!! This is why we have faithless electrons, to stop this from happening. It is a check on the will of the majority as terms are a check on the President and congressmen. We are a Republic that protects rights of the individual. NOT A DEMOCRACY THAT WORSHIPS THE MAJORITY.