One person. One vote. Each important.
A government of the people, by the people, for the people.
To ignore the vote of the people is to ignore basic democracy.
And anyone that says different has an agenda.
Once every person's vote is taken for it's value, only then can you consider yourself a democracy.
The electoral college is undemocratic. This is because it does not directly give power to a citizens votes, like democracy was intended. While others may say that America is a republic, the voting system is advertised as democratic, and therefore should be. Additionally, this allows for the popular vote to be disenfranchised as the winner is decided by power wielded by each state. Thank you.
The electoral college is bad for democracy because the person with the most votes does not always win, I believe the every election outcome should always represent what the majority of voters want. We should abolish the electoral college in favor of a direct national popular vote forceing them to listen whats on voters minds
The fact that you can lose the popular vote but manage to win the election is stupid. It is pretty much not counting millions of people's votes for a couple of the electoral college's votes which is wrong and going against our natural born right, as US citizens, to vote for the president of our country.
The current US election system is a convoluted mess, it's also undemocratic. The most blatantly obvious factor in this is the way the candidate who got the most votes can still lose, basically telling over a million people that their votes don't matter due to how the electoral college system works. One also needs to consider how these elections are held. A lot of other countries hold their election on weekends, making it a holiday is also an option. This ensures that a lot of people can come out to vote without the poorest having to refrain from doing so because they can't afford to miss a day of work. The US doesn't do this, thereby excluding a lot of people, the poorest and most vulnerable ones. How is that democratic?
The most pressing concerns for me:
1. The lack of options. In practice, the US is a two-party system and a big big portion of the population lack an option that suits them. A vote for a third party is considered a "wasted" vote or even a "vote on the opposition", if you for example vote libertarian and not republican.
2. The low voter turnout. Too few of the population vote because of point 1 and because it's too hard for people to vote, takes a lot of time and isnt possible for people that must work to survive that day, etc. The system is made so that many feel its much of hassle to go to vote, so many don't. A major democratic issue.
3. Corrupt and/or biased conservative/liberal media. Fox, cnn, etc. For example, Bernie Sanders got shut out of media almost completely, and the rightwing turn to completely unreliable sources because they feel none of the mainstream media is unbiased. I feel bias is better than lies, but both are a big deal. If Trump creates a media organization, it will probably be even worse.
4. The electorate system. The candidate with most voters do NOT win, its all about where the distribution is.
The are certainly more reasons I cannot think of now!
It is against democracy, it has no reason to be around it was okay back in the 1800 but in modern society is is s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s stupid.
There are two obvious major flaws with the electoral college method that our country uses. It violates the one vote per person system, and could possibly elect the unpopular candidate. The point of the electoral college is to emphasize small states, and make them more important to the candidates. This might sound beneficial in theory, but it undermines simple democratic ideology. If electoral votes were distributed proportionately, Wyoming would only have one vote, what it should get based on it's low population. But instead, Wyoming voter's choice is inflated to three times more than it should be. That is not right. It does not even follow the most basic philosophy of democracy: one vote per person! The other fail of the electoral college system is that it allocates delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. This is wrong in that if 50%-1 voted for one candidate in a particular state, there votes would get zero representation because the system rules give all the delegates in this situation to the other candidate. The effects of this imperfect way of electing representation are exemplified in the previous United Kingdom general election, in which the Conservative party received 37% of the vote, but 51% representation in parliament just because it won 51% of the districts. This is insanity, and has even happened in the United States when Al Gore won 50.3% of the vote in 2000, and George W. Bush was elected president, winning three of the four most over represented states. The United States should eliminate the electoral college system and elect our president by raw votes. It is the Democratic way to go about our elections.
I dont like it at all. People don't get the true say in who becomes president. For example al gore did not become president even though he got the majority of the vote. The electoral college will put people into office that a majority of americans don't want. That bullcrap
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.
During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's 40 states, more than 200 million Americans.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Since WWII, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in the country would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founders left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
With NPV, we would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
People who oppose the Electoral College obviously, for the most part, have no understanding of it and why it exists. The majority of the population are in large urban cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, etc. and with a popular vote, not only would these cities or the states that these cities are in, be the primary voice in an election but they would also interfere with other states' votes as well and would therefore, take away the voting power of the smaller states. The Electoral College is based on the popular vote of each state because each state has their own preference as to who they want as President. It ensures that every person and every state has a voice and that nobody's vote can overpower another. It also encourages the candidates to have trans-regional appeal. If it were just up to the popular vote, they may only campaign in large cities and ignore smaller, more rural areas. The only downside to it is the fact that it's possible for the electors to vote for someone other than who their state voted for. This is extremely rare though.
The Founding Fathers understood that direct election of the executive by the people could end badly - in mob rule or demagoguery. They gleaned this from Plutarch, Plato, and Thucydides. The electoral college is an unpopular but necessary check on democracy that we need. That said, the 'party pledge' system now undertaken is wrong.
The electoral college is a function of democracy. It is a tool for how American democracy is carried out. True, it can be inefficient at times, but it still carries out its purpose in expressing the will of the American voting public. That said, it could be reformed to work better.