• Yes, We Do - For Fairness

    Yes, we need the Electoral College. As difficult as it is to understand, the Electoral College is still the fairest way we have for electing a President. Because of the wide population variations among the states, it would be conceivable that if we went to a popular vote, one of the larger states could carry the election unfairly. By selecting members for the Electoral College based on representation, the election is fairer to the smaller states with smaller populations and lower voter turnout.

  • Small States Need Attention Too

    Without a system to keep states having some control in federal elections, major urban centers like NYC, Chicago, and LA (14.6 million people), would have authority over 13 entire states (the least populated states by a 2017 estimate is 14.2 million combined.) If the electoral college was not in place, no candidate in their right mind would do anything to cater to these states. They can compile their votes by only appealing to what one culture/lifestyle (the urban/metropolitan lifestyle) wants in a country that regularly takes pride in our diversity and multiple cultures. By removing the electoral college you take the importance away from each state, neglecting the rural and favoring those in cities and metropolitan areas

  • We do.

    The Electoral College is a very old and historical system, which has been in place since the founding fathers created the government. A debate over 'fairness' may take place, but it really does help out with fairness. Electors pledge to vote a certain way, and they do just that. When you vote, you aren't voing for the candidate, you are voting for an elector who will vote for the candidate FOR you. I think it works; and it should still be around to keep voting systems fair.

  • It is 2018 not 1818 people!

    We DO NOT need the electoral college in this time and age. Lets begin with the rationale of the creation of the electoral college in the first place, 1. People in Montana or Wyoming, For example, Are very far apart from one another and for a candidate to reach out with their platforms, Ideas etc it was extremely difficult and some times imposible, And those folks had no representation. . . Back then. Even though, That still may be the case, We now have the fast internet and fast planes. A potential candidate now can reach virtually ANYBODY, Whether is in the everglades via internet or by stopping been lacy and organize town hall meetings anywhere he wants and show up to present his/her platform in person. And #2, (the forgotten real reason people! ) Slavery, Back in the day the citizens from Southern states that had an enormous slave populations (several millions) who were not considered "people" and could't vote needed more representation than states like New York, Where everybody (men, Of course) were able to vote. So, Do we have slaves in the South still? NO, We do not, Every able American citizen, Regardless of ethnicity, Over 18 year old, Men or woman can cast a vote whether is in North Dakota or in San Francisco and each vote, Is a valid representation of that particular person's will to support one candidate or another. Every vote should count as one vote, Period.

  • We do not need the Electoral College.

    The Electoral College is an anachronistic organization and it should be abolished. It was constructed at time when the country was very different. Today, we should have elections based upon the popular vote, which is more representative of what people actually want. The 2000 election showed what can happen under the Electoral College system.

  • Fairness? False.

    On the pro side, he/she said that it would be fairer to the smaller states and that they need protection. But that shouldn't be an excuse to give the smaller states a disproportionate amount of power. With the Electoral College, the amount of electors each state has depends on population. However, since every state is guaranteed three electors, states with a smaller population, such as Alaska, have more power than should actually represent them. In addition, this takes away representation from larger states. This doesn't accurately represent all of the people. But honestly, what do the smaller states need protection from? After all, the fiercest rivalries are between large states. And since many of the smaller states aren't even visited, the Electoral College doesn't exactly protect them.

    Plus, if we elect by popular vote, there will be less of a chance of a "swing" state like Florida changing the outcome of the election. There will be less benifit for voter fraud. So, it would actually prevent voter fraud if we appointed the president by popular vote.

    There have been multiple times in history when the winner of the popular vote did not actually win the election. Even though most people voted for one candidate, the other still won. Is this considered fair?
    The Electoral College is corrupt and needs to be banned.

  • It is not necessary.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to the Electoral College system, but it is certainly not necessary today to elect the President. The President could be simply elected by popular vote, as in the majority of other democracies, and this would widely be accepted by the American public. It would also eliminate the situation where a candidate could be elected President despite actually having fewer votes.

  • No

    The Electoral vote is flawed. It may have worked in 1775 but in 2012 it can be manipulated. The popular vote is the will of the people. Of course politicians don't like the popular vote because they then would have to work hard in every state. The media does not like the popular vote because they loose control. The popular vote gives the power back to the people. Amend the Constitution!

    Posted by: Jhon

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.