• Yes

  • No

24% 6 votes
76% 19 votes
  • The electoral vote allows states like ND, SD, MN, etc. to have more voting power while limiting the voting power of states like California and Texas. This makes it so it easier to get a president that will help not only the states with more people but the states with a lower population as well. It still is fair because the states with a higher population still have more electoral votes.

    Posted by: SNP1
  • The Electoral College is embodied in our Constitution. It has served America well for over 200+ years. When something works, you don't tamper with it! http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

  • It will never be abolished. It's in the constitution.

  • No, it should be by popular vote, now that we can calculate it well. Plus, we would of had for more years of Teddy

  • This makes some awful scenarios, a dozen central states that may vote +70% for one canidate but when california or texas votes 60% to 40% or even 52% to 48% all their votes are cancelled or even overwritten depending on size.

  • No, if your state votes against your way, your vote doesn't count. Also, it is possible for a candidate with 22% of the popular vote to win the presidency under the electoral college. Your vote counts more or less than others, depending on the state you live in. The E.C. doesn't accurately reflect the population of each state, and some states need less or more electoral votes to balance their population more validly. Plus, if an election comes up with a tie, the Vice President or Speaker of the House can act as president when the House of Reps. are still deciding the new prez. I say stick with the popular vote. It's much simpler, easier, and faster.

  • The number of EVs that a state gets is the number of congressmen it has. This distribution could be maintained in a more fair way by giving 1 EV per house district + 2 for winning the state. That would allow people in solid red or blue states to have their votes count. It would make the election about the whole country, not just a select few swing states.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
bubbatheclown says2014-03-28T19:37:35.3712216-05:00
Without the Electoral College, we'd have direct democracy (mob rule).
Conservative101 says2014-03-28T19:40:43.1554109-05:00
This will change your mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
imabench says2014-03-28T19:48:11.6738860-05:00
It hasnt
dmussi12 says2014-03-28T20:01:38.6242662-05:00
The Electoral College protects the people from electing some radical nutcase like what happened in Germany in the 1930's. (I know Hitler wasn't technically elected, but he was popular enough to receive the necessary votes). Its simply a necessary buffer from direct democracy. In my opinion, the elector votes should be divided into congressional districts instead of states (to represent political minorities in places like my home state Arizona), with the 'extra' ones being given to the overall state majority. However, having the Electoral College is still better than not.
Conservative101 says2014-03-28T20:02:49.7432985-05:00
Try watching it
Jifpop09 says2014-03-28T20:04:05.5266411-05:00
Whats wrong with mob rule? I thought the mob was already in charge as far as democracies go
dmussi12 says2014-03-28T20:10:57.6966425-05:00
@Jifpop Look around you. Do you see idiots all around, where you live and on this site? Do you want these people to have the ability to pass laws regulating your life?
dmussi12 says2014-03-28T20:12:57.8018124-05:00
But I do wish we had more Theodore Roosevelt
Actionsspeak says2014-03-28T20:16:34.3746399-05:00
Mob rule, what? Either way the canidate with more votes typically wins, so it's democratic style which is for some reason now called mob style.
Actionsspeak says2014-03-28T23:08:50.9206663-05:00
@Conservative Actually it's possible for a canidate to win with under 1% of the vote, however it requires lower participation im larger states. Also 1% would require a near impossible condition, for some odd reason voter turnout is ignored and even if California has less votes than Ohio California gets more representation. Example: (A and B are canidates) Kentucky voter turnout A. 3,000,000 B. 7 Califonia voter turnout A. 7 B. 1,000
discomfiting says2014-07-06T15:24:21.7957724-05:00
It's in the constitution. So is the income tax yet people are against that. Just because something is IN the constitution, doesn't mean you or anybody can't be against it. That's part of being an American. You're ALLOWED to disagree with the founding fathers, the constitution and the norms of politics & everything.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.