Amazon.com Widgets

Should a direct popular vote replace the electoral vote in presidential elections?

  • Every vote should count

    The comments stating that a direct popular vote would decrease voter turnout makes no sense. Maybe this person lives in a swing-state where they are used to having a huge impact on the outcome of an election. However, for the people living in the 35 or so states that are not swing-states we already have a situation where we feel that it does not matter if we vote or not. Switching to a direct popular vote makes a lot of sense and the comment about modern technology is spot on. Presidential candidates are spending all of their campaign time and money in 20% of the country giving them way too much focus and attention. Let's give everyone a voice and count every single vote.

  • What is the point?

    If the Electoral college chooses who the presidents will be, why should we vote? For instance, George W. Bush won the Electoral College in 2000 following the recount in Florida. But Al Gore received more popular votes — about 540,000 more than Mr. Bush nationally, or about 0.5 percent of all votes cast across the country, and yet, Bush still won. More American people voted for Gore, but it apparently didn't matter because the select few of the Electoral College voted Bush. That is not how this country should be run.

  • The Electoral College is bad.

    With the current electoral college system, a person can win without a majority vote. Heck, it's possible to win with 27% of people voting for you. Three times the person without a majority won. If there was a 5% chance of the loser winning a sport would you accept it? Selecting the president is much more important!

  • It is not fair

    FAIRNESS is needed in the United States, Also, the electoral college is unfair because the number is already rounded. Also, the minority is ignored. Tambien, the votes from California are always given to the democrats. This is unfair, therefore, the voting should changed to the popular vote. The few times that the popular vote was won and the other was lost was unfair because America is what the people what, so when it is rejected, it is anti-American

  • Modern technology makes electoral college obsolete

    The electoral college may be designed to ensure that the United States' largest constituencies are aptly represented regardless of voter turnout, but in the modern age of opinion polls, internet surveys, and heightened statistical accuracy, the electoral college system is less relevant. The politician who wins the popular vote should always win the election. This method will make it so that every vote counts equally, and could even boost voter turnout in the USA.

  • It makes it fair for rebub. And democ.

    IDK WHY IT JUST DOES fhjdf fief eye f e fe f e f ef e f ef e f e e e e e e fe f e e fe fe fe fre e er fe f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f

  • Vote pro on changing electoral college

    I believe that if the people of the United states are the ones who have to suffer from the decisions made by the alleged president, Then they should be able to have a say in who is making the decisions. Furthermore, The government system is so amazingly unfair that the people living in the "real world" should have a say in what they need to change and they can do so by voting for the person they believe could change the bad and improve the world.

  • The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States.

    If the election depended solely on the popular vote, Then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win the election, Presidential candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore they build campaign platforms with a national focus, Meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country. Without the electoral college, Groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, Leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized.

  • Its better to have a worthy president than a popular one.

    The popular vote supports people who have a good reputation among the people. However, This doesn't mean that they always have the qualities needed in a president. The electoral college, However, Supports those with the qualities need for a president. Therefore, A worthy president is better than a popular one.

  • We should vote against changing the electoral college

    The democrats are against the electoral college because it is less likely for democrats to trick them into voting by lies and false accusations. What I am saying is Democrats take advantage of emotion by lying and making people feel like whoever disagrees with them is automatically wrong and bad sided, Whereas the electoral college ignores this and votes on what is sound. Vote yes on the electoral college, It could mean less stupidity.

  • It keeps balance

    The electoral college keeps the cities from deciding who the president is.
    The cities are always going to vote democrat because they live in a socialized network. But they rely on the people in the country for food, Water, And other supplies that make life easier. The electoral college keeps balance in our country. And if the electoral college voted in a democratic president, The left would support it to the moon and back.

  • No, it is too important

    It has been used since the 1700s, and changing it to direct popular vote would require completely rewriting that section of the Constitution, and really, who's got the balls to do that?! Plus, it will decrease voter turnout because people will say, "What's my vote really going to count for?" Not all citizens are prepared to have that much weight and authority about our country's major decisions. The people on the Electoral College are more involved with politics and are much more prepared to make decisions for our country.

  • It doesn't matter!

    The government is so crooked that if you have an electoral college, it's going to go downhill fast. Since the government is in "cahoots" and is all being controlled by a few people under everything, the votes can be bent to the will of those people, and it's not for the greater good of this country. But, it doesn't help if you give the people the direct vote either, because most people base their vote only on the physical appearances of the wanna-be-president, and also on their empty promises. It does not matter what you do, it will only make it worse!

  • Electoral college is succesful

    Voter turnout is a huge problem, and having a direct popular vote would simply further that issue. It would decrease turnout because people would be inclined to think "my vote is just one out of the whole population, so why would it even matter what I said?" We don't want that to happen, and we don't want a direct popular vote.

  • No, The electoral college shows section representation!

    The electoral college allows small states to somewhat matter to the presidential vote. It also shows the representation of each section of the country. Yes I understand its not the people choice then but with popular vote the president can just go over small population states and ignore then so to say.

  • No, the electoral college is the American way.

    No, a direct popular vote should not replace the electoral vote in popular elections, because the country was founded based on the promise that the smaller states would not be pushed out by the larger ones. Moving to a popular vote only is a push towards universal collectivism. Local interests are so important and should be maintained.


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