63% 22 votes
37% 13 votes
Anyways, since the commenting in the no column isn't working for me, I will post it below.
The electoral college has advantages over popular votes. The electoral college protects the rights of lower population states by allowing the smallest of states to at least get 3 electoral votes. Without this protection of lower population states, issues like agriculture may get the back side. There is a reason why we have a senate and a house of representatives, this reason is the expressed by the electoral college but is neglected by popular vote. Now the electoral college does need reform, it currently causes the minority party in a state to feel neglected since the majority vote in the state determines who gets the state's electoral votes. A solution to this is to have electoral votes be given out based on the proportions of votes in the state. For instance if you have a 3 electoral vote state, and you have 60% republican 40% democrat, two electoral votes from the state goes to the republican candidate and one goes to the democrat candidate.
I can't seem to vote NO either. Its so tempting to WANT to vote yes, but when you examine it more, the more you want the balance it provides.
With the electoral college, people some people get higher ratios of vote:electoral vote, which means some people have a greater influence in the election.
"With the electoral college, people some people get higher ratios of vote:electoral vote, which means some people have a greater influence in the election." That isn't really a bad thing, the smaller populations states deserve some representation since we depend on them for food.
Yes!!! Please abolish it. Your vote does not matter in a solid state, and your vote is worth more in Wyoming than Colorado, due to disproportionate electoral votes.
Varrack, do you also want to get rid of the senate too?
The small States have too much representation, which is unfair. The worth of your vote should not be dictated by the borders that surround you.
No. There is no reason to abolish the Senate because the Senate serves the purpose of representing the states several times a month on many different issues, not like the EC which is only used every four years for one issue only: the next president of the U.S. The Senate can address each state's issues without needing to ask the state which candidate the majority of its citizens support.
The EC allows for a presidential candidate to get elected with less than a quarter of the popular vote. George W Bush lost the popular vote on 2000 but still won the election, which is undemocratic. It also turned into a huge mess, with votes being recounted in Florida and Bush/Gore camps suing the other. All of this could have been avoided had there never been an EC.
Varrack, do you know the issues with the popular vote? The cons so to speak.
The founders created the electoral college to limit the powers of the people, or the mob to be more specific. Though many at the time feared a single tyrannical king ruling the country, a few key ones like Alexander Hamilton feared mob rule even more.
Varrack - I too wish Gore had won. He did either way, but that it another discussion. :) The point is, the real plus for the EC is balancing large metropolitan areas with rural. Without it, the rural areas would suffer with virtual NO interests of theirs taking top-level priority with presidential elections.
The electoral college was put in by our Forefathers for a specific reason. It stops ANY group of people within the United States from becoming too powerful. You can have a billion baby/grandma killing sociopaths in one city, able to be beat by a reasonable minded minority because of the electoral college. Thats how smart the forefathers were. This shouldn't even be a debate! Either way if the Forefathers are ignored and our foundation, the electoral college and the Constitution disregarded, I would have no choice but to pick up arms on this issue.