Get rid of the electoral vote! (votes, Republicans, represent, president)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we should elect our president by popular vote, not the traditional electoral vote (which I think is outdated anyway). As we learned the hard way, having a president that does not represent MOST American's choice can have negative consequences. Let's update the way we elect our leader!
I disagree and don't understand why some believe the electoral college is outdated. It serves the same intent it did when it was enacted into federal law more than 150 years ago. It prevents any candidate from winning an election based on courting approval from huge voting blocs from highly densely populated regions, i.e namely major urban centers, and ignoring the interests of the majority that reside in diverse locales. If you think elections are bought now, it would even be worse without the existence of the electoral college.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by cspeaker
I think we should elect our president by popular vote, not the traditional electoral vote (which I think is outdated anyway). As we learned the hard way, having a president that does not represent MOST American's choice can have negative consequences. Let's update the way we elect our leader!
Having a president who DOES represent the choice of most Americans can also sometimes have negative consequences but I agree, it's time for a Constitutional Amendement of the election process.
.Stuntman - That is what the electoral college was expected to do. It has also managed to have the rural areas (the red states) receive far more Federal spending than the more densely packed coastal regions (Blue States).
I am amused at the skill shown by the republicans in the collection of federal money for their favorite constituents like agribusiness and military contractors.
Get rid of it. It's dumb in this day and age for us not to elect our president by majority vote. The man or woman who sits in the oval office should be the candidate that most Americans want. Just because someone lives in a large population center doesn't mean their vote should count less than someone who lives in a rural area. I would rather see use go to a parliamentary government than continue on this way. Heck, in many states electors are not even required to vote for the candidate that won their state. Another good option would be for states to be required to divide up their electoral votes based on the popular vote in that state.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown stuntman
I disagree and don't understand why some believe the electoral college is outdated. It serves the same intent it did when it was enacted into federal law more than 150 years ago. It prevents any candidate from winning an election based on courting approval from huge voting blocs from highly densely populated regions, i.e namely major urban centers, and ignoring the interests of the majority that reside in diverse locales. If you think elections are bought now, it would even be worse without the existence of the electoral college.
I think it's outdated because when it was instituted, for one thing there was no electronic media or any commonly available way for those in the hinterlands to get news of what was happening in the country/world or to be able to assess their choice of candidate easily. That's simply not the case today.
I think it's outdated because when it was instituted, for one thing there was no electronic media or any commonly available way for those in the hinterlands to get news of what was happening in the country/world or to be able to assess their choice of candidate easily. That's simply not the case today.
Fair point. Again the system isn't perfect and yes, elections are bought by both sides regardless. But I still think the interests of the few, but powerful voting blocs would be served more so than the plurality, which isn't a good thing. I don't suggest the system is perfect now, but I don't think it's as outrageous a method as some peculiarly only seemed to believe after 2000. Perhaps a better procedure I would possibly suggest would be to divide state's electoral votes percentage wise in accordance with the percentage vote a candidate received in a respective state, which I believe is done currently in one or two states. Again not perfect, as I would suggest that 3rd parties would be further weakened via this method.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown stuntman
Fair point. Again the system isn't perfect and yes, elections are bought by both sides regardless. But I still think the interests of the few, but powerful voting blocs would be served more so than the plurality, which isn't a good thing. I don't suggest the system is perfect now, but I don't think it's as outrageous a method as some peculiarly only seemed to believe after 2000. Perhaps a better procedure I would possibly suggest would be to divide state's electoral votes percentage wise in accordance with the percentage vote a candidate received in a respective state, which I believe is done currently in one or two states. Again not perfect, as I would suggest that 3rd parties would be further weakened via this method.
Mathematically, it would seem assigning electoral votes by state population and then splitting them according to popular vote would be the same as working by popular vote so why bother?
I just don't like the current system because, and this is certainly an extreme case, it would be possible for a man to win 49 states by 1 vote each, lose by 5 million votes in the 50th state and still win the election. I just don't like a system that even allows for that possibility.
Mathematically, it would seem assigning electoral votes by state population and then splitting them according to popular vote would be the same as working by popular vote so why bother?
I just don't like the current system because, and this is certainly an extreme case, it would be possible for a man to win 49 states by 1 vote each, lose by 5 million votes in the 50th state and still win the election. I just don't like a system that even allows for that possibility.
No, only if you were to assume all states would possess the same amount of electoral votes. Basically it is a "middle ground" between the current set-up and a system solely based on popular votes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I agree, it's time for a Constitutional Amendement of the election process.
