Electoral College... Keep it or kill it?

Is it time to kill the electoral college and finally make this country a direct democracy?

Why or why not.


I love how people always say how people in small states wont have a voice.. Thats a common misconception...

State lines dont matter.. 1 person, 1 vote..

Update 2:

Did yall know, at minimum 11 states are needed to win an election with the Electoral College...

But to be fair, it would only take 9 states to get a majority in a direct democracy... But thats under the condition that EVERYONE in that state votes for the same candidate.

Update 3:

Well, get rid of the Electoral College, Get rid of Political parties... And we are set.

Update 4:

TiredTrucker, you fail to get my argument. Under a direct democracy, where people are voting dosent matter. What does matter is the number of votes for the candidate.

1 person:1 vote

Update 5:

I believe that candidates would be inclined to branch out and not focus only on the higher populated states.

Update 6:

can you give me an example of a Direct democracy turned dictatorship.

Update 7:

united states 1776

electoral College: 1804...

I think you have the dates wrong, but we arent arguing that...

You are talking about actions a standing president is taking. Which would be Checked by the branches. At the time of voting, one could not do such a thing. Irrelevant

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    no, I disagree...a direct democracy is subject to the whims of demagogues and quickly degenerates into a dictatorship.

    The founding fathers put in a lot of checks and balances on government to prevent the rise of populist dictators and believed in limiting the central Federal government. They were very distrustful of a 'direct democracy'.

    Please read the Federalist Papers and some of the other writings of the founders of our country. I think they had a pretty good form of government...not perfect by a long shot, but better and more free with better opportunities for the citizens than any other that had been tried before it.

    When asked what type of government they had come up with, they answered "a republic if you can keep it" So...in short...democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health. Using the Electoral College and the Caucus and Primary contests has presumably the people who are the most informed and active to make the decisions. If you get rid of the Electoral College and say that the election is entirely open to be a 'direct democracy' that opens the door (it's already open somewhat) for election fraud, intimidation, general vote buying and populist movements where a majority vote of uninformed people could not only infringe, but even possibly enslave others with excessive taxes, unjust laws...etc.

    Our system is flawed and has many problems, but I think that if the checks and balances were removed farther than they already are (state assemblies used to select the electors), then look for the USA to go the way of Venezuela or any other third world democracy turned dictatorship.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    please look at the following map of the USA that shows the population density..


    If you look at it, you will see that the majority of people are crammed into just a few states. So your asertion that the argument that small states would have no say is wrong, is inaccurate. This map clearly illustrates that a direct democratic election would absolutely alienate the smaller states.

    Ok, but let's say a candidate that's running says he's going to fix the overflowing landfills by mandating that all garbage be dumped in Nevada. Sounds like a great deal for the majority of Americans, but not so much if you live in Nevada. That's what a direct democracy is. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for breakfast. The authors of the Constitution never intended on this being a democracy. In fact, there was no popular vote for president. That didn't even come about until a century later.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Sharyn
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Because then the idiots (who always make up the majority of voters) would always win. I'm a firm believer of the 80/20 rule of life. 80% of people are STUPID. and there are a few (20%) who actually apply wisdom to their voting decisions. If the elections were decided by pure popular vote, the stupid people would always win and the wiser, more rational people wouldn't have much of a say in the elections. The electoral college is a way to balance the multitude of ignorant voters against the wisdom of those who've been around for a while. Unfortunately it doesn't work perfectly because only wise people were supposed to make it into the electoral college, but now too many of them are bought by special interests (corporations, big business as well as environmentalist nutjobs.) So either way we're screwed. The only solution is a nationwide return to the moral foundations of this country and I don't believe that is going to happen in this screwed up nation in my lifetime.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Keep it.

    I don't want only large metropolitan areas to pick our President for the whole country. The electoral college does a good job of granting more power to each individual vote than you see with a strictly popular vote approach.

    However, I would like to see the states get away from "winner take all" on electors and allow those to be divvied according to popular vote.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    My problem with the electoral college is that all votes from a state go to a given candidate. They split the state? Great! Give half to one, and half to the other.

    It is frustrating, having lived in Colorado, how many people assume it is red, it will always be red, and so they don't vote because it always goes to the Republican. You want to get people fired up? Convince them that it is one man, one vote, and that vote will matter.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    keep it, because without it people in states like wyoming wont have a voice, also looking at these primaries, its apparent that every state has its own issues, and because of this they need to be represented by the electoral college; with a popular vote, the candidates would only care about the issues of people in ny, ca, tx, fl

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    If it is removed, the Republicans would be way outnumbered, and America would become a more social country. So no, this is not a good idea. The best way to protect freedom is if neither of the two parties have too much power.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes - kill it.

    When a country is trying to force 'democracy' on others at the point of a gun, it would be nice if they showed willing to try it themselves.

    But Bush showed first time what a farce USA democracy is and the EC is just a back-stop in case democracy raises its ugly head.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • T M
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    direct democracy is one of the worst forms of government. the founding fathers will back me up on that one.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Keep it. We were founded as a REPUBLIC and if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

    Source(s): The United States Constitution
    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.