Should they get rid of the electoral college?

Because of the electoral college Bush won in 2000 even though Al Gore had like half a million more votes. It's the team with the most runs that wins the game not the team with the most hits!

13 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Yes. It has become a means of stealing elections. It was instituted because the means to tally votes from far-flung areas was not in existence in the late 18th. century. That reason is no longer valid.

    Likewise, superdelegates are a means of selling political influence and defrauding the voters.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think you can't change the rules mid election, but I think if a Dem wins they should make the electoral college done by percentage of votes. I wouldn't have a problem with a winner take all in a landslide victory --- say a candidate takes 60+%, but it is wrong to give an entire state's share to a candidate if he wins by a single vote. It opens the door for election fraud.

    I think there is a much stronger arguement for the delegate system than the electoral system as the delegate system gives people something to follow that ramps up party support for the general election.

    I would say try a modified electoral college first and if that doesn't fix the issue, consider dropping the electoral college entirely.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, because then only 4 or 5 states would matter to the Presidential Candidates. The electorate college was designed to help make the winning of elections in individual states more important, so that the other 45 States in the Union would have a real say in who the President should be.

    The President needs to be the leader of the entire United States, not just the Majority of People. We minorities have votes and rights too, you know.

  • 1 decade ago

    The electoral college was devised so that regional concerns that differ will not be erased by peoples in another region with more voters that can override the objections of a less populated area. In 2000 there was fighting over votes in one small area that was overwhelmingly Democratic that was still going seven weeks after the election and was finally closed down by the Supreme Court. If there were only a combined popular vote, there would have been recounts in every prescinct in the country and they would still be counting. Do most of us want our President selected by the corrupt political machine in Chicago that turns out millions of fraudulent and ignorant votes?

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

    yes. I say this because it is essentially states voting for president, not people. States already vote for their representatives and senators, who represent people from THEIR states. A President should represent people from ALL states, so votes in ALL states should count, not just the swing states with electoral votes. With the electoral college, it promotes less turnout, because many in New York who may vote Republican may think their vote doesn't count, as Democrats in Idaho.

    The Electoral College also promotes political regionalism, in order to get electoral votes. If there were no electoral college, Presidents would act in ways which favor all Americans because every vote would be in play for the general, there would be no forgone votes in states they will never win.

    Its bullshit to say "only liberals would win", because notice with all the liberals voting in big cities, the Republican still gets many popular votes, even got more than the Democrat in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004, dispite the fact that big cities vote liberal, and many states were guaranteed for one side or another. And you know what? if Republicans would have to campaign harder in rural and suburban areas to get more popular votes, TOUGH! THATS DEMOCRACY.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well, it was not the electoral college-it was a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Electoral College is a antiquated idea that needs to be abolished. We need the one vote - one person form of democracy. This is good for Democrats and Republicans

  • Pfo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    That would be the only hope that the Democrats would ever have of regaining control of the government, and they'd only cater to NY and California. That would be great if you live in NY or Cali, but I don't, so no thank you. Besides, I don't trust 60% of my fellow citizens to vote with a brain, or the brain they are voting with.

  • 1 decade ago

    We need to let people vote. One person, one vote.

    No electoral college, super delegates, etc.

  • 1 decade ago

    no and heres why . some states have less people in it then some major cities, so why should those that live in the major city take the voice away from the people that dont live in highly populated states.

    south dakota has less people then sacramento , so basicly sacromento would erase the votes from south dakota .

    the reason for it is so every state has a say not just the major cities

  • 1 decade ago

    No, if we went by popular vote then there would be nothing but left wing liberal democrats in office, as there huge voting base is in the city's where all the governement give away and social welfare programs are!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.