Do you think they should get rid of the electoral college?

I think its time, I know the purpose back in the day when we were still a developing nation, was to make sure one state didnt elect the president all by itself but now since America is fully populated I think its time to get rid of it...Its kinda weird when a candidate wins the popular vote but not the electoral vote because the popular vote represents what the people want.

15 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    I finally learned how the electoral college works!! if the electors didn't cheat and discard the popular vote by voting for whoever they chose, i would say it wouldn't be so bad to keep the electoral college but on the other hand,i don't understand why they just can't count how many votes for each candidate and scrap the electors altogether. I don't see how it's unfair to smaller states to just count the population votes because wouldn't it be america as a whole and not state by state? so the larger states wouldn't have some unfair advantage over the smaller states because in the end it's what the people of america wants as a whole and not what california wants, or kansas or something. every "one" person's "one" vote weighs just the same as someone else's vote in another state. i don't know if you can understand what i just said. lol.

    basically the college is still unfair because the smaller states still have less electors than the larger states. so wth?

  • 1 decade ago

    NO!!!

    Why do you want to take away the voice of those who don't live in big cities and over-populated areas where illegals have taken over? What about the farmers? Don't they mean anything in America?

    We have enough corruption in our nation without throwing away our Constitutional rights along with our freedom, liberty and sovereignty.

    People in less populated areas might as well not bother voting at all since their voice would never be heard. Their democracy in our republic would end. Unless you lived in the city, your vote wouldn't count.

    It's not just the big states vs small states, it's country vs the mass populations of cities.

    Let me put it in simpler terms so you can better understand.

    If the government has alotted a million dollars to improve the roads in areas of a state but want the people of the state to vote on who needs it the most by voting, which system would be most fair to the whole state?

    The popular vote would mean all major cities would get their roads repaired while those across the rest of the state would have to travel on roads with great potholes because their voice would never be heard.

    With an electoral vote, less populated areas but wider expanses would have a chance at getting their roads repaired.

    Maybe even more basic survivor info will make a little more sense to someone who doesn't understand that there are many people who support the cities by raising/growing food for the whole state. They don't just feed the country people. Otherwise you would starve or get your food from China.

    But if the farmers can't have a vote, maybe they should come up with their own system and ignore those in the cities - just let the city people try to figure out where to get their food from because it's not their problem. This is the same as the heavier populated areas not caring about those who live in wide expanses of land who feed you.

    The electoral vote was created by our forefathers because they actually thought about how things would affect everyone throughout the whole state and our whole nation as it existed, not just those in concentrated areas where the popular vote would always outweigh the country vote whether they agreed or disagreed upon issues.

    I agree with musicman that our electoral vote needs to be updated for today's populas since there have been many shifts in population.

    I also think votes by the county makes sense. It would be like holding a lot of small elections across our land and then each county result would turn in their votes - not as a state, but all counties would count. Larger cites might have their county split into more than one county vote for fairness so the wide expanses of farmland wouldn't have a voice over the cities, but to create a balance throughout the state.

    No more state votes consolidated. This would give people a better "popular" vote while allowing both city and country people to truly have a voice. This would still be considered an electoral vote since counties would represent the votes of their county to be counted with all other counties without consolidating the counties into a state vote.

    Just think, politicians would have to talk to all people to find out what everyone desires to get their vote. This would be fair representation throughout our nation.

    The next problem would be to prevent states from creating more counties to have a better say - as in a large state like Texas would always have more votes than a small state like Delaware. Can you imagine the big states splitting up their states into little tiny counties for more votes in their state and little states having counties that consist of a few houses?

    And you know, by the time you get done splitting it all up so that their is a fairness in the size of the counties and number of counties in a state, you end up with an electoral vote for today.

    I also think this same electoral vote should be used during the primaries and not limit the primaries to a two party system. There are many very qualified candidates who never have their voice heard with today's way of selecting candidates.

    What if a candidate running for President was not allowed to use party affiliation in their campaign? What if they could only run by using their name, past experience and votes on issues and promises for the future or how they would correct a problem? What if it was narrowed down to the top 10 candidates in the primary for President? The debates would be more interesting and we would have a better selection to choose from on election day.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The electoral college gives smaller states a chance and prevents New York and California from running the country all of the time.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    i think it should be changed. should we be able to vote directly for president? no.. because people are still not very well educated.. instead of direct voting it should go by county or something.. like if the majority of the county vote for ralph nader, then the county will register as a vote for nader and that = one vote. and most votes wins..

    i think that would give a more accurate measure of who the people want and removes the population issue.

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

    Well,I mean it's tradition so I don't see them getting rid of it. I personally do not like it because I feel like my vote doesn't really "count" it's just kinda up to the people of the state. I would rather us not have it,but ya know we cant just change what the government thinks. I think were pretty much stuck with it for a while.

    Source(s): I learned about all this in my government class.
  • Alan S
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Absolutely. If the founders had the communication network and data processing speed we have now they would never have even thought about creating such a cumbersome system for counting votes. It was conceived to address the conditions of the time and was an excellent plan in it's day but it's day has passed.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Finally someone has the balls to say our vote doesn't really count anymore and guess what the electoral vote is superseded now

    by the SUPER DELEGATES

  • tom
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    There is no right for people to vote in the presidential election, believe it or not. that would make my answer NO!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No. Unless you want the candidates to only campaign in new york and california.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, they do need to go.

    If they're only going to count their votes, then why have they bothered us these past 2 years?

    Are our votes going to matter at all?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.