? asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 8 years ago

Should we get rid of the electoral college?

Why or why not?

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Map
    Lv 6
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The Electoral College was set up to keep the Presidential contest National and not regional. Because of the Electoral College each candidate is force to at least look at each state. He/she is forced to look at the entire USA. Without the Electoral College the candidates would be able to concentrate on a much smaller area. A smaller area is also easier to promote voter fraud. We all know that voter fraud takes place. However the Electoral College means you must look at more than one area of the nation. Most people feel that the Electoral College benefits the Large states such as California, Texas, New York to name a few but in reality it benefits the small states. The candidate needs our votes in many states to reach that 270.

    If you look at past election maps {showing Electoral College votes}

    http://www.270towin.com/

    you will find that sometimes Texas votes for the Democratic candidate and sometimes California votes for the Republican candidate. Any election is up for grabs. If you are a died in the wool Republican your electors will not go to Sacramento to cast votes for the President as often but it can happen. That is why you should vote for you candidate in every election.

    435 members of the House of Representatives

    100 members of the Senate

    . . 3 votes for Washington D. C.

    -----------------------

    538/ 2 = 269 + 1 = Magic # of 270

    Remember Senators & Representatives may not be an elector we just count them to get the # of votes per state.

    The Electoral College usually gives us the winner of the election the night of the election. Without the Electoral College you will have many more elections such as 2000. The winner was not known for several weeks. Without the Electoral College you will expect many candidates, not just the 5 or 6 we have now, but 20 or 30 or even more. So no one will have a majority and then who will be president? Will we have a run off election, with the top 10 candidates? Or will we then have another run off election of the top 3 candidates?

    I do not see any advantage of a popular election unless you want to bribe a small area of the nation.

    Edit:

    By the Way, Albert Gore, Jr. was from the state of Tennessee. He won 266 Electoral Votes in 2000 but he did not win his own state of Tennessee. His own state did not think he should be President. Had Gore won Tennessee he would have 266+11=277 Electoral Votes and the Presidency.

    No we should not get rid of the Electoral College.

    Map

  • holl
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    the congress can not eliminate the electoral college. that ought to take an ammendment to the structure, and in uncomplicated words the persons can attempt this. each state has to vote on it, and prefer the electoral college, each state ought to get an equivalent vote. the smaller, a lot less populated states are literally unlikely to vote it out, because it change into positioned there to substantiate they'd an equivalent voice contained in the first position, anybody is going to vote hostile to their pastimes. The electoral college change into put in position because some states are extra densly populated than others. it really is designed with the intention to provide the smaller states a voice to be heard.

  • No, and before the lefitist BS pours out let me put it this way. The United States of America is not a Democracy as they would have you believe. It is a Republic, the reason we can't have the popular vote is because the highly populated (mostly left) states would always get their candidates, which is great, except most of the land in the US is under represented, and that land is where our resources are. The electoral college helps maintain a balance between the places with most of our people and the places with most of the products that those other people use.

  • 8 years ago

    Not totally. But I believe that it would be more representative of the people's choice if the votes were apportioned by state. For example:If a candidate gets 60% of the votes in a state that has 20 electoral delegates, he gets 12 votes. His opponent gets 8. Fair ?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The electoral college is how the states elect a president to represent the union. The people are represented in the House of Representatives. Please read Article II.

  • andy
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Research into how the electoral college got inserted in the first place. That will answer your question.

  • Joshua
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Republicans will always say no, because they cannot win a Presidential Election without it, it is a party thing. If the electoral college were destroyed Obama would win by a landslide, screw campaigning in swing states, he would be up and down the west and east coast. I think it should be destroyed, all it has done is allow for the minority party to elect a President and force minority tyranny.

  • Mark
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Yes. Presidents should get elected nationwide just like every Governor gets elected in each state. Also, no more election outcomes like 2000 -- the person winning the most popular votes losing the EC vote.

    Also, we need a constitutional amendment that provides a schedule for when states can hold primaries and caucuses, and the schedule should not start any earlier than April 1.

  • Desire
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Not a good idea.

    Dump Obama 2012

  • 8 years ago

    And give all the power to New York, Texas, and California? No. But we should equalize it to the popular vote per state.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.