keep or get rid of the electoral college?
i'm writing an essay on whether or not we should keep the electoral college, i need some help on topics to use for either preference.
any information, or sources would be much appreciated.
- Anonymous7 years agoFavorite Answer
It still serves a useful purpose today. Keep it. Its original intention was to level
the voting playing field. Still works today,
- 7 years ago
The electoral college mirrors the Congress of the US. (435 Congressmen +100 Senators +3 votes for DC thanks to the 23rd Amendment= 538 total Electoral College votes).
We don't have a democracy but a republic and that is a tradeoff we have had since the beginning. Two California senators represents over 38 million people while 2 Wyoming senators represent a little over 500,000 people. Is that fair? In a democracy, no. But this republic was based on such a system and removing the Electoral College will make our elections simple to understand.
Perhaps a more fair way would be to have all states change their constitutions to have the Electoral College vote be apportioned based on the popular vote like Maine and Nebraska do.
- wayfaroutthereLv 77 years ago
Get rid of it. The reason we have it is that the founding fathers were a little scared of their democracy experiment. They wanted a safety valve so that if a stupid but charismatic person charmed the country into voting for him, while the whole establishment knew he would wreck everything, there would be a safety valve to prevent the charismatic idiot from becoming president. This is why you are not allowed to vote for President, and instead vote for Electors for a President.
There were other reasons as well, but dirty politics has brought things to the point that the other good reasons have turned into other political reasons. Part of the reason for the electoral college was to give more power to rural areas and the south. They wanted democracy, but a simple 'one man one vote' method would have led to the more populous northern cities requiring less support from rural or southern areas to get elected.
Now it's turned ridiculous. Gerrymandering is one problem, but let's skip it and look bigger. A person from Wyoming has their vote count more than a Californian's vote would, because they still get three electoral votes even though there aren't many people there. On the other hand, since Wyoming is all spread out and only worth three electors, nobody campaigns there--they campaign in California. Then add in the all-or-or nothing way that the states distribute the electors, and we naturally will only have two parties. And if you are part of the 30% of Texas that votes Democrat, then you don't even need to show up to the polls, unless you just want to prove that it isn't true that all Texans are Republicans.
Denlp: The small states are already ignored, except Iowa and New Hampshire.
One adult, one vote. Why do we complicate it?
- ShriLv 44 years ago
No, one person, one vote. To the people that say it should remain because a small geographic regoin would dominate the country - that's simply not true. Each and every person's vote would matter exactly equally, as opposed to right now, where someone in Wyoming has a much bigger vote than I do. I fail to see how each person getting an exactly equal say is bad. If that means that urban areas dominate the political process - well, if that's where most of the people are, so be it. Furthermore, right NOW our national elections are dominate by small regions - Florida and Ohio choose the President and get all the attention every time, the rest of the country gets divided up and written off by each side.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
we may modify it, but we will keep it, without question.
The electoral college ensures that smaller states have skin in the game when it comes to electing presidents--otherwise roughly 5 states would elect our president. It would take 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment eliminating the electoral college. There are at least 25 states which would never consider doing so. (Some of them are democratic controlled so it's not a republican vs democrat thing).
Won't happen--there would never be sufficent states to ratify an amendment to eliminate it. What you might find all states amenable to is a constituional amendment which eliminates the college itself--and simply gives the candidate the electoral votes for that state
- denlp96Lv 57 years ago
On the whole, I believe we should keep the Electoral College. Without it, presidential candidates would completely ignore the smaller and more sparsely populated states.
Love Doctor: We HAVE a proportional electoral system. Its called The Electoral College (number of votes in the Electoral College is determined by representation in the House; representation in the House is based on population)
- Anonymous7 years ago
Revise the all-or-nothing aspect ... (as some States already have)
Give one to the winner & split the rest proportionate to the popular vote.
and if an odd number, the majority to the winner.
Candidates already ignore all but Swing-States because of it, so the original "intent" has been permanently bastardized. All they need is 11 States to "Win", and they know it.
If we had an 11 State Country, no problem, but we don't.
- Anonymous7 years ago
get rid of it and introduce a proportionally representative electoral system
edit:no, by "proportionally representative", I mean *not* first past the post. I mean a system where every party receives representation in congress according to their votes and *not* just one party that gets the most votes. if this were the case (like in most of the european countries), people would actually vote for the other parties
- Dan L BounLv 77 years ago
I think I would lean toward, doing away with it... If I remember correctly, there's been four times in American history... The popular vote, & the electoral, didn't match... In my mind, four times, is one more, than allowed in base ball strikes....
- 7 years ago
How ELSE do you recommend the States vote for their President?