I know it is our CONSTITUTIONAL WAY of formally electing a president, but I have had some interesting conversations lately that make me understand why people do not vote. Here is my example: I live in Texas. Bush will carry Texas with at least 70% of the popular vote. So, me taking the time to carry out my civic duty and to vote for Kerry is almost a waste since in the longrun the electoral vote is what decides the presidency, and you do not get credit for carrying 30% of a state. Many people in Texas will not vote in this election because a vote for Kerry is basically a wasted vote by all standards. The same will go in the northeast for Bush since that is Kerry country. Do any of you feel the electoral college system should be changed to give credit in the electoral college based on what percentage of the popular vote you receive in the election? I personally feel this is a must so that people do not feel as though they are "wasting" their vote. This also would have made the last election much more interesting.
then what would be the point of keeping the electoral college at all? if the electoral college was a proportional representation of actual popular vote, it would be completely pointless. but yes, i do agree that popular vote should determine the president. it is stupid that my vote in jersey is far more relevant in the race than my buddy who lives a 3 minute train ride away in new york because jersey is a swing state while new york is big time kerry. like yours, his vote has no chance of mattering.
Someone will probably explain this much better than me - but your proposal is a bad idea. Under your proposal - candidates need only campaign in California, Texas, Florida and a few other heavily populated states. This gives those states way too much power, and this is the reason the electoral college was created. If the poplular vote was implemented, then a president only need to pay attention to aforementioned states during his term, because as long as those states are happy he gets re-elected. This means companies doing business in those states get priority, b/c as long as those states are vibrant then people are happy and that candidate is a shoe in the next election. Meanwhile - your poor ass in La gets the shaft b/c your state is not very heavily populated, at least not like Fl or California is.
I bet George W Bush likes it the way it is. Majority should rule. Imagine being Al Gore. More Americans vote for you than George Bush and you lose! I seriously doubt it will ever change. No $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for States like Montana, North Dakota and so on........
i dunno if that is correct. i believe the electoral college was created so we could elect electors to go represent us and vote on our behalf, because the country is so big we have no chance of meeting or seeing or knowing much abhout the candidates. now that isnt true because we have instant media 24 hours a day.
No this is the reason it was created. It was also the reason there is the house and the senate - the senate was created to even up the playing field. This does not allow large populated states to take over the federal govt.
"the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." - hamilton, the federalist papers, on the purpose of the electoral college. basically they wanted a group of smart guys to go decide on the president. we just elected which smart guys. your reason is somewhat true, but mine is more true.
I would not say your answer is "more true". If anything, your answer as to why we have it (not why it was created) is now obsolete (as you mentioned) but my reply indicates why it is still needed today. It also backs up my assertion as to why the posters idea was a bad one.
Yes this is correct. When the EC was originally created it was because they wanted to empower the people to vote for a president but at the same time did not necessarily trust them to be knowledgeable about all of the candidates. Hence the EC, or failsafe mechanim. Anyways you stated it well. Edit: Also at the time the EC was created there were two factions or beliefs. One group wanting Congress to have the authority to elect teh president and the other wanting the people to be able to do so. The EC was a compromise.
There are two states, Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their EC votes proportionally according to the popular vote in those states. I would like to see this be a standard in all states. However, the way it is all written up right now, individual states have the power to decide how to allocate their EC votes. This would mean that in order for change to occur nation-wide, all the remaining states would have to make amendments or there would have to be one federal amendment that encompasses them all. The individual states have fought, historically, to keep such powers and I am not so sure a federal amendment would be successful.
