Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[Southpaw]

I understand why it was needed when we started this country and why we needed the electoral college but should we switch to the total popular vote now? Also should poling results be let out before voting ends in the US?

[Python14]

I think the electorial college should stay. It has worked for 200+ years, and only when it actually clearly decided the election did it become an issue with some people.

The purpose of it is to prevent candidates from just going to the big cities. Under a populous vote, if a candidate managed to win in the top 10 major metropolitan areas, he'd win without ever even campaigning on the grassroots level. The upper midwest minus Chitown would be ignored, as would many areas of the south and southwest.

[shartley]

[shartley]

Originally posted by Python14
I think the electorial college should stay. It has worked for 200+ years, and only when it actually clearly decided the election did it become an issue with some people.

The purpose of it is to prevent candidates from just going to the big cities. Under a populous vote, if a candidate managed to win in the top 10 major metropolitan areas, he'd win without ever even campaigning on the grassroots level. The upper midwest minus Chitown would be ignored, as would many areas of the south and southwest.

This however is a valid point.

[Southpaw]

I also am in favor of media blackout it seems to me that it would be fair to those of you who live in the western states!

[banzaimf]

I favor the electoral college. This basically comes down to a states rights issue for me. Electoral college gives the smaller states a larger say than they would under a populace system. Personally, I would be interested in seeing the pro's and con's of an electoral college system that worked by district instead of state.

[PyRo]

I like the popular vote idea. I don't understand why a smaller state should have as much power as a bigger state. My vote should count for less just because there are more people in my state?

[Python14]

because, the smaller states deserve representation too. A president is supposed to represent the entire country, not just the people who vote for him. If that was the case, then all we'd have would be "Big Business" presidents who can appeal to the people in the cities.

Ever hear of a Tyrannical Majority? The people in the cities would call the shots, and the people in the smaller cities and rural areas would get the shaft.

[cphilip]

Our fore fathers had a great wisdom here. The electoral college works. And works well. Look at the states votes in the last election vs popular votes and you can quickly see why it worked.

Its a very fair method of representing the entire Countries wishes. Not just a few very populated states. For National elections it evens out the whole diversity of the views of the population. It would not be so applicable to local and state elections. In the case of representing all the states it works beautifully.

This was not the first time that its been triggered either.

It amazes me how very foresightfull the founders of this country really were. It really does.

[Collegeboy]

I still believe in the Electoral College and believe it is needed just as much today as it was then.

[Southpaw]

Ok Media blackout until last voting booth closes or not? And Why

[SpongeBobSquarePants]

Electoral college. It seems to be a pretty simple system and has worked for 200+ years. Why fix what isn't broken.

[Jack_Dubious]

What do my SAT's need to be to be accepted to the Electoral College?

We still need the electoral college. Without it, only states with high populations would matter. States with a low population...but still with significant contributions (e.g. agriculture), would be screwed over.

Electoral College is here to stay....even if thier football team sucks.

JDub

Besides...if it were up to the majority of Americans, Gore would be president now.

[PyRo]

Cphilip just thinks that because the population of his state is 10, and his vote alone probably counts for 3 electoral votes :)
If you do the math though a vote from someone in NY, California, or other highly popluated state doesn't count for as much as it does in a much less populated state.

You agree that small states should have as much representation as big states why shouldn't everything be like that.
That must mean that its ok, to to have a system saying all schools must have 25% hispanics, 25% african americans, 25% asians, and 25% caucasion, but of course to be fair we would need to narrow the groups down much more than that. It doesn't matter if one group is the majority all groups should be represented equally. Who agrees with that?
In my opinion Gore should be the president righ now. The majority of voters wanted Gore. I don't think that we should call our country a democracy (be definition we arn't), when someone can loose the popular vote and still be elected.

[than205]

Besides, how else would a republican get voted in?

At least that's what conventional wisdom would dictate.