Posted By: Shar
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 129
|
Electoral college
When governor is elected, he is the choice of the majority of the
people of that state. The same holds true for congressional and senate
seats. However, if a president were elected by popular vote, he would
be elected by the heavily populated states rather than a representation
of all states. Even though the electoral vote was close in 2000, I
believe Bush carried a higher percentage of states.
I think our founding fathers still had the right idea.
|
Posted By: kk
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 142
|
voting
I am from the east coast, and for year did not understand the electoral
votes...it is true each state is for their own issues and if it were a
popular vote what California, NY & NJ wanted would always win due to
more people. This is a good way to balance all of America can have an
opinion, not just large cities or crowded states.
|
Posted By: mike
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 179
|
Electoral College
In my opinion, I think the electoral college should stay because it
reflects our federalist system of government. It isn't just the people
who elect the president - it's also the states. In 2000, for example,
Bush won the popular vote in 30 states, whereas Gore only won in 20.
The electoral college helped to balance the disparity between the states
and collective population.
|
Posted By: Perelandra
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 183
|
Popular Vote
Sorry, but I think the electoral college is an outdated system. With
the lightning-fast communications we have now, a national popular vote
is doable. There's no reason to believe that the East and West coasts
would dominate everything, or even that the liberalism noted by someone
else here is a natural characteristic of those localities. I think we
might just see a bigger turnout at the polls if folks believed that
their vote counted for more than an "elector" (and who -are- these
"electors," anyway? Are they chosen at random, like for jury duty, or
are they some elite class?).
Of course, as long as I'm having pipe dreams, what about a national
referendum vote to approve or disapprove Congressional pay raises? We
-are- the ones they're supposed to be working for...
|
Posted By: Dan
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 192
|
electoral
We still need the Electoral vote. Otherwise The most populated parts of
the country decide everything. Both coasts and the large cities in the
country are for the most part liberal. If they are allowed to gain more
control this country will be ruined.
|
Posted By: Lisa S.
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 199
|
Constitutional Change?
The only way to move from the electoral college to the popular vote is
to change the constitution, if I remember correctly.
Do we really want to take the time and effort to do that when there are
so many things that need attention?
|
Posted By: PhilCollins
Posted On: 2 days ago
Views: 203
|
Popular vote
I have a B.A. in political science, from the Univ. of Arkansas, and
I think that only the popular vote should be used.
In U.S. Senate elections, the candidate who receives the most votes
wins. In governor elections, the candidate who receives the most votes
wins. The presidential election is the most important election in the
country, so it should also be won by the candidate who receives the most
votes.
I read that the majority of Lutherans are Republicans. In 1988,
Bush beat Dukakis, 54%-46%. Among Lutherans, Bush won, 63%-37%.
|
Posted By: Ken Howes
Posted On: 3 days ago
Views: 211
|
popular vote in elections
There's a simple reason to maintain the electoral college. There have
been innumerable elections in which no one got a majority of the popular
vote--1824, 1860, 1876, 1884, 1912, 1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, 2000.
But only once in history (1824) has there not been a majority of the
Electoral College for someone.
The electoral college means that when there's a dispute as to the vote
count, you just recount the state where that dispute occurs. Do you
want to have to recount a whole nation's votes? Think what 1960 or 2000
would have been under those circumstances. Now, Bush didn't ask for
recounts in Iowa and Wisconsin in 2000. He could have. And suppose he
had actually pushed the issue of those 100% turnouts in Philadelphia and
Milwaukee precincts that went 90%+ for Gore. Things get nuts.
But with the Electoral College, it all came down to the question of some
substandard ballots in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, and some
chicanery in trying to keep military ballots from being counted in a
couple of other counties.
They didn't even really have to recount every county in the state, just
about five counties. It was over in about ten days.
Going to a straight popular vote means that recounts will be
nationwide--multiply what happened in 2000 by 1000 and you have what
you'd be dealing with. No thanks.
|
Posted By: Thomas Pellitieri
Posted On: 3 days ago
Views: 213
|
An Historic Note
I forgot to mention that I believe the Electoral College made a LOT more
sense before efficient trans-continental travel and mass communication.
It allows people to choose a local (i.e., State) official to make an
informed decision regarding the National Candidate, who otherwise might
not be known to the general public.
|
Posted By: Thomas Pellitieri
Posted On: 3 days ago
Views: 214
|
Electoral College
I agree that the "Winner take All" approach is the problem.
Unfortunately, the process of choosing electors is left to the
individual States. Fortunately, some States have made changes to allow
for a split Electoral vote.
Every State gets one Elector for each member of Congress (2 Senators + x
Representatives), plus D.C. gets 3 (same as the smallest state).
Personally, I'd like to see the electors assigned this way:
1) Each House District gets an elector based on the popular vote in that
District (= the number of Representatives).
2) One Elector is chosen based on the Statewide Popular Vote.
3) One Elector is chosedn based on winning a majority of the House
Districts. In the event of a tie (e.g., when a State has an even number
of Districts), the winner would be determined by counting the popular
votes only in the District the candidate won.
In other words, the popular votes for the candidates who did not win in
a District are not counted for the tie-breaker. Otherwise, it would be
the same as the Popular Vote. This could mean that someone could win
the total popular vote by a slim margin, but they could lose the other
vote if the votes were concentrated in only a few districts.
Just my opinion, of course... :->
|
Posted By: Mike G
Posted On: 3 days ago
Views: 222
|
Electoral College
The Electoral College is not the problem. It is a last ditch effort to
prevent a "Adolf Hitler" type person from being elected.
It is the "Winner take all" provision which I object to. Proportional
electoral college votes to General Election votes is the fair way of
doing things.
If my candidate gets 60% of the General Election votes, he/she should
get 60% of the Electoral College vote in that state (instead of 100% of
the Electoral College votes)
|
Posted By: MR Voter
Posted On: 3 days ago
Views: 262
|
Electoral College
I used to think the Electoral College was a crazy way to elect our
President.
In recent days however, the actions of the Governor in New York make me
believe the forefathers that set up our current system were pretty
smart.
|