yes. i dont see the point of electoral colleges. they see we have the freedom to express our own opinions? i dont see the freedom of expressing here when our vote doesnt even count!

I say yes.
The electoral college was originally created before there was TV and huge, nationwide campaigning. It was so stupid, uninformed America wouldn't make a mistake. It should absolutely be eliminated because of the technology, nationally broadcast debates, and the general political knowledge people have. The majority of our presidents have gotten the lesser popular vote, but win because of the electoral college.
it's silly and outdated and needs to go!
aaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm done.

That's not entirely true. As far as I know, it has only happened twice--once in the late 1800's, and once in 2000. It may have happened a handful of other times, but not in the majority of cases.

Having said that, the issue of the electoral college is a sticky one. In some ways, I feel it's time for it to go. As has been pointed out, the electoral college is a throwback to the days when candidates simply could not campaign all over the US; thus most people were uninformed, so they elected proxies who they trusted to make an informed decision. Of course, political parties now have pledged electors, and with the advent of TV and the Internet, it's easy for a candidate to get his message out anywhere in the US.

The issue comes up that candidates may only campaign in major metropolitan areas, such as NYC or LA, and some might say that's not fair; then again, it's also not fair, in my mind, that a lot of people in the south can throw an election, too (such as happened in 2000).

actuallly it's happened like... 4 or 5 times or so. 1800s presidents; doesn't really make a difference tho.



the main problem with the electoral college is it makes for a president that only appeals to certain sections of the country.

It occurred 4 times: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

i do think the electoral college should be eliminated. as in the case of indiana - there's some counties with a lot of people who tend to lean democratic, and a lot of counties with little amounts of people but who tend to lean republican. indiana is counted as republican because of these little counties, even though the democratic counties have more people. this way indiana is counted as republican votes even though a large chunk of indiana is democratic.

i don't think that's fair..and that's because of the electoral college. if it was based on popular votes, the democratics in indiana would have their vote actually count. this way, it doesn't even matter if you vote if you're democratic in indiana. it's going to turn out republican no matter what.

i have only spent 3 days of my life in a blue state.

my vote will never count.

which is what i feel. you know. even if i do live in a small island of blue in a sea of red...
(my county has blue leanings... it's about 50/50)

It must've been the best three days of your life.

i feel your pain justin!
i spent years 0-6 of my life in a blue state, but it's not like i cared then...

yea... the Electoral College is there for a reason... it's only failed the US a few times.. out of the 50+ elections we've had.... It's fine

^ but what is the real benefit of it? it doesn't really serve much purpose anymore.

the point of the electoral college is the founding fathers didn't think the average american was smart enough. so they've vote for who they thought was the smartest and most responsible, and this was their elector to the electoral college.

at the electoral college, all the smartest people in the country would vote for who they thought was the smartest, and the smartest person would be president.


therefore; the electoral college is not being used correctly, and thus is pointless.

It's not so much that they weren't smart enough; rather, the Founding Fathers felt that most candidates would not be able to reach each and every voter, and therefore, the average American would not be informed enough to make a good decision. The point remains, though, that today, it's easy for a candidate to reach each and every voter, so the original intent of the electoral college is voided.

It's not very representative. A state like New York would allow the same or similar number of votes a much lower populated state. The votes should be more well distributed. It also does not include the popular votes.

Oh, contraire. It serves a very useful purpose.

1) If you look at the way the 538 electoral votes are split up, California leads the pack with 55 electoral votes, and states like North Dakota and Wyoming bring up the rear with just three.

That gives you a 3:55 ratio, which equates to ND having 5% of the Electoral influence that CA has.

When it comes to population, CA was estimated at 35,484,453 in 2003, whereas ND weighed in at only 633,837, which isn't even half the size of over a dozen of California's cities.

Now, if only the popular vote was factored into an election, North Dakota's influence would be just 1.7% of California's.

When you look at it this way, I'd say that the Electoral College gives states like North Dakota and Wyoming a much louder voice come election time.

2) It serves as the voice of the people. Only in two states (Nebraska and Maine, Nebraska: 5 electoral votes, Maine: 4 electoral votes) can the Electors split their votes. Hence, in 49 of the 51 U.S. territories, the people are represented exactly how they vote. The Electors are:

a) More qualified in making a leadership decision.
b) Elected by you.
c) Voting according to how you vote.

When you look at how these two scenarios factor into an election, it should be obvious that the Electoral College still holds valuable influence in choosing the commander-in-chief.

ehh.

it gives these states an unfair advantage. a vote in DC counts more than a vote in california.

shouldn't a vote be a vote?

How does it give these states an unfair advantage?

DC's influence Electorally is 5% of California's.

Isn't it the very same people claiming that the Electoral College sucks that are ranting about the 'little guy's' voice not being heard?

Tell me how you please that kind of person...

i dont rly care bout politics

How do you figure they're more qualified? First of all, anyone can be equally informed about politics today; it's not like in the 18th and 19th centuries, when many people didn't even know their candidates. Secondly, with pledged electors, electors generally vote for their party's candidate, not necessarily who they feel is the best candidate.

Get real.

At least 75% of the people who vote these days haven't a clue about politics, especially about how influential one decision can be on the outcome of something years down the road.

On the contrary, if you can find one unqualified Elector (and believe me, there are stringent prerequisites that come along with the title), I will retract my subpoint a).

Oh, and by the way, your second statement is untrue. A Republican Elector in California would have been essentially forced to elect Kerry. Why?

The Electoral College makes it so that the Elector votes according to his state.

If anything, the College eliminates fraud such as the instance you pointed out. It doesn't foster it.

Do you honestly think the Democratic candidate will pick Republic electors to represent him in a state (or vice-versa)?

Secondly, the Electoral College does not force anything. I can vote for one of Kerry's electors, and he can in turn vote for Bush instead. It has happened before. Electors can also choose not to vote, as one elector did in 2000 (she was from Washington, D.C.).

I'm not sure you understand how the Electoral College works. When you vote, you vote not for a candidate, but for electors who have been sponsored by that candidate's party and have pledged to vote for him. When the candidate carries a state, all his electors go to the College to cast their votes. However, they are in no way obligated to vote for whom they pledged to vote. They usually do, because they are generally some of the most loyal members of the party, but there is no law saying they have to vote how they said they would.

Okay excuse me, I guess I forgot to mention the .00001% of instances.

You and I both know that the Electors from each state usually, 99% of the time vote according to how the people in their state vote.

Next time I'll mention the percentage that doesn't matter.

EDIT//

Which is exactly the point of swing states...

Electoral votes aren't casted until the Electors are sure of the general populus' decision.

ehh.

i'm complaining about my vote not counting becasue i'm in a red state.

i don't care about the little guy's voice, if the litte guy is a state. if the little guy is a person, they should get an equal vote.

that being said; my vote counts for nothing.

Without the electoral college, whoever is more popular would win and the canidates won't spend time campaning in some cities.

1) If that's the way you want to look at it, I feel sorry for you.
2) When you're 18, by all means, move to a blue state.