Electoral college, should it be eliminated? Options

[sadolakced acid]

Should the electoral college be eliminated?

with it, a person could loose every state by 1 vote except california, and win california by a landslide and then loose the race.

with it, democrats in red states feel thier vote doesn't count, and republicans in blue states feel thier vote doesn't count.

if the electoral college were to be eliminated, then everyone's vote would count.

[sammi rules you]

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

[*CrackedRearView*]

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

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.

[*mipadi*]

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

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.

[*CrackedRearView*]

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.