Should America get rid of the Electoral College

[Drake McHugh]

By doing so, you effectively exclude the votes of those that were not in the 60% or greater block and simply revert to a pseudo democracy...

I don't support getting rid of the electoral college in the first place. Just saying I think it's a better way to go that a straight up popular vote. Most states were under 60% for either Obama or Romney. Even states like Illinois and Louisiana.
A popular vote sounds tempting in theory,but I don't think it would work very well.

 

[Woodman909]

When I look at recent threads like ...Should we look for ways to vote on issues and not on parties..... I think this is a bad idea. Why....simply because the average American would not have the time to watch congress every move ...unlike them ...we have to work for a living. And all this would do is allow old people ...and those with little to do control the country.

But if we got rid of the electoral college system ...that would allow a democratic voter in South Carolina for example and a republican voter in California to actually mean something.
I would bet money that a poll on this issue ...that would allow the people to really and truly speak ....would be resisted more by those on the right.
Why go through this sham every four years where Ohio and FL for example actually decide the presidency?

In my view ...it's the people that matter and not ..."the land" .

When you look at a MAP diving the country in red and blue ...visually...you wonder how democrats ever win an election.

But often the reality is how do they lose any election over the last 30 years..

I have to agree with this OP, strange as it may seem but maybe not for the same reasons. Democrats win elections because highly populated states with democratic strongholds have more electoral votes than other states regardless of how many square miles a state may occupy. The inequity is the result of both parties gerrymandering to draw districts to gain a political edge in high population areas. This makes the electorate representation invalid. They should post a grid over the state and you are represented from within your square, period. If the state is more highly populated, then make the squares smaller in that state. It may or may not change the flavor of congress, but it would be more fairly representative. But for national elections, I think the electorate is outdated and should be eliminated.

 

[PirateMk1]

LOL......yeah ...the majority elected President can't grant freedom for all ....but a minority elected leader will ...LOL what a dumb statement.:lamo

Why not just roll the clock back to the days of King's and Queens .... based on your theory....then we would really be free!!

It's so amazing how the right wing want nothing to do with ....the actual will of the people!!

Your moniker must be in jest as your reply shows no thought. If you actually thought about what I said instead of mocked then you would know that those who have our position in favor of federal republics is a nuanced position. If you actually abided by your moniker that is. You sound like HJ's sock puppet.

 

[lizzie]

LOL......yeah ...the majority elected President can't grant freedom for all ....but a minority elected leader will ...LOL what a dumb statement.:lamo

Why not just roll the clock back to the days of King's and Queens .... based on your theory....then we would really be free!!

It's so amazing how the right wing want nothing to do with ....the actual will of the people!!

A pure democracy is not freedom. It's mob rule.

 

[cabse5]

No. The presidential popular votes of large states would cancel out the presidential popular votes of many smallish states. Iowa and New Hampshire, for examples, would never see a presidential debate, nor would any presidential candidates/presidents care about any issues specific to those states.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

No. The presidential popular votes of large states would cancel out the presidential popular votes of many smallish states. Iowa and New Hampshire, for examples, would never see a presidential debate, nor would any presidential candidates/presidents care about any issues specific to those states.

First where the debate is actually held ...in todays connected world ...is irrelevant.
A poor person in Australia today ...if they care.... has more real time access and information on these debates than people in America who live in Washington DC had in the 50's and before.

And the argument about sates being ignored is empty. How many times did each candidate held rallies in Ohio and FL this last election compared to places like Kansas or even GA? We can still elect senators and house member to represent the states.

Get rid of the sham electoral college scheme. All the twist and bend ...mainly coming from those on the right resisting this simple idea ...occurs for one fundamental reason ....they are frightened and deadly afraid of the concept behind ....the-will-of-the-people!!

 

[poweRob]

Death to the EC!

 

[washunut]

First where the debate is actually held ...in todays connected world ...is irrelevant.
A poor person in Australia today ...if they care.... has more real time access and information on these debates than people in America who live in Washington DC had in the 50's and before.

And the argument about sates being ignored is empty. How many times did each candidate held rallies in Ohio and FL this last election compared to places like Kansas or even GA? We can still elect senators and house member to represent the states.

Get rid of the sham electoral college scheme. All the twist and bend ...mainly coming from those on the right resisting this simple idea ...occurs for one fundamental reason ....they are frightened and deadly afraid of the concept behind ....the-will-of-the-people!!

Well I am on the left and believe in a hybrid system using the electoral college and getting rid of winner take all. That gives people in each state real meaning for turning out to vote.

 

[Anagram]

Well I am on the left and believe in a hybrid system using the electoral college and getting rid of winner take all. That gives people in each state real meaning for turning out to vote.

What would you have it replaced with? Proportional vote or by congressional district?

 

[washunut]

What would you have it replaced with? Proportional vote or by congressional district?

First choice would be proportional, so it is not tainted with all the gerrymandering.

 

[Paschendale]

People need representation, not states. Why should presidential elections be decided by just the swing voters in ~10 states? That's less than 1% of the country's population.

First choice would be proportional, so it is not tainted with all the gerrymandering.

Agreed. It's insane that a party can get fewer votes yet control more seats in the House.

 

[Anagram]

Agreed. It's insane that a party can get fewer votes yet control more seats in the House.

I wouldn't say that necessarily. The congressional districts should be contiguous and compact as possible. Since cities are more Democratic than rural areas are Republican, it makes sense that Republicans should have a small advantage in an even year.

But yes, being lucky in a census year should not give you the advantage that it currently does due to gerrymandering.

 

[Paschendale]

I wouldn't say that necessarily. The congressional districts should be contiguous and compact as possible. Since cities are more Democratic than rural areas are Republican, it makes sense that Republicans should have a small advantage in an even year.

But yes, being lucky in a census year should not give you the advantage that it currently does due to gerrymandering.

~70% of the county's population lives in urban areas. So why are urban Democrats a minority in the house? This country is not an even 50/50 split, as much as Republicans might like to pretend.

 

[Anagram]

~70% of the county's population lives in urban areas. So why are urban Democrats a minority in the house? This country is not an even 50/50 split, as much as Republicans might like to pretend.

Urban Democrats aren't a majority because of Democratic districts are more Democratic than Republican districts are Republican. Its mostly because of gerrymandering. But its partly because districts should naturally work that way if you're making districts correctly.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I'm amazed at people who argue for anything other than "one person, one vote." Who cares if large portions of a state's population resides in urban areas when it comes to a "democratic election" for a single office...the Presidency. Every state already gets proportional representation in Congress, and political parties get to gerrymander congressional districts based upon whichever party controls their State legislature.

Why should any low population state demand more impact on a Presidential election than a high population state? The nation's leader is supposed to represent the majority of the population. If you don't happen to be part of that particular majority that election then it's just too bad. Put up a better candidate next time.

 

[PeteEU]

Urban Democrats aren't a majority because of Democratic districts are more Democratic than Republican districts are Republican. Its mostly because of gerrymandering. But its partly because districts should naturally work that way if you're making districts correctly.

Gerrymandering is a massive problem and at the moment it is the GOP that is doing most of it, but hardly all of it. That is why proportional voting is the best way, but I suspect that the GOP wants per congressional district... after all had it been this at the last election, then it would be President Romney now..