Yes, I think it serves its purpose very well.
No, I think there are better alternatives.
I think it has legitimate rasoning but could use some reform.
Now picture that happening 100 times nationwide every 6 years. Does that sound like something Thomas Jefferson would have favored? They were smart enough to realize that times change, which is why we can amend the Constitution. If they were people who believed that things should never change, the East Coast would still be sining "God Save the Queen" and California would still be part of New Spain.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
First one must understand the principles of federalism. If we were one nation with a unitary government, and one that had a very homogeneous culture, demographics, etc etc. Then maybe a national vote would make sense. But we are a very diverse and large nation. Each state has unique challenges, demographics, needs, geo-political concerns, cultures, economic realities, etc. The electoral college, in part, was implemented so that the most populated states wouldn't run rough shod over the smaller states in electing the president, and that all these diverse and unique states would have a say in who gets elected.
We need the electoral college, however, it does need some modification. I know that states are to have jurisdiction on how voting is carried out, how the electoral votes are given, and how the counting of votes is tallied. One thing that needs to be done is to get away from the "winner take all" systems for electoral votes. We should utilize a system like that of the 'Congressional District Method', that of a 'Proportional Method'. Unfortunately, we'd need a Constitutional Amendment to make this a reality, one which I think we need very badly.
In the 'Congressional District Method' whichever candidate wins the majority vote for a given congressional district they get that electoral vote. For the two senate electoral votes, they would be given to who wins the state overall.
A 'Proportional Method' would just give a candidate the number of electoral votes relative to the percentage of the overall votes they got within a state. Ex: In a state that has 10 electoral college votes, a candidate with 60% of the state's votes would get 6 electoral votes; very simplistic.
With any system, neither are perfect, but either method would be infinitely better than the winner-take-all system that 48 states use. I think it would give third party candidates a real chance to break the 2 party dominance; more importantly it would be much close to what the people really want at a more localized, grass roots level. Because those who live in a party dominated state but are on the opposite side will likely never have their vote be relevant in the presidential elections. For Ex.: I live in MN, a Blue state, my vote concerning president is a near waste of time. The last time MN went 'red' was in 1972. If you look at a break down by county or by congressional district in many states, it flies in the face of who actually got their electoral votes.
I think most people dislike the electoral college because they do not understand it, nor the history of its implementation. It would do people a lot of good to research and learn about the electoral college, its historical reasoning and implementation, and federalism; regardless if they like it or not, or if they know it well or if they are completely uninformed about it. In fact, I'm going to refresh my knowledge of it here shortly!
So it's either nationalize it, or pass 49 different laws.
by appointing a senators, they must do as that legislative body says, and this protects the state from federal over reach of power.
senators were appointed because government was structured that way on propose in the constitution, it was part of the check and balances, and to prevent democracy.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
You should have been able to figure it out based on the words given.That....is "how". That's all you had to say. Now I know what you're talking about.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
On the whole, I fully favor the Electoral College system as it exists.
I think it well reflects the manner in which this nations' founders intended representation to be allocated among the states; giving each state the same amount of representation in electing the President that it has in the two houses of Congress.
In more practical terms, it has the effect, at times, of turning what would have been a tie, into a meaningful result. The 2000 election was a perfect example. For all intents and purposes, the popular vote was a dead tie between Bush and Gore. The way the Electoral system worked, it got down to one state, that would decide the result, and in which the vote was very, very close. Remember all the fuss that happened in Florida, with recounting the votes over and over again, every which way, and all the controversies over “hanging chads” and other ambiguities? If the election were to be decided by the national popular vote, this same fuss would have had to happen on a national scale. We wouldn't just have had to examine Florida's ballots to that level of detail; we would have had to examine all of the ballots, cast in the entire nation, at that level, to determine a result. If it had come to that, I very much doubt we would have been able to reliably determine the result before the term to which the President was to be elected had ended.
I would like to see more states, especially large, diverse states like California, allocate their electors in a manner that is more in proportion to how their populations vote, instead of the winner-takes-all system that most states now use. I do think that the manner in which this is done should be left to each state.
The five great lies of the
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.