S
SomeRandomGuy
The Electoral College should be abandoned?
-your opinion please!
-your opinion please!
Nope, it's there for a reason. I'd like to see it changed a bit, but abandoned, no.The Electoral College should be abandoned?
-your opinion please!
Abso****inglutelyThe Electoral College should be abandoned?
-your opinion please!
Why doesn't this surprise me? :roll:Abso****inglutely
Why aren't you surprised?Why doesn't this surprise me? :roll:
Nope, it's there for a reason.
I'd like to see it changed a bit, but abandoned, no.
I'd like to see the Maine/Nebraska method of the electoral college iimplemented by more states.
I'd like to see the Maine/Nebraska method of the electoral college iimplemented by more states.
Then why bother having a general election? Just let the representatives of the states vote.No, the Electoral College serves a purpose.
The People were never meant to vote for the President.
To allow this would be unfair/unequal representation of the States.
The People already have their representation through Congress.
So you fix the electoral college, you don't abandon it. If there were no electoral college, do you really think the candidates would campaign or take an interest in states like Maine, North or South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia or Delaware? They would go after states like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. There is a purpose to the electoral college, but it needs to be fixed.Then why bother having a general election? Just let the representatives of the states vote.
IF the people are to vote in a presidential vote, then there is no reason that my vote should be worth more or less than someone elses vote. Yet today that is exactly the case. Ppl in "swing states" or "battle ground" states have their vote worth more than people in "safe states". So the candidates pander to them and not us.
I see no reason for this whatsoever.
So you fix the electoral college, you don't abandon it. If there were no electoral college, do you really think the candidates would campaign or take an interest in states like Maine, North or South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia or Delaware? They would go after states like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. There is a purpose to the electoral college, but it needs to be fixed.
I'm fine with the electoral college voting based on how those in their state voted, but instead of winner takes all, it needs to be based by percentage. If Illinois (21 electoral votes) is won by candidate A by a margin of 52% to 46% with the other 2% going to third party candidates, then candidate A gets 11 electoral votes and candidate B gets 10 electoral votes. Now what about the third party candidates? I propose that they need to get 5% of the votes in that state to be eligible for electoral votes. This makes Illinois no less important than any other state because everyone's vote does count. It isn't a perfect system, but with some minor changes, I think we can make the election more "fair".
The president is representative of the people, not the states. One citizen, one vote, a citizen resident in the state of texas should have as much weight and bearing as a citizen resident in Florida.So you fix the electoral college, you don't abandon it. If there were no electoral college, do you really think the candidates would campaign or take an interest in states like Maine, North or South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia or Delaware? They would go after states like Texas, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois. There is a purpose to the electoral college, but it needs to be fixed.
You still have the problem of delegation of number of votes to the total number of electoral college per state. To which why bother with an electoral college at all?P/N said:I'm fine with the electoral college voting based on how those in their state voted, but instead of winner takes all, it needs to be based by percentage. If Illinois (21 electoral votes) is won by candidate A by a margin of 52% to 46% with the other 2% going to third party candidates, then candidate A gets 11 electoral votes and candidate B gets 10 electoral votes. Now what about the third party candidates? I propose that they need to get 5% of the votes in that state to be eligible for electoral votes. This makes Illinois no less important than any other state because everyone's vote does count. It isn't a perfect system, but with some minor changes, I think we can make the election more "fair".
Exactly, it discourages 3rd party candidates and disenfranchises the vote of the individual.If you do it that way why have an electoral college at all? The EC totals would just be proportional to the popular vote percentages, except that third party candidates get the shaft by being unrepresented in every state except those they can manage 5%+ in. All that the electoral college does under that system is make the point totals less precise, it offers no benefit over using the popular vote
... The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. ...
Why should my vote count for less weight than that of someone across state line? We are a nation that is built on the foundation of individuals, not of states.Ah, because the State itself needs to be recognized separately from the People?
We are a Nation of States, not a Nation of individuals.
Why should a minority of States with the largest populations be able to dictate to a majority of States who will be the President?
The Electoral College strikes a balance. Does it not?
We are a Nation that was built the foundation of Federalism, or in other words, "We are a Nation of States, not individuals", within a Federal Government.
I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the case per se.
The People of the States were never meant to elect the President in the first place, and even today they do not.
It was always the Electoral College who initially is designed to elect the President.
The State can decide how it wishes to allow the Elector's to be chosen, such as with a toss of a coin.
And not in every State do the Electors have to vote the will of the people.
As it is, your vote only counts in your State as it should, because you are actually voting for how the Elector's are going to vote.
Have you read Wiki's entry on the Electoral College?
We are a Nation that was built the foundation of Federalism, or in other words, "We are a Nation of States, not individuals", within a Federal Government.
I understand what you are saying, but that isn't the case per se.
The People of the States were never meant to elect the President in the first place, and even today they do not.
It was always the Electoral College who initially is designed to elect the President.
The State can decide how it wishes to allow the Elector's to be chosen, such as with a toss of a coin.
And not in every State do the Electors have to vote the will of the people.
As it is, your vote only counts in your State as it should, because you are actually voting for how the Elector's are going to vote.
Have you read Wiki's entry on the Electoral College?
Everyone's vote should count for the same, why should someone's vote in say FL count more than someone in CA or TX?? It's stupid it's time that everyone's vote count the same.