Which do you think should be the way that we determine which candidate really becomes the President? Should it be based on the number of votes that the candidate gets or the number of electoral points they get? Should the favorite amongst the people win or the favorite amongst the electoral college? Which method do you think is the best?
Come on Jacob. Two strikes in a row? For shame.
Come on Jacob. Two strikes in a row? For shame.
Lol.
But anyway, I think it's only fair to do it by the popular vote. That whole electoral thing was given for the people in the other states that didn't have any power. If they don't deserve the power then they shouldn't have it.
Got a topic started, didn't it Archer? Mmhmm...
Anyways...Last I learned (although my U.S. History Professor can go on rants sometimes) stated that the Electoral College was created because those in charge felt that we, as a people, were, to be blunt, morons. That we had no way to really determine what is right or wrong for the nation. So, in a sense, the method worked since, at the time, there was no real way to get news around other than by postmaster. But, now that we have the internet and the such, do you think it's time to get rid of it? I think, yeah, we should. Now that people CAN be informed, chances are, they are being informed. At one time, it made sense. Now? Eh, time to move on.
In terms of the less populated states, they would most likely prefer to have an electoral college simply because they want as much attention as the bigger states. For example, Rhode Island is a small state and has 4 electoral college votes. Due to those electoral college votes, candidates are inclined to travel there to make a speech so that the public could have knowledge of what the candidates issues are; they wouldn't want to vote for a candidate that they barely know about. If the electoral college was removed, and it was a direct vote, why would the candidates have the tendency to go to the smaller states when it doesn't count as much? The candidates could simply go to California, Texas, or Florida to speak to the people; they'll earn more votes that way because they're appealing to the larger audience. However, due to them simply ignoring the small states, those small states wouldn't want to vote "yes" on it. Due to the abundant amount of small states, it'll most likely not get ratified because it's difficult to get an amendment onto the Constitution. 75% of the states (it would take 38 out of 50 states) in the United States of America would have to comply to be able to ratify the Amendment; simply from looking at the map, it's highly unlikely that it'll go through.
I prefer direct vote over electoral vote, primarily because the hick states in middle America tend to screw over the majority. For example, Bush won in most of middle America, and now we have record lows for bush's acceptance rating. And also because the states in middle America tend to vote on how religious a candidate is, rather than what the candidate can offer to America.
Direct vote. It sort of disturbs me that it hasn't been changed yet, especially because one president actually won based of the electoral college, but he didn't win based on the popular vote.
Direct vote. It sort of disturbs me that it hasn't been changed yet, especially because one president actually won based of the electoral college, but he didn't win based on the popular vote.
Actually Spirit, it's happened four times in American history.
1824, Adams V. Jackson
1876, Hayes V. Tilden
1888, Harrison V. Cleveland
2000, Gore V. Bush
I would say that we should maintain the use of the electoral college to temper the mob rule type of atmosphere that we would certainly be in if direct vote were to be utilized.
I'm Australian, I didn't understand the logic of the EC system and said so. I was promptly told it was so the less populated states got a fair say, I still don't understand the logic. If a candidate was to concentrate their efforts on only the most populated states (11), they are going to win the election regardless of whether it's the popular vote system or the EC system. In fact, under the EC system, because most states have a "winner take all" a candidate has more of a chance by putting all their efforts into just the most populated states.
I had any idea, a candidate must win the popular vote in 26 states to become the next president. If it comes down to 25 states each, then the winner of the overall popular vote would win.
What do you think????