What do YOU Think?
How should we elect the US President?
Do you think the current Electoral College system works well? Or, should the candidate who receives the most Popular Votes over all earn the position?
"Under the current system of electing the President, a candidate may win a majority of the Electoral College without having a majority of the nationwide popular vote. The National Popular Vote bill would reform the Electoral College by guaranteeing the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia)."
I think that the person who receives the most votes in Washington D.C. and ALL of the 50 US States should earn the Presidency.
YOUR TURN!
Number of Electoral Votes by State
(Please vote in the poll further down as well!)
How should we elect the US President?
Fetching blurbs now... please stand byThe Current Electoral College
kab says:
My solution is split down the middle. I think we should have a weighted system (so some states aren't left in the dust by more populated states), but if the vote is 60/40 then the state's votes should go 60/40. I do not think the electoral system needs to have actual "electors". Why pay someone to travel and officially submit a vote? Just count it as it was chosen by the people.
Posted April 22, 2009
Victoria_Neely says:
If the Bush administration had gone well, would we be calling for the demolishment of the electoral college? It isn't as if the popular vote never gave us bad presidents before. Nixon and Buchanan won the popular vote, for example.
The truth is, our founding fathers were afraid of a pure democracy. According to Benjamin Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." They feared that if Presidents were elected only by popular vote, the needs of the little states would be ignored or stomped on. Yet they were also afraid of letting Congress be in charge of electing Presidents; they didn't want anyone to have too much power.
The framers of the Constitution created the electoral college as a compromise and a safeguard. We vote for electors, and our electors vote for president. It's part of a system of checks and balances that makes our country a republic, and it gives smaller states more power in elections.
Posted November 29, 2008
Reggie_Marigold says:
The electoral college allows all citizens to be heard as were a representative democracy. If we only went by popular vote the major cities on the east/west coast would decide the CIC every time. Plus a popular vote would be democracy 50 + 1 which isn't what the forefathers were after as this could lead to mob rule - anarchy.
Look at a map for any election over the past 20 years or and you'll see what I mean. If you look at this year's election of Obama you'll see a lot of red. There's lots of red in wide open, less densely populated areas, vs. blue in heavily occupied concentrated areas.
The electoral college is a backup system. I like the way that it works. I'd rather see term limits for the Senate and the House before letting go or revamping the electoral college.
Posted November 26, 2008
leoliu says:
I think preserving the eleteral college is the best choice because it has survived and thrived though over 200 years, and also i think that abolishing it will make the american political system got even worse because the electoral college supports the two party system which evolves from it. the stability of the american government right now is really important to the american people, so the electoral college should be preserved.
by the way, when you talk about George Bush, you should know that there are only four times in american history that the candidate won the popular vote, but failed the election, such situation is really rare, and we can see that the electoral college is still functioning well today.
Posted November 06, 2008
miley says:
the elector college should still help make the votes because if they did not what would happen then
Posted November 03, 2008
adez7 says:
I think that the 17th amendment, coupled the two party system went a long way towards altering the way the electoral college was originally designed to work; however, I still favor it over the popular vote. We are supposed to be a constitutional republic, not a Fabian Socialist Democracy!
Posted September 12, 2008
BFuniv.com says:
Actually, as the representative republic we once were, perhaps a good solution would be to have the senate elect a triumvirate for a single, limited, six year term. They could even overlap like senate terms; one elected each 2 years.
An advantage might be that they would get less accomplished.
Posted September 10, 2008
JudyDunn says:
If it was by popular vote, some states would never see a candidate visiting their state. The election would concentrate on the most populous states, and the issues that concern those states. I think the electoral collage is not ideal, but I don't think popular vote will solve all the problems we have with elections. Perhaps an electoral college with proportional distribution of the electoral votes, rather than winner take all.
Posted September 10, 2008
By National Popular Vote
rob nowak says:
the electoral college is unfair.
gore should have won.
Posted November 19, 2008
kimmy says:
i think you should vote on who is going to have a better platform and who is going to fix the issues
Posted October 18, 2008
californianative says:
Al Gore won the popular vote, but instead we got George Bush, a war and a huge financial crisis. The electoral college must go.
Posted October 11, 2008
micheal says:
the current Electoral College system is not a real democratic election. it is control by a small group of people who may not honestly vote for their voters. the best way is that the person who receives the most votes in all 50 states .
Now China is willing to let HONG HONG have universal vote system in the near future. citizens directly choose the head of Hong Kong. And the legislative council is preparing to create the system.
sorry that US does not let people choose their president directly.
Posted October 01, 2008
aj2008 says:
I don't claim to understand how you elect your President but for me I believe that one person, one vote should elect a national leader. In the UK our current system does not do that either.
Posted September 13, 2008
blujeanmomma says:
It should be that 1 registered voter = 1 vote. Get rid of the Electoral College, super delegates or anyone else that thinks that their vote represents me.
Posted September 11, 2008
SideSplitters says:
Uggh...I think the year 2000 election tells us a little something about the electoral college. Get rid of it, it's totally irrelevant. I once had a political class a long time ago where the teacher theorized the electoral college process was designed to keep power in the hands of the government in case the voting public made an unwise choice for its leader (he was insinuating congress could oust the president through some loopholes).
Posted September 10, 2008
Christene says:
In response to JudyDunn:
Under the electoral college system, candidates have no reason to visit, advertise, or pay attention to the states where they are far ahead or far behind in the polls. Instead, they concentrate on a small handful of swing states.
Posted September 10, 2008
Trekkiemelissa says:
It should be based on the popularity rather than the electoral college. Reason being, your state may win, but has tons of votes. Another state may loose and not have many votes. If you go by separate votes, the candidate you want to win, may have a better chance at winning. You'd feel like you actually have made a difference.
Posted September 10, 2008
Christene says:
I'll start. ;)
This is what makes sense to me. Each vote counts, no swing states, no area of the country would be more important.
Posted September 09, 2008
An Explanation of the Current Election Process
Electing a US President in Plain English
A short guide to understanding the U.S. election process. This video comes in an unbranded "presentation quality" version that can be licensed for use in the workplace. http://www.commoncraft.com/store-item/election
Runtime: 3:43
664780 views
10 Comments:
HELP ME PROVE MY POINT
If you agree, add links (proof!) that help me make my case
Add a link that makes my case.
National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform more...1 point
FairVote - National Popular Vote Plan
FairVote has played an important role with the coa more...0 points
NARA | Federal Register | U.S. Electoral College
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administrat more...0 points
DISPROVE MY POINT (fine, be that way)
Disagree? Put your money where your mouth is and show us why.
Post links that point out why you think I'm wrong.
RELATED NEWS: FODDER FOR ARGUING MORE
- At hearing GOP-ers surprisingly tough
- "I will not vote for?no senator should vote for?an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own ...
- Tough love from a brother
- The election worked because the National Electoral Commission headed by Christiana Thorpe was strong and did not buckle under pressure to fix the vote. ...
- Majority Rule at Last
- In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. And then there was the 2000 election. That year, Al Gore won half a million ...
- Britain's great electoral fraud
- In any case, Labour has plenty of experience being screwed over by the electoral system. For example in 1951 we won the popular vote by a quarter of a ...
More Info on the Electoral College
The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives (electors) who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.The number of electors is equal to the total membership of the United States Congress (composed of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators) plus three electors from the District of Columbia. See Category: Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2 - : Method of choosing electors|Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution and the Twenty-third Amendment Category: Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2 - : Method of choosing electors|Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many elector...
More Info on the Popular Vote
The compact is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to allocate its own electoral votes. States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades, although today almost every state awards its electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes statewide.
Popular Opinion at a Glance
How should we elect the US President?
Anything else you'd like to add?
kab wrote...
Oh and another thing...
Again I am okay with weighting the system, but I don't think we need actual people to submit the vote. But, I also have a beef with this "winner takes all" for the votes. If 75% vote one way and 25% vote another, than the electoral votes should reflect 75% going one way and 25% going the other. Having it like it is makes me, as a New Yorker, feel like my vote doesn't count at all since NY is so predominantly blue it doesn't matter which way I vote, blue gets all the votes. If it weren't winner takes all, than I would be even more determined to make sure my (blue) vote gets on the books to stop the red from getting any electoral votes. Did I explain that well?
Posted September 11, 2008
SideSplitters wrote...
Great lens, a timely debate that should get some attention. Let's not see a repeat of what hapenned in 2000 (though it's way too late to change it for the '08 election).
Posted September 10, 2008
kab wrote...
What gets me the most is even if we wanted to weight the states like we have it now giving each a certain number of electoral votes, why do we have to actually PAY SOMEONE to do the actual vote. They should have no right to overturn the will of the people, and so there is no need for them.
Posted September 10, 2008
Join in on another Debate
-
Smoking should be banned in ALL public places
-
Smoking should be banned in all public places. A smoker's (poor) choice should not affect the health of others. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of toxic chemicals including arsenic ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, benzene, and vinyl chlor...
You might also be interested in...
-
Barack, Michelle, Malia & Sasha Obama
-
On November 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm Eastern Barack Obama was the projected winner! It became official shortly after. He was sworn in to office January 20, 2009. I am so excited to say Congratulations to the 44th President of the United States of America...
-
Where were you when President Obama was sworn into office?
-
Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th US president at 12:05 PM EST Tuesday, January 20, 2009 (on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used at his inauguration in 1861). Our children and grandchildren will be asking us where we were on this historic d...
