What do you think about the Electorial College? I say get rid of it!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
You would think no one hear has EVER read any History or been to ANY High School Civics class!

The States actually elect the President. The States are independent of each other. The Voter elects Representatives who are supposed to vote. Only three States have laws that prevent the Representative from NOT following the Popular Vote yet only one time has it ever been a problem.

We are a Representative Republic and NOT a True Democracy!

The Electorial College IS a great idea!

If the Election was determined by Popular Vote then there would only be campaigning in about 4 or 5 places in the whole country, as if a candidate got the vote there it would not matter who the rest of the voters were for.

Our system is the BEST in the world! Don't muck it up!

 

Pretender

Banned
Mar 14, 2000
7,192
0
0
In my opinion, the Electoral College is useless for what it was originally intended to do. When the nation was founded, the smaller states were scared that their interests wouldn't be considered, and due to the relatively small size of their population, they were scared that the south would pass regulations and other things which would screw the north and favor highly the largest states, mainly the south. However, giving equal power to each state would also be unfair for the south, so they were against it. The house of reps+senate illustrates this balance of power. The electoral college and the amount of electors assigned to each state is also determined by the amount of reps+senators, and is based on the same principals as the congressional system.

Outdated? Yes.
Still necesary? Probably not.
Will it be removed? Probably not.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Pretender: it is not useless. The political ramifications if you remove it are far reaching. If you elect president based on the popular vote, then you will have candidates who only visit the major states of more than 25 million ppl. California, Texas, they might as well succeed from the Union.

1. the parties will never visit many states. People like to meet the candidates. They like to know that the money they help raise for their party is used in part to allow the candidate to visit their state, advertise in their state. The parties will lose lots of campaign money from states if those states don't have a voice in who becomes president.

2. The main reason ppl go out in vote on Nov 7th is for the president. If people in Nevada who never got a visit from their candidate, never saw a tv commercial, they most likely will not go out and vote. This in turn effects local and state elections of representatives, local laws, repeals of laws, judges, governors, etc etc.

And lastly, they will never change the EC. Most states would never approve it.

 

AudioBitch

Member
Oct 15, 2000
46
0
0
Russ,
have you ever read the "Federalist Papers"?
these were a group of papers written to the citizens of New York to persuade them to ratify the constitution.

these papers explain the Electoral College, and in them, it clearly states the reason it was implemented.

it was because the fore fathers felt the "average joe" did not have the political intelligence to understand the issues. it was not an attack on their intelligence

and it is true, most people do not have political knowledge enough to follow ALL of the issues.

the electoral college is the best way, though not perfect, to elect our president. if you want each state to be totally equal, then you spread the population out evenly.

i don't kno where you took your history classes, but i kno where i took mine. i have a great interest in history and the government, please do not insult my intelligence or what i kno if you do not kno what you are talking about in the first place

my two cents
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY