Do you think the electoral college is out dated?

[jjmitchell60]

I was talking it over with a member of my family that in theory Obama can win 10 states by 1 or more votes and loose the other 40 plus DC by millions yet still win the election! Now the reason is it takes 270 electoral college votes to win the office f POTUS and if a person wins the top 10 states as to number of electoral college votes, they win the seat but they can actually loose the popular vote by millions of votes.

With that said, do you feel that it is time to adjust the electoral college system or do you feel that if we do we are tampering with one foundation of the Constitution thus opening the door for all amendments to be adjusted, even the 1st and 2nd as well as others?

OK, if you follow my logic, give me what you think on the subject?

[1 Eyed Jack]

Out of date, if you win the popular(people's)vote, but lose because of the electoral college set up, it's just not right, or what we the people voted for, I'm still voting tomorrow, because it's the right thing to do, even though the EC method will basically make my vote null and void because I live in Ca,

[norahc]

I think it's time to do away with it but it won't be easy.

http://www.historycentral.com/electi...collgewhy.html

[denny 714]

Are you kidding,...We don't need Congress...We have Computers !!!.....

Denny G.

[jedwil]

I'm hoping it hangs on a while....

[WHSmithIV]

The EC system is way out of date for sure. It was set up for a couple of reasons at the time. One was the distances involved with getting vote counts in to Washington - they had to be sent on horseback. The other reason was because states with lower population were afraid that their voice wouldn't be heard (and this was the main reason). With the EC system, states were assigned a number of electors based on their population. What makes the system out of date now (besides computers) is that states that have lots of commerce have ended up creating large cities with massive populations. Compare New York with multi millions of population to Idaho with 1.6 million population and over twice the land mass. This unbalanced population ratio now makes the system obsolete and computers can take up the inequity - i.e. every vote counts and popular vote wins the Presidency. Before computers, this wasn't really feasible within the guidelines in the Constitution for the dates that are defined for elections. From election day the states have 34 days to get their votes in and convene the electoral college.

There will have to be a national referendum to abolish this system and move to a popular vote. At least with a popular vote, the vote of every citizen WILL count.

[Old Grump]

Considering the state of our politics it's more important now than ever.

[WHSmithIV]

OldGrump - I apologize, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that keeping the electoral college is more important than ever or getting rid of it?

As of 3:30 PM the national count of early votes was 19,600,000 something for Romney and 15,500,000 something for Obama. The count was over 4 million votes in favor Romney (55% to 43%) but Obama leads the Electoral College with 280 votes.....

I don't think any of us would be happy with Obama staying president when over 10 or even 20 million Americans voted him out.

[B27]

Short answer.....no.

I think the founders got it right the first time.

[targetacqmgt]

In a popular vote the large number 9f welfare folk will always vote themselves more wellfare or an elected offical who will authorize it. Where with the current system farmers amd cattle folk in less populated states still have some power with the electorial college No??

Changed my mind on this - population vote does NOT impact a state electors decision to vote for one canidate or the or the other. It might INFLUENCE their vote but they get to vote the way they wish. So under this system the ELECTORS have the power NOT the populatiton. If no canidate gets 270 electoral votes then the president is elected by the congress and the VP is elected by the Senate. One senator one vote. One Congressperson one vote. in a tie electoral vote you elected for Congress is VERY important under this system. Which party control the house is very important.

The system needs to be modified to FORCE the electors to vote which way the population vote goes IMO.

[Rogeritall]

As the old saying goes... Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. With a popular vote, the majority would always get its way. Which is great as long as you are not part of the minority.

I would like to see the E.C. modernized to better reflect voter turnout, maybe by splitting up points available from States by a ratio in some way. But, it would most likely be manipulated that way as well. But, even though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say so... I think the E. C. system is necessary even in modern times.

[carver]

Absolutely necessary. Computers? Man that would be a real can of worms, the politicians would find (as they already have) all kinds of ways to cheat! What if the power goes out? What about hackers? Try to imagine a recount with the lights out! Remember the dangling chads in FL?

Democracy is two wolves, and a sheep, deciding what's for dinner. But it works as long as the sheep are well armed!

[hogger129]

Yes. Shouldn't popular vote be the deciding factor?

[targetacqmgt]

Sometimes I think it is irrelevant. The blue vs red states are so far apart I think the is good chance we will end up in a Civil War.

[Airdale]

Originally Posted by hogger129

Yes. Shouldn't popular vote be the deciding factor?

Absolutely not the founders got it right. Do you really wan't the right and left coasts to determine the President in all elections?

[goofy]

I think that who ever ends up with the most votes should win.
Mike

[GunnyGene]

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. A couple states split their EC votes proportionally according to their popular vote ratios, which I think is the best way to do it. The "Winner takes all" approach of most states is what throws things out of balance, especially in those with a lot of EC votes.

[carver]

Please remember that our Nation was not set up as a Democratic Nation, but a Republic. In a Democratic Nation the popular vote would be the deciding factor. That is why our Founding Fathers saw fit to create the Electoral College. They knew that everyone would not vote. Look at what the minority has accomplished to date. Queers getting married. Removal of all religious quotes, statements, and scripture form public places, and schools!

[CCHolderinMaine]

The electoral college is absolutely, positively not out of date. This is why we are a Republic not a Democracy. Don't take this the wrong way, but generally people who favor changing it, don't fully understand it.

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by CCHolderinMaine

The electoral college is absolutely, positively not out of date. This is why we are a Republic not a Democracy. Don't take this the wrong way, but generally people who favor changing it, don't fully understand it.

I disagree. The reason most of us want to see it changed is because we do understand it. Cali immediate 55 votes. New York immediate 20 votes. The Republican starts with a 75 vote deficit. This magic number of 270 is stupid. Win a state get a point. whoever gets 26 states wins. Simple. In case of a tie, use the total popular vote. How hard is this to get. Simple efficient. and fair.

[CCHolderinMaine]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

I disagree. The reason most of us want to see it changed is because we do understand it. Cali immediate 55 votes. New York immediate 20 votes. The Republican starts with a 75 vote deficit. This magic number of 270 is stupid. Win a state get a point. whoever gets 26 states wins. Simple. In case of a tie, use the total popular vote. How hard is this to get. Simple efficient. and fair.

Each state is one point? So the 37 million people in California have no more say than the 650,000 in Vermont? The point of the electoral college was to make small states count, but still give weight to the greater population of big states. The prime thing the EC prevents by not using the pop. vote is losing all the big states by .1%, but winning a few others by a huge margin and viola, you're president and you won only a handful of states. The plan you just laid out combines the worst of both methods.

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by CCHolderinMaine

Each state is one point? So the 37 million people in California have no more say than the 650,000 in Vermont? The point of the electoral college was to make small states count, but still give weight to the greater population of big states. The prime thing the EC prevents by not using the pop. vote is losing all the big states by .1%, but winning a few others by a huge margin and viola, you're president and you won only a handful of states. The plan you just laid out combines the worst of both methods.

Look my idea might be extreme, hell I thought of it in 30sec. My problem is Cali's 55 votes. And the dem gets them all, even though they hardly ever get more than 60% of the vote. 2008 was an anomoly in my opinion. The first black guy to run in a general and peoples chance to prove they wern't racist.

2004 Dem 54%
2000 Dem 52%
1996 Dem 51%
1992 Dem 46% win because of Perot

Yet even though their percentage isn't above 60% they get every vote. Tell me how that is fair. After all we are all about fairness in this country right?

Maybe a better idea is if you get at least 25% of the vote you get 1/4 of the electoral votes. Any way you slice it, in my opinion the electoral collage needs to be adjusted or gotten rid of

[CCHolderinMaine]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

Look my idea might be extreme, hell I thought of it in 30sec. My problem is Cali's 55 votes. And the dem gets them all, even though they hardly ever get more than 60% of the vote. 2008 was an anomoly in my opinion. The first black guy to run in a general and peoples chance to prove they wern't racist.

2004 Dem 54%
2000 Dem 52%
1996 Dem 51%
1992 Dem 46% win because of Perot

Yet even though their percentage isn't above 60% they get every vote. Tell me how that is fair. After all we are all about fairness in this country right?

Maybe a better idea is if you get at least 25% of the vote you get 1/4 of the electoral votes. Any way you slice it, in my opinion the electoral collage needs to be adjusted or gotten rid of

I do understand how you feel. I live it. I'm in a state (Maine) like Wisconsin or Illinois where the vast majority of the state votes one way, but the vast majority in ONE CITY vote the other way and carry the state. But, they carry the state and that makes it fair. 60%-40% is a big win and as frustrating as it is to me personally, they carried the state.

Fragmenting the EC is virtually the same as eliminating it. Basically you would have a popular vote election. You would not need to actually win many states at all.

I'll lay it out.

The world changes and CA, NY, TX, OH, PA, NJ...all the big EC states suddenly even out and the dems lose them all by .00001% of the vote. The rest of the states all go the same way.

So the vote tally is 100,100,000 to 100,000,000 the repubs lead and we go to socialist Vermont where the vote goes 80% democrat. Obama wins 100,400,000 to 100,300,000.

He won ONE state. One of the smallest ones at that and he's president. The score is 49 states against to 1 for.

This is what the EC prevents.

America wasn't set up to be fair. It was set up to give all a fair CHANCE. CA is ruled by Hollywood and LA (Mexico).
This is why we HAD states rights. Don't like Hollywood running your life? Get out of CA. If the nutjobs take over your state and drive people out, pretty soon they will have less EC votes and matter less. Just like the free market weeds out poor competitors.

[Sandman]

Be careful what you wish for. The electoral college is designed to protect states that have low population from becoming irrelevant. If you go by popular vote, the states like California and New York are in control and conservatives have no shot there. Most of us live in more rural states which are exactly the ones the electoral college helps.

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Be careful what you wish for. The electoral college is designed to protect states that have low population from becoming irrelevant. If you go by popular vote, the states like California and New York are in control and conservatives have no shot there. Most of us live in more rural states which are exactly the ones the electoral college helps.

Those states are already in control.

Not gonna argue it anymore. We disagree. My vote doesn't count in Cali, and I get that. It just sucks