WHo else thinks the electoral system sucks?

My2Beauties wrote: Is it just me or is this system so outdated and unfair? I think it should just be done with popular vote, especially because of what happened last election year with Florida and all that mess. What do you guys think? Please no debate here, just opinions

coasterqueen replied: I actually think the electoral college system has always worked fine. Just because 4 years ago the popular vote was higher...now people want to change it? It has served it's purpose for many many years and hasn't been a problem. I think without it then the bigger states have all the say...now that doesn't seem fair.

Boys r us replied: I agree with the electoral vote!

amynicole21 replied: I still think it's odd. The popular vote has always been far closer than the electoral college (see this site: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/e...ge/scores.html) So why isn't every American's vote counted the same way?

eta - they results in past elections still came out the same, but they weren't all landslide victories like it appears with the electoral college.

5littleladies replied: I agree with the electoral system.

coasterqueen replied: I've been googling on this subject and have only so far read half of this but this seems like an interesting read: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/nov2000.html

MomofJandB replied: My initial reaction is that i think popular vote would be the fairest. However, boogabearzmom made a good point. The larger states would benefit from popular vote. Look how much the candidates concentrated on the "swing" states. I dunno. I guess i still agree with the electoral college.

redchief replied: I believe in the electoral system. Should the vote been based solely on popualrity, many parts of the country would be unimportant in the electoral process. The northeast, the deep south, Texas and California would be the only battleground states since that is where most of the people live. In a popular vote election Iowa wouldn't matter a lick. Even though I live in what would be considered a battleground area, I like to think Iowa (and Montana and the Dakotas and Wisconsin to name a few) DO matter, since we're a union of self-governing states... not a group of people all under a single central government.

The electoral college system, while imperfect, is still the best way to ensure all of the states have a say in who will lead the union.

coasterqueen replied:
THat's exactly what the editorial I posted above is saying! Albeit it's an editorial so it is probably one sided...it makes a lot of sense whether one is for or against the electoral college.

MommyToAshley replied: While it may not be perfect, it seems to be the fairest system. I agree with the others... if the popular vote decided the Presidency then the politicians would only care what the people living in California and New York have to say.

jolene555 replied: i'm having a hard time holding my tongue here. imho, the electoral college is completely absurd. without it, every state would be a key state. they would be fighting for each individual vote. it irritates me to no end. the popular vote is the popular vote!! no person should have their vote count twice, and that is what the college does. it makes the small populations count more to make it more "equal", and that is not fair!!!

the elecroal college is he only thing standing between this country being whatever it is, and being a republic. we cannot truely be a republic or a democracy until we respect the popular vote. after all, think the population has the right to choose, not be chosen.

redchief replied: Correction in terms: We ARE a republic, by definition. We elect our leader representatively, we have elected representatives pass the laws for us. In a true democracy (which we are not) everyone gets a vote.

As far as representative government being absurd is concerned, I must argue that our representative government, with it's system of checks and balances, has become inarguably the strongest government in the world.

If we go the way of total democracy, then everything would be voted for popularly. That would cause us to go to the polls almost daily, grinding everything else (including the economy) to a halt. In order to sustain our strong economy, strong worldly political presence and make decisions in a timely fashion, we need representative government.

You can also argue that you're only talking about the office of the President of the United States. The truth is, that would be unhealthy for the government as a true multiple party system would likely cease to exist. Everyone I've read regarding switching to a polpular vote system says the same thing; it would be an huge advantage for one political party because all of the candidates would come from the same general background; Southwestern, urban, white male.

Our country is much more than that.

jolene555 replied: i do not understand how anyone can support a policy that alters the decision of a nation's citizens. it is so grossly unfair! if a canidate has the interests of the popular vote he should be president - end of statement. the electoral college is competely biased towards republicans that i doubt we will see this injustice turned around until we have logical folks i the house, senate, and presidency. i find it funny that every individual i've met that supports the college is republican. of course!!!

in the deifinition of a republic there is no mention of having a "buffer" between our vote and the outcome of an election. it says "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote " (dictionary.com), but it definately does not say that some citizen's choice is more important, or that because you are in a small state that your vote counts twice.

i need to stop talking on this subject because i have to go vote, and because i think my ulcer is acting up due to this stress.

gr33n3y3z replied: I believe in the electoral vote

redchief replied:
There's your buffer

I admit that I am a registered republican and cede that the electoral system is somewhat biased toward the republican party; however, a true democracy would eventually result in a socialist movement (history proves this) since liberal thinking is demographically centered in ubran areas. That's why I agree with the electoral system. This way the states, as the constitution meant it to be, elect the president and not the individuals.

I shudder at the thought of socialism driving this country. I've already defended the other state's right to a say in who runs this country and I believe that to avoid the total mess that central and eastern european politics is, we have to allow all of our states, even those with fewer people, some say in who heads the central government.