The founding fathers created this system because they felt the simple common man could not intelligently vote. I think we have moved beyond that system. What say you DL?
I say no. We elect NO one else based on this system.
A 50 state election would be so outrageously expensive and I shudder to think of what unregulated corporate money would do to the system.
If it's true that a few yahoos in Ohio are the ones really picking the presidents, then yes. It's time to do away the Electoral College.
R2, what in the world are you talking about?
R2, you seem quite confused about what doing away with the electoral college means.
This election proved the Founding Fathers right - 48% of the population clearly did not intelligently vote - especially those who voted against their own self-interests.
So this is what the teabaggers are going to push for, now?
After results were announced 25% of votes in California hadn' been counted, 212,000 in Ohio and 9,000 in Florida. Would it have made a difference?Maybe not, but why bother to vote if you're not part of result?
Isn't it more important to do away with Teabaggers, Libertarians and Republicans, first?
I used to think that the Electoral College was anachronistic, especially after Bush v Gore.
However, now that I know The Nation is pushing it, I have to reconsider. My first thought is that since white voters outside major cities are declining as a percent of the population, somehow the Electoral College reduces the impact of this demographic change.
If The Nation is pushing it, it cannot be good for anyone but staunchly conservative, rethug causes.
I think it would be far better to do away with political parties instead.
I'm also for getting rid of 2 senators per state no matter what the population.
Then I remind myself that the Dems run the Senate and - perhaps because of "creative" districting - the Republicans run the Senate.
^I meant the R's run the House. Sorry.
If Turd Blossom and his billionaire backers continue to try to steal elections then yes we still need it. Get rid of Citizens United and then we'll talk.
An amendment to the Constitution would be almost impossible to get though the required 75 per cent of state legislatures. The college gives small states at least 3 electoral votes, more power than in a popular vote election. An example this time in New Hampshire.
"Yes" should be winning way more, especially on a liberal forum. The entire election process needs to be reformed.
It's not the electoral college that is the problem. This country needs to federalize voting. Florida is such a mess. No state should be using two part chads and all states should have the same uniform early voting laws. No local politician be it in PA, Ohio or Florida should ever have the power to manipulate an election.
If the South didn't exist, maybe.
R9, "The Nation" is a very liberal publication. I don't know why you think they'd support a "staunchly conservative rethug" cause but I can't imagine them doing such a thing.
I think you may be confused.
When you talk about this with your friends, and we know will, remember that the emphasis is on the second syllable. The word is eh-LEC-tor-al
The electoral college had no impact on this election. Obama won the popular vote, and won in the electoral college. So what's the problem, OP? Still worrying about Gore in 2000?
It keeps us from turning states like Wyoming into nuclear waste sites. The best way I've heard it described is "Affirmative action for hayseeds."
If you get rid of the Electoral college, then get rid of small states. The most populated states would sway an election more than their electoral votes.
R222: I agree. The candidates would be spending all thier time in California and New York. The only states that would not be affected would the large swing states, such as Florida and Pennsylvania.