Is there any reason to keep the Electoral College, or is it an outdated part of government?
108874
I think it is completely outdated for an era in which information spreads so quickly and easily. THe Electoral College was envisioned for an agrarian society in which the masses were not "trustworthy" enough to select a president. The electors were supposed to actually select the president. Nowadays, the electoral college is a rubberstamp that could go awry. See also: Bush/Gore 2000 election
707144
The electoral college is a certification of the recorded vote only. No power.
1030114
i've thought about this since the last election fiasco...there is really no way to ensure that it's fair and that every person gets their vote in, short of going door to door as in census time, and that would take forever.  It isn't fair though, that the majority in a state can completely throw off the fairness of an entire election...why should we be voting for a majority state by state?  that's fine for a gubernatorial election, since we are electing the head of the STATE, but i think that the countrywide popular vote should be tallied, a winner declared, and the election over.  The electoral college was appropriate for the time it was organized, but it's time has passed...i would like to feel like MY vote actually did count, and the only way to make that happen for a lot of people is to do away with the electoral college system.
21551
No, it is not determined by the people.  Since the electoral college excludes candidates who do not win pluralities in any individual states from its total, a candidate can win the electoral college without winning a majority of the popular vote of the nation. \n\nThis has happened 16 times since the founding of the electoral college, most recently in 2000. In every one of these elections, more than half of the voters voted against the candidate who was elected.
51836
United States has a democratic system, but during presidential elections, the electoral college is more favorable than the popular (majority) vote, which doesn't seem very fair. I suppose the U.S. is democratic enough because of all the different political parties and the fair system of how a bill is passed (introduced by the House of Representatives and goes through the House, then to the Senate, and finally the president, who can either veto the bill or pass it, or the bill is overturned with a majority vote from Congress members). Power usually rests with the higher, more affluent folks, like senators, because statistically they are known to be more active in the field of politics and more knowledgable.\n\nWell, feel free to disregard this reply if it was off-topic.
160553
The current system for the election of the President comes from the late 1700s when the Constitution was written.  Just as there was disagreement about how to determine representation in the legislature (which led to having 2 houses in Congress), there was disagreement about how to elect the executive.  Some believed that it should be by popular vote.  But others believed that most people were not informed enough to be trusted to make an intelligent choice about who should run the country.  The compromise was to form the Electoral College System we have now.  Which has a selected group of people from each of the states who actually cast the electing votes, but how they vote, in most cases, is determined by the popular votes in the state they represent.  Clearly, in this age of readily acessible information, that system is not necessary....if it really ever was to begin with.  The will of the majority should be all that is needed to win the White House.  However, as may influential politicians come from states that have a large presence in the EC, it is doubtful that there will be enough support in Congress to pass an ammendment to the constitution to abolish the Electoral College.
414572
Yes and no.  It's nice to know that my vote makes a difference, but because of the electoral college and winner-takes-all, it's not a huge difference.
826542
How it is that people here think that the Electoral College gives smaller states the same influence as larger states? The more population a state has, the more electoral votes it receives. So California has many more electoral votes than a small state. The electoral college in no way gives small states equal power. I agree that if it is to remain it should be made to truly reflect the will of people, with electors divided within the state to match the popular vote. Then, when you have an almost 49/51 popular vote the 51 does not get all the votes when that is not how half the populace felt.\n\nFYI - The purpose of the electoral college was because Congress wanted to elect the president without any  input from the people. This was a compromise that ensured they could overrule the people if so desired, since the electors in the electoral college do NOT have to go along with the popular vote. It is just one step removed from a dictatorship.
109017
The Electorial College was set up by the Constitution giving the winner of each state a number of electors equal to the Number of Members of the House Of Representitives and 2 for the Number of Senator's from each state.  Each of the original states felt as though they were independent nations belonging to a larger Federal Nation.  This type of voting made each states representation in the National Election on an Equal basis to each other.  Today we have 435 representitives in the House of Representitives total, plus  2 Senator's for each state then we add 3 electors for the District of Columbia and we have a total of 538 electors.  To win the presidency you need a majority of the eletorial vote or 270 votes or better to win.  A person can get a majority of the electorial vote and not win a majority of the popular vote.  This  was the case in 1992 when we had three way race and Clinton won well over a majority of the electorial votes and only had 44% of the popular vote.  No candidate had a majority of the popular vote in 2000, however Gore had the most by over a half a million votes, yet he lost the electorial college in a heavily contested race.  There have been arguements over changing this to a popular vote election, however this would require a majority or over 50% of the popular vote and usually with minor candidates the winner may not have a majority and a run off election would have to be held between the top candidates creating further confusion and delays in knowing the winner giving less time for a smooth transition of power.  While the states do not have the power that they originally thought they wanted, the electorial college still makes sense for being fair to the states.
560078
It is an excellent idea and one that really came to the fore after the 2000 election debacle in which the US Supreme Court prevented the majority of Americans from having the President (Al Gore) they elected. I did copious research during that hateful period and I can tell you that jimbob is correct: abolishing the antiquated Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment, which itself requires 3/4 (state legislatures) and 2/3 (House and Senate) voting majorities that are all but impossible to achieve. I don't see this happening, at least not in my lifetime.\n\nBut there is an alternative.\n\nIn lieu of abolishing the flawed Electoral College altogether, we would have a much fairer and more representative system if we adopted proportional allocation of each state's electoral votes. Under the present system, which exists in every state except Maine and Nebraska, it is winner take all. That is to say, if candidate A gets 50.1% of the votes to candidate B's 49.9%, candidate A gets ALL of that state's electoral votes. This is patently unfair and hardly "representative" of the actual voting tallies. \n\nIn Maine and Nebraska, it is a plurality system and the votes are determined proportionally. Ergo, in a state with 10 electoral votes, if candidate A gets 60% to candidate B's 40%, A will get 6 of that state's votes while B will get 4. This is clearly more fair and balanced (fox news does NOT own that expression, oxymoronically or otherwise) and actually upholds and sustains the protections the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they designed the Electoral College voting system (i.e., giving equal merit to tiny states as to more populous ones). Btw, had Florida had such a system in 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency quite handily as the electoral votes would have broken down to 13-12 instead of bush getting all 25 (illegally or nay). A similar scenario would have occurred in Ohio in 2004, thus giving Kerry enough votes to defeat bush. Detecting a pattern here?\n\nI hope this all sounds more clear than it appears to my bloodshot eyes as I type, re-read and edit this. I've had a very trying week and am running on fumes just now. The bottom line is that proportional distribution of each state's electoral votes would be an vast improvement on the current system while retaining the original intent of the Framers. I can't believe any fair minded person would find cause to argue with that result, irrespective of party affiliation (or, in my case, lack of same).\n\nOh, and it is true that the US of A is not in fact a democracy. It is rather a representative republic -- and what we require is a much fairer system of representation. I do hope all of this makes sense... to someone... anyone?
94069
The two party system is as old as the country itself.  actually, it is patterened after the house of commons in merry ole England.  If you think our party system is volitile, you should see and hear the antics used over there.  the two party system works as well as any other, probably better, given its longevity. I vote that we leave it alone except for one factor, that is popular vote.  I believe that we should still base our outcomes on the popular vote of this country.  In this way, the people have truly spoken! By the way, the hell with abroad.  We owe no other nation, or group of people, an explanation as to the domestic decisions of this country.
1158872
I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  Many presidents have won due to the electoral college rather than popular vote.\n\nWhat disgusts me is the attempt by my party (Democrats) to try to change the rules AFTER the vote.\n\nThat was about the most UNdemocratic thing I've seen in a long time.  This question points out that the same foolishness still lives, making a mockery of democratic process as people still think you can't "win" that way.\n\nWhat utter nonsense.\n\nMay I suggest you familiarize yourself with the rules of the game before you get involved, or change the rules with all of us in agreement before playing.\n\nPlaying Monopoly, losing, and then saying that everyone should have started with twice as much money and therefore you didn't go bankrupt makes you look stupid.\n\nClaiming Bush didn't win because of the electoral college is a silly idea (which it might be, but it was agreed to by all participants BEFORE the election, no complaints, since it might have benefitted them).\n\nSome of us are sick of it.  Show some political education and patriotic support, change the focus of the party onto the values we have made household words rather than special interests, and we'll take back the White House by 2008.\n\nDon't, and we deserve what we don't get.  GET OVER IT!  We're losing because of junk like this.
27466
sure.  \n\n1.  it's law and it's written into the US constitution.  most constitutional amendments have been small alterations or additions to the document.  anything that fundamentally changes the structure of the US government sets a dangerous precedent - i.e. that those in power in washington can muck around with the system.  what's next - congress appoints judges instead of the president?  it is a slippery-slope argument, to be sure, but the "if it ain't broke" cliche is a cliche for a reason.\n\n2.  the electoral college was designed so that a president couldn't be elected by appealing to a particular region that was denser or more highly-populated than the others.  this was a big worry to the founders, who feared that a particular state or region might become so populous that it could single-handedly determine who became president.  the electoral college solves this by ensuring a president is elected with a broad geographical consensus.  small states are given extra weight in order to tip the scales back in their favor.\n\n3.  the electoral college maintains the two-party system.  it is very difficult for parties other than the two main left-right parties to break into national politics because of the winner-takes-all nature of the electoral college.  this can be seen as a negative - good ideas and minority interests are left behind - but also as a positive.  a two-party system is dynamic, and the issues over which they disagree move back and forth with the political will of the people.  politicans have to be re-elected, so a politician trying to win votes has to do it by moving to whatever position his constituents demand.\n\nlots of people will say this is a bad system, but it is efficient.  the US government gets things done, despite all the yammering and garbage that comes emanating from washington.  compare it, for instance, to the italian parliament, which with 16 parties is a very open system, but there is such frequent disagreement and bickering that nothing -ever- gets done.  a two-party system makes it very easy for there to be a majority consensus, and some would say this is the strength of american democracy.  i leave it to you to decide.\n\nthere are a lot more pros to be considered - i would like to point you to a document written by the deputy director of the federal election commission.  it is an excellent read and there is a section on pros and cons towards the end of the document.  i include the link below.
715016
It's not a third-party issue.\n\nStates allocate electoral college votes, according to the rules set forth by the states. What the third-parties want is irrelevant.\n\nIn fact, the third parties are largely irrelevant given the current system, because the states so massively favor the dominant two parties that it's functionally impossible to elect a third-party candidate. The system is broken, but only those who don't support either of the two major parties seems to care.
709192
Well, with our current system, your vote really doesn't count much. Especially in Presidential elections. The Electoral College is a huge disaster for MANY reasons, and has got to got. Evidence: George Bush is president.
332320
Supposedly the citizens of the USA, but we really only vote for the electoral college. The Electors are under no obligation to vote the way the people voted. That's democracy for you.
13212
The Electoral College is a group of electors who vote for the president.  The group members for each state are all the state's US House and Senate members.  There are a total of 538 members in the Electoral College.  All electors from a state must vote for the majority, although it wasn't always this way.\n\nThe popular vote is simply the measure of how people voted in the entire United States.  This does not choose the President, the Electoral College does.\n\nHope this makes sense!  Use the information that you need.