Who thinks that disposing of the Electoral College would be a good move for our electoral process?
346347
I'm for it, and most Americans are, at least those who understand what it is all about.\nThe problem is, as it's a constitutional issue, we need to make an amendment. That requires that two thirds of the States need to approve it.\nThose States with low population numbers, will vote against it, as it isn't to their advantage.\nIt has been suggested, that each  of the most populist states, eg, California, New York, change their constitution, to give all their votes to the winner. That way, they will get around the smaller States, and for once, the candidates, will  have to spend more time and money getting their votes.
1077651
About the same time we eliminate lobbing firms, abolish political parties or at least remove party affiliation from ballots, AND revise the electoral collegefrom a winner takes all to a precentage allocation.\n\nYou don't do much to reduce drug users by locking up the users.  You reduce the number of users by drying up the source.
162092
I certainly don't. It was a shameful exercise in partisan politics that led to the Bush regime and our current hapless state.\nWhether you believe the election was fair, of course, is almost entirely based on your bias for Bush or Gore. For example, the incorrect purging of voters, largerly democratic, from the rolls certainly favored Bush. It's also hard to argue that the confusing butterfly ballot did anything but cause many Gore supporters to inadvertenly vote for Buchanan or to have their ballots thrown out. This is pretty compelling, when you look at the ballot and know the political makeup of the county. And, to me at list, the discrepancy between a number of the exit polls and the final results simply reinforces the idea that many voters were disenfranchised for a variety of reasons--and in a Republican-controlled state, guess who is most likely to be disenfranchised?.\nStill, if a simple recount had been allowed, disregarding some of the other problems, the recount probably would have favored Bush. If so, the case might have been closed.\nBut the way it was handled, concluding with the Supreme Court's unusual intervention, creates a controversy that will never end.\nAnd, as far as the popular cry, "get over it," discussing history is actually a useful concept. Maybe we can learn from what happend in Florida and Ohio, for example, we can actually strengthen our own  democracy. Similarly, maybe by revisiting 9-11 we can help strengthen our defense; by revisiting the decision to invade Iraq we can avoid such faulty decision-making in the future; by revisiting Katrina we can help Homeland Security do a better job.... \nSo, no I won't "get over it." Neither will I dwell on it except when asked about it.
1158618
Yes, i wasted my vote on Bush. I think its very important to vote, we gotta keep our elected officials accountable for decisions made.
124688
This is a good subject I would love to see some debate on.  My first thought is we should elimnate electoral vote and go with the majority vote. But that would mean the east and west coast would pretty much decide who/what gets elected.  With the elctoral vote every state has a say.  Id love to see some answers on this question.
707144
The electoral college is a certification of the recorded vote only. No power.
317094
No, I would not because of the electoral college system.  The electoral college system already skews democratic votes into a system that favors smaller states (the "Great" compromise).  As such, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands would then complicate an already skews the system for electing national representatives.  Thus, you would have to come up with a way the electoral college handles US territories with representatives. \n\nMoreover, the constitutional makes clear that senators can be no fewer than 2 and must come from a state.  Thus, the only way to limit them (assuming that they become a state) to 1 senator is to amend the constitution.\n\nHowever, keep up the big thinking as it is the only way improvement happens.  As Bobby Kennedy used to say, "Some people see things as they are and say 'why'.  I dream things that never were and ask 'why not'."
878762
I think it is a horrible idea. The general population is far to ignorant to make informed decisions. Note that I'm not calling people stupid, just ignorant, which can be fixed if they are willing to take the time to educate themselves. \n\nA quick example: I once saw a question on Y! Answers if Bill Clinton was impeached. It was not a partisan question, just a question of historical fact, whether it happened or not. At least 40% of the answers said "no, he wasn't". (which is wrong, he was impeached) Obviously, this is not a scientific poll, but you can see my point that many people are ignorant of major political events as little as 8 years ago.\n\nLook at the number of TV shows (like Leno) that have segments where they ask college graduates simple questions about our country (who is the current president, who was the first president, how many states are there, etc.) and how many people don't know the answers.\n\nTheoretically, with an educated population, direct democracy would be great. Unfortunately, our population is not educated, never will be enough to responsibly participate in a direct democracy. It sounds nice in theory, but reality makes it a very bad idea.\n\n\n...a quick amendment...\nI think it could work, even with an uneducated population on the following conditions: each voter must first pass a test before they are allowed to vote. The test would not have any opinions, just facts about how our government works and the current issues. The other condition would be that everything would require a super majority to pass, something like 75% or 80%. This would prevent most special interest abuse because only things that the vast majority of people agree on get passed.
695681
I agree. I think we should get rid of parties and vote  individuals. All the parties are becoming entangled in their beliefs anyway.Maybe then on their commercials they would actually say what they want to do for us instead of bashing the other guy because of his party. They ought to make that a law anyway. On the campaigne commercials they should have to state what they believe in and not be allowed to mention anyone elses name . Just by the commercials how many people reading this actually knew what any of the candidates stood for ? I bet you knew who they were running aganst though huh ? Maybe if it was like this the party compitition would be gone and they would have more time and concern to focus ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!!
209490
Since the Electoral College is specifially provided for in the U.S. Constitution, if you don't like it your lawful choices are:\n\n1) propose and campaign for an amendment to the Constitution (2/3 vote in each house of Congress + majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures)\n\n2) whine\n\nNote that your alternative of having some sort of nationwide referendum (if I've read you correctly) is not one of the options.\n\n(Incidentally, I don't think you have a ghost of a chance of changing it anytime soon.  Too many of us believe in the FEDERAL system and don't want everything decided by a few big population centers.)\n\nAlmost forgot to answer the first question -- yes, the American people WERE allowed to vote for the Electoral College system, at least as much as for anything else in the Constitution, THROUGH their representatives (in each state) who voted to ratify the Constitution.  (That's called a representative --or, if I dare say it, 'republican' form of government, and it's the one we've had for over 200 years.)
935265
Yes "One man -- One Vote" it is the way our forefathers wanted.  But they create also the electoral college to decide the president that isn't prefect.
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.
1053799
Of course!  It is one of the best scenarios that people in the know have come up with to improve and streamline our electoral system.  In other words, anything but the present system!  It sux!
804054
remodel (no just kidding?)\n\nI would, if I could, reform our voting/election system. (I realize I'd need congress so I'd go to someone aware of the problems we had in Ohio 2004 like Kucinich, Conyers, or Tubb-Jones and ask them to draft a bill, etc)\n\n1. no more electoral college\n\n2. public funding of elections\n\n3. No advertising..each candidate gets a block of free time on TV to say whatever they want about their platform etc and that is it.\n\n4. For debate, there would be no preselecting questions, questions off the table etc.  It would be open to citizens by random drawing or something. People could ask whatever they wanted, and there would not be allowed any media discussion or who won the debate projections,,just they do debate, it ends and go to the regular program.\n\n5. A bigger state than New Hampshire with a diverse population starts primaries, litle or no media input on it as they have too much power to pick the candidate while making us think we pick them by what they say (unless there were no corporate owned media conglomerates but a lot of diverse stations not all owned by the same guy.) No polls or projections of who will get the nominations in a horse race fashion that really influnences people's votes.  More rules for the media and time limit on how long they report on it to lesson their influence on elections.  I would rather give the time of all their chattering and influencing to the candidates to give voters a real idea of who the person is, what they believe,how they would handle problems directly from them, instead of all the media chattering and influencing.  Let the people decide on their own gut feelings and what the candidate says.  Rarely do we ever get to hear what the candidate says is important to them when all we get is rebuttal attack ads and preprogrammed question and time limits at debate.   A limit on and accounting of all spending by candidates for extras not publicly funding.  It really should be possible for anyone to run for president without being millionairres and raising tons of money and all the political favors that obligates politicians,  \n\n6. There would be instant runoff voting to allow third parties a chance (for instance, take Nader, Bush, and Kerry..if you like Nader, then Kerry, but not Bush.  If you vote your first choice (Nader) and he doesn't have enough votes, your vote then goes to your 2nd choice (Kerry) and not to help Bush.\n\n7. Election day as a holiday. Separate ballots or elections for president (and possibly high offices and statewide issues to speed counting time).\n\n8. Paper Ballots hand-counted at the ballots, using these steps.\n\na. paper ballots with a number that are available in various languages and braille that you can get in advance in places like libraries..prefill in and bring to the polls\n\nb. All voting will be done at the high school building where a child living at your address will go. that way there is no confusion on where to go..just ask some of your neighbors.  No sending people to different locations and frustrating them so they don't vote.  Here it is always the same.\n\nc. Appoint each county with a citizen run , nonpartisan board that oversees all pre, during, and after elections proceedings and files public reports.  so people are aware if they are doing things like Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state, did like throwing new registrations away if they were on the wrong weight of paper or if they put the wrong number from the 2 on the driver's licence or if they short the machines or harass people at the polls etc.  All is publicly observed and recorded and reported.\nd.  when the voter gets to the high school, a greeter tells them which classroom is their precinct (no more than 100 or 200 voters per precinct.  In here, you have food, drink, shelter from inclement weather, and chairs for elderly and disabled in case of lines.  The greeter also has a locked, transparent box near entrance if it is not
724804
The Electoral college in many ways is a remnant of the past. It is bloated, cost too much money, and is ripe for corruption\n\nTwo US Presidents have been elected by the electoral vote, despite losing the popular vote! In a Democracy, the popular vote should always be more important.
892345
We should get rid of them. The reasons to get rid of them, i.e., the chance of the person who won the popular vote not winning the electoral vote, outweigh any reason to keep them.
934208
These are two different questions.  Look up electoral college and constitutional amendment in a civics book or online.  As for what Kentucky should do, let them do what they want - Nebraska and Maine have already taken similar actions.