Does anybody support a US mixed electoral system?
481287
No, it should be abolished; because it has been tampered and modified to many times.
1001695
It wont matter if you people get a democrat or republican in there as most of your voting machines are fixed and both main candidates are chosen by the New World Order global elitists.  Your 2 leading candidates are like 2 arms on the same body and are there to give you an impression that you actually have a choice, when in fact you don't. Whether they are democrat or republican they push forward a  global agenda.  Bush and Kerry were both Skull and Bones brothers and also family cousins.  It would not have mattered which got in. Your question is therefore  redundant.
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.
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.
396719
You say American democratic, but the US system is not a democracy, but a representative republic.\n\nThe disadvantage of a democracy is that a marginal majority, through its vote can control everything in the country, and that the system is itself clumsy in that all the eligible people will vote on every issue, which is time consuming and open to great corruption.\n\nThe advantage of the representative republic is that representation can, and has, been established so that the minorities of the public and of the states are not disenfranchised, not removed from participation in the decision making processes. The smaller states (in population) have a say in government and laws through principally the US Senate, where every state gets 2 votes regardless of its population. That prevents the 10 most populous states of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, and Georgia, which are decidedly more eastern (2 exceptions) from deciding all of the laws for all the 50 states. Those 10 states, with 1/2 the population would be able to by voting together over ride the vote of the other 40 states if we had a democracy and not a republic. So unless you want the complete control of this country to fall into the hands of a few states, you had better not vote for equal counting in presidential elections, nor in congressional representation.\n\nThere is actually less corruption in representative government than in totalitarian government, because there are more people that a corrupter must pay-off in a representative. If you don't understand or believe that, witness the state of things in the former Soviet Union where the government was "representative" in name only, with all candidates selected by the Communist Party, a group of fat cats who acted together as a governing unit.
874290
Not in this time and era. I would like just one person to be for the people that was elected by the people. Great leadership is non existent in today's America. All I have left to do is pick by party, and pick the lesser of the two evils. Good question.
344585
I believe this will not happen in my life time. People in the USA believe we already live in a democracy, but we don't. We live in a land of freedoms, but not democracy. If we did, we would have many more choices to vote for in elections instead of being offered only what the two parties offer for the most part. If we were a democracy the people would have more say regarding taxes, how our money is spent and have a press that is factual and not what the prevailing government wants whether it is democratics or republicans. A true democractic society is run by the people for the people. I am 63 and we haven't had that yet since i have been around.
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.)
867066
None of these....I think it would be irresponsible to vote according to just one or even all of these combined.  There's so much more to help a person decide.  Although, to alot of people these are the forefront.....  good luck.
90910
It'll never work in our two-party system unfortunately.\nYou will start a party and have a great platform, then next thing you know one of these parties will use it as their own.  It could be worse, however.  We could have a multi-party and have nothting done because these parties are too busy forming allies and enemies...  I know, Blah, Blah, Blah...
738489
I would go for a change: a mixture of the current system and a component of proportional representation. This would mean an overall majority would be unlikely. That is a good thing in itself, so rotten laws are not forced through Parliament.
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?
270008
Yes but the "two-headed monster" won't let it happen. It's much more than the debates. look at your local states laws and see what any 3rd party or independant candidate has to do to get on the ballot and compare with what the GOP/Dems have to do.\n\nBut it all goes back to the American people. They are willing to accept the mediocrity of the two party system, so they get what they deserve.
993923
Yes we should.  Liberal republicans and conservative democrats are almost the same thing, yet they vote for candidates that are far left or far right just because of party affiliation.  It's also ashame that third party candidates have no hope of winning when they have some of the best ideas.  The idea that your vote is wasted when you vote for the person you like best is terrible.  Every vote should count and we need to steer away from our current system.  Which incidentally put a theocracy into effect.  How can we attempt to bring democracy into other nations when our own leader claims to be led by god.
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.
514893
Not sure if that would help. But I would like to see the electoral colege go away so everybody's vote counts.\n\nIf there were no electoral college, bush would have lost his election and we wouldn't be in this mess.
820707
Yes.  But the key to the future is "proportional representation."  Look for it online.  Instead of majority rule taking all, voters are guaranteed representation proportional to the membership of their party, similar to representation by state or district. \n\nVoter turnout increases when people's votes count toward representation no matter how big or small.  \n\nI believe in adding representation based on party affiliation.  So there could be a Senate with two reps per group, and a House based on reps per population or membership.  Since some people may be affiliated with more than one, any group or individual could propose legislation, but decisions would be based on consensus between all parties affected.  So you can legislate for your own party or district; but if legislation affects the greater public, it must be adopted by consent of those affected.\n\nThis would encourage direct participation and representation in government, and help to organize the population by party and by issue.  Policies based on common solutions would invite practical ideas and cooperative support, instead of campaigns that exploit emotions or media stereotypes to manipulate the vote, divide the public, and fuel conflict and debate over problems.\n\nThe government is not a failure but the population has outgrown the current system.  As a society we have developed the technology and communication to localize government and to organize by interest so that groups no longer need to compete for power.  Solutions will come from cooperation between groups. So that is where government is heading, based on expanding on the current model we have for checks and balances between the various branches and levels.