Should the Electoral College, in your opinion, be abolished?
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.
808054
NO MORE ELECTIONS\nPLEASE
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.
293324
Some people think it's a silly system that devalues some people's votes and inflates others'. (For example, my vote is worth about a third of a Wyoming person's vote in a national election.) This same group believes the electoral college, along with the senate, are a symptom of just how little many of the founding fathers actually trusted "the people."\n\nThe opposing thought is that there must be some equalizing formula to give the small states some clout not otherwise justified by their size.\n\nMe? I think we should grow up & start acting like a nation and not 50 squabbling twerps.
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!
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.
150821
the founding fathers designed this system because they thought that at the time the population was to uneducated to make such critical decisions as choosing the president. in fact the public couldn't choose senators either--they were chosen by the state legislatures. in any event the electoral college is a system that gives one vote per senator/representative that a state has. the electors are mainly chosen by the party that carried the state and when casting the ballots for the candidate that won the state the elector actually has no obligation to use his vote on that candidate other than the knowledge that should he vote for anyone else he would be committing political suicide
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.
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.
181666
Yes, I think it should be abolished.  It seems to be a waste of money since all it is is just a rubber stamp of the election results.
526640
First off if you vote, at least that is a step in the right direction. Second, The Electoral College and the Popular votes are always off. I agree with you that this is not fair. Our voices are not heard, we are put in a group of Electoral votes and individuals don't count. For the presidency. \nWith all the technology you would think if we could  vote on the computers, then maybe just maybe the computer would not screw up the counts, it would be faster, and well no one would be counting the "hanging chads". \nGood Question\n\nAdded 4:10 a.m. Found this for you....The Electoral College was established by the framers of the Constitution as a compromise between the election of the President by popular vote and the election of the President by the Congress.  The framers were concerned that members of the public would not be able to stay informed about candidates from other regions. They were also worried about the arrangements that might be made between the state’s Representatives behind closed doors.  While the concern over deals struck between our elected Representatives might continue to be a concern in modern times, the ability of the public to be informed about the candidates is not...http://alllaw.com/articles/constitutional/article1.asp\n\nand getting it changed back is a lot of work....It will be interesting to see the public’s reaction if the results of the Electoral College don’t match up with the results of the popular vote in this Presidential election.  One strong argument for keeping the Electoral College is that it forces Presidential candidates to campaign in states with small populations.  If the Presidential election were decided by the popular vote, candidates might focus their campaigns only on highly populated areas, leaving states with smaller populations with little say in who is elected President.  It is hard to say whether this argument is strong enough to overcome any sense of unfairness voters may feel if the candidate who wins the popular vote loses the Electoral College election.  Because the Electoral College process is part of our Constitution, it can only be changed by a Constitutional amendment – not an easy thing to do....http://alllaw.com/articles/constitutional/article1.asp\n\n When, in 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams, Jackson lost no time in complaining that he believed the election was stolen. He complained early, he complained often; even after he won the presidency the next time around he was still complaining...http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.19C.mundy.gore.htm\n\nI was so interrested in your question I did some more research and went to a wonderful site. AskALibrarian@oclc.org. They sent me those links. \n\nhttp://www.votescount.com/books/elecoll.htm\n\nhttp://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php\n\nhttp://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm
100407
california should be voted off the USA
1142965
It has worked for 230 years, why would we change it? The 4 presidents that were elected because of the Electoral college have been spaced out over 176 year span. (1824,1876,1888,2000)\nJust because today's people want to change everything they do not like, no matter how long the tradition does not mean it is right or that Congress will ever do it. It helps give political power to small states, otherwise the president would be chosen about less than 10 states - mostly NY, Florida & California   . The rest of us would love some say in who is president.
142271
"An electoral college is a set of electors who are empowered as a deliberative body to elect someone to a particular office. Often these electors represent a different organization or entity with each organization or entity represented by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body."
1005940
It's happened in 1888. However the popular does not matter. It is the electorial vote that matters in our system.
497805
omg, i never thought about that LOL.  what if the United States held an election and no one showed up?  I bet the electorial college would still elect someone even if we didn't actually vote for that person.  Wait, that happened already with Bush lol.  guess that answers that.
193200
the reason we have a electoral college is so that someone who has no idea about government would win the election.  weather you like President Bush or not he still knows the law.  it to keep out people winning for popularity (hollywood, sports stars, rappers ) stuff like that.   i don't like Prestdent Clinton but i'm glad we had him and not P ditty.   thank you electoral college.