Why don't the USA electoral system use an eletronic one?
924988
Good question. \n\nActuallly, the Democrats prefer the old way because THEY'VE BEEN USING DIRTY TRICKS. \n\nThey are scared because they know electronic machines will be more precise and will show that Democrats in the urban areas, the cities, have been padding their votes. \n\nSo, you have it wrong. It's not Bush it's the Democrats who have been cheating for many years. \n\nJohn F. Kennedy won the votes in Illinois based on votes of dead people .
552061
Well, right off the bat, the US elects everybody by popular vote, right down to the local dogcatcher.\n\nThe confusion many people have is owing to our origins, where each individual colony of Great Britain was used to being separate from the others, and so when we formed the United States, each State had to have its concerns for Sovereignty [running its own local affairs] addressed.  So a system was devised to give the small states equal representation in the congress with the large ones, while also giving the people representation based on how many there are in each state [one representative per so many thousand].  So we have 2 senators from each state in the Senate.  And we have about 456 representatives in the House of Representatives.\n\nSenators and Representatives run for election based on membership in a party.  The people who want to run for office [British "stand" for office] for the Republican party have their names placed on the ballot by petition signed by a sufficient number of people.  Then there is an election to decide which of these Republicans will be the Republican candidate for the office in contest.  The same with the other parties.  This is called a primary election.  When that election decides who shall be the candidate from each party, then the people vote on the various condidates for the office in contest.\n\nWe do in fact have more than the 2 parties.  But the system is so old and our population is so much alike and our domestic issues are so continously the same that most people really are either Republicans or Democrats.\n\nAs far as the Presidential election goes, the Constitution does not provide for the direct election of the president.  It provides for the States [that old States' Right thing] to send Electors equal to the number of Representatives it has in Congress to vote on the candidates put forward, without mentioning how they are to be put forward.\n\nThe theory was that people would vote for Electors whose political views were known, and these Electors would gather together in a College and hash out who would be President among themselves, with the most populous states having the most votes because they have the most representatives in Congress.  \n\nBut rapidly, it fell out that parties would nominate a candidate and the people voted for the Electors who commmitted themselves to him, and then the Electors voted in the College for that person, even though they don't really have to.  \n\nWhat this results in is that candidates spend a lot of time in the most populous states because those states have the most Electors, and there is the rule that the candidate who gets the most votes, even if only 51%, gets ALL the Electors  from his state.\n\nThere is a lot of discussion about ditching this imperfect system in favor of absolute popular election.  Most people would go for it, but politicians like it because they can spout and posture in only a few states and win the election, even though they don't get the majority of the popular votes.
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.
1014966
There is a simple solution that would eliminate the two party system instantly.  It is called instant runoff voting.  Instead of choosing one candidate for president, you choose the top three, or four or whatever.  This eliminates the concept of a "throwaway vote" for a third party candidate. \n\nYou are right.   The democrats and republicans are all just pawns for the people who are really in control.   American Democracy has been dead since 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed president, not elected.  In 2004 there is strong evidence to support that the election was rigged. \n\nYou don't have to rigg the election so a candidate gets 100% of the vote, you just have to find the places where he would only need a few extra votes to win, like Ohio.  In Ohio they used electronic voting machines. There is no paper trail.  It would only take one person with access to the machines to open the back door and alter the votes.  WWW.BLACKBOXVOTING.ORG \n\nIt is proven that the machines were built with a secret back door that would allow manipulation of votes without leaving a trace.\n\n"We are committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."  CEO of DIEBOLD.
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?
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.
946179
I think it is stupid to use machines.\nAs Americans, we are spoiled.\nWe need to be patient once in a while, because time gives you greater accuracy.
801685
I agree 100% with you, but lets take it one step further. In libraries and community building machines like automatic teller machines could be placed and from time ballot was printed till 8 o'clock election day you could enter your voting card get paper ballot an envelope vote at your leisure put it into envelope, and with magmatic voting card deposited it to be collected and counted election night. This would end 3 hour time problem. Biggest problem would setting up system to prevent counterfeit collection boxes from being put into system, but with GPA tracking it could be overcome. Primaries could also be done this way if you were allowed to pick you party day you voted.
144398
Security would be of great concern, for obvious reasons but if USA wants to remain a leader in the world we should be first with a secure public record access verification paper file at home and posting on county websites,for check and balence system!The polling e-voting surely is distorted but also not secure! I believe it can be done, and eliminate some of the corruption in our current Representative government or restoreing as much majority will back to the people as they can responciably can handle. If it means re-writing our constitution then so be it, better then current lawmaking that fleeces our public! Brasil and Estonia are currently doing e-voting! Do they have a secure method?
755889
We need a better system than the electoral college. I don't understand how one candidate can win the popular vote, but because of a few electoral judges, cannot win the election.
833678
The electronic screen made it easier to make sure you vote for every candidate and question.  \n\nIt also eliminates the problems of not recording votes if the handle isn't pressed down all the way.
24220
Not only not enough horsepower (which I agree with), but also because the U.S. has a two-party system ingrained in it's politics.  It's been basically a two-party system since the revolution.
271758
foriegn cars dont need to be altered electronically(usally).\nmost of them dont have govenors and already put out as much power as possible.
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.
1090209
They are not necessary. They are an instrument that allows the people to pick a representative. Without them, it is hard to see how one could have a democracy. However, elections alone are not suffient to have a democracy.
387258
The US was designed as a representative democracy, not an ideal democracy.  Thus we have representatives to vote for us in national elections.\n\nThat being said, the electoral college does have flaws and should be modified or eliminated.  But then so should the 2-per-state Senate, don't you think? Kind of bizarre when someone in Rhode Island is 100 times better represented in Congress than someone in California.
637810
Well there are three of them in the US so we already use nuclear power. But nuclear can only be cost effective in highly populated areas. And normally iot is still safer and cheaper to use a petrolium based power.. Although we do have another option hydropower... (Hoover dam)