How does Electoral College help or hurt representative democracy?
959764
Hurts in that there is the opportunity that a president may be elected with less than the majority of the popular vote.
812498
Representative democracy is just elected officials making the laws and decisions for the majority.  Direct democracy is not feasible because of the large numbers of people.  Even in a smaller community, you would have thousands of people who would want to speak about each and every thing that came up.  \n\nIn government, there is a thing called "The Iron Law of Oligarchy," which means no matter how much you try to maintain direct democracy, eventually there comes a need for representaties to speak for the majority, instead of individuals speaking for themselves.
706809
Direct democracy is when the entire populace gathers to vote on laws, ordinances, etc. Representative democracy is when reigons of people vote on representatives that vote on laws and ordinances for them. The U.S. is a representative democracy.
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.
430186
the number of electors is the number of representatives in the house plus senators that state has. Michigan for example has 15 representatives and 2 senators. this means they have 17 electoral college votes
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.
404542
A. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\n\n\nITS IS CALLED\nMajority ? Plurality\n      A candidate must receive a majority of votes (over 50%) to become President. If no one has a majority, the person with the most votes has a plurality, but is not President.\n\n\n      The constitution includes a clause that guides the selection process in the event of a plurality. Article II, Section I states that "If the Electoral College does not give any candidate the necessary majority, the House of Representatives chooses the President from among the top three candidates in electoral votes. \n\n\nIn such a situation the House votes by states, with each state having one vote. To be elected president, a candidate must receive the votes from a majority of the states."\n\n\n      This clause has been used twice in the history of the United States. In 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied for the presidency with 69 electoral votes each. After 36 ballots, Thomas Jefferson was elected the president of the United States. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led in electoral votes, but he did not have a majority. The House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams as President after Henry Clay gave Adams his support.\n\n\nHOPE YOU UNDERSTOOD
191521
To the extent that it allows everyone to voice an opinion and choose a result by majority vote. There is some scientific evidence that large groups arrive at correct or viable answers to problems more often than one person or small groups.\n\nNo country today is a democratic country, because none allow direct votes by all the eligible voters on all issues. Instead, we tend to have what are called republics, in which smaller groups of voters elect persons to vote in their place on issues.\n\nAnd, whether democracy or republic, the fewer the people who participate, the less likely the outcome is the best for the country. Also, the more restraints by the leaders of the country on dissent and opposition, the less effective the leaders are in representing most of the people. These leaders, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, set themselves up as Plato's philosopher-kings, who know best, and let no one try to talk them out of what they are doing.
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."
428870
Electoral votes matter
135820
No. For some more enlightened and less idealistic-minded people we realize that the democratic system is simply a guide line. That every and any rule set can be circumvented or bypassed. Vote? As long as there are electoral colleges your vote means almost next to nothing. Our government is corrupt and run by influence and pay offs. You're kidding yourself if you honestly believes a flawed and corrupt system such as ours is effective. Look at Katrina relief. Look at the poor inside our country. Look at the homeless child rate. Then look at the golden umbrellas all the CEO's, senators, justices and governors retain even after retirement. There's what they want you to see and then there's the truth. Take the blue pill Neo.
961975
the electoral college is very fair.   It gives each state equal voting representation.  If we didn't have the electoral college all elections would be decided by NY, TX, and CA.
182015
No.  The idea of a representative democracy like the United States is that we elect leaders to make these decisions for us.  While direct democracy (what you described) is great in theory, in practice politics is a full time job.  If people are going to vote on every issue they also have to discuss and debate every issue in order to make an informed decision.  If all citizens were expected to serve essentailly as members of congress (this is effectively what you are asking), society would cease to function.  Factories, resturantes, schools, and stores would have to close every time there was a political issue to be decided.\n\nHolding a general election is also extremely expensive and time-consuming.  You need people to supply the ballots, run the polls, and count the votes.  Special intrest groups spend huge sums on advertising for a bill they support or oppose.  Holding general elections more frequently is not economically practical.\n\nYou might say that direct democracy worked in ancient Athens.  However, direct democracy worked in Athens because slaves, women, and children kept things running while the male citizens were busy with politics.\n\nFurthermore, most issues decided by congress are far to complex for the general public.  You may want your say in abortion rights or gay marriage, or a politically charged war like the one in Iraq, but if you trust the general public to review budget proposals or redistricting measures you're insane.  Even matters like the Patriot Act are beyond the comprehension of the average American.  Try actually reading the thing - you'll see what I mean.  There are times when it is critical to raise taxes (like in the case of [legitimate] war) but asking the public to vote for it is essentially asking people to voluntarily hand over a larger portion of their income to the government.\n\nThe solution is not to switch to direct democracy but to vote for representatives who will make good decisions.
914212
No.  What happens is:  Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes(the bigger the population the more electoral votes).  If a candidate wins by popular vote in that state, they win those electoral votes.  So after the election is over, whoever has the most electoral votes win.  That is why it is possible to have the most popluar vote over all but still not enough electoral votes to win the election.
1187194
i've seen a lot of responses that say it's because so smaller states have a say. what nonsense!!\nwe have the "college" because our democracy is a farce. a popular vote means whoever receives the most votes wins. we, the american people aren't trusted to vote in a president. it is decided by our "betters". a popular vote is the only way a true democracy can function. that's why our's is broken. and needs fixing badly.
933748
The Electoral College is the thing that actually elects the US President.  Each state gets a number of delegates equal to the sum of their Senators plus Representatives in Congress.\n\nThe actual delegates are selected by mechanisms in each state, but their vote is a foregone conclusion.\n\nWikipedia is your friend....
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.