Electoral vs. Popular Vote

There are simpler ways of making our elections more democratic than eliminating the EC. Someone already mentioned making EC votes proportional rather than winner-takes-all (as they do in Maine and a few other states).

But I am more concerned about establishing meaningful federal guidelines for how elections should be conducted fairly and transparently. So long as there are hackable, paper-trail-less voting machines, and partisan SoS's controlling the way elections are run, there is little point in discussing more radical and far-reaching reforms to American elections.

YES - Emphatically YES.

Yes. The electoral college is not needed today. We are bombarded with news all day from the TV and the internet and a good portion of voters know about the candidates and where they stand on important issues. The electoral college also gives an unfair advantages to smaller states. If the people want a crazy dictator that's their choice. Fortunately I don't think Americans are dumb enough to elect a crazy dictator (although I'm probably wrong).

Though there are many injustices and complications with modern voting - the greatest is the Electoral College which robs Americans of their right to have each individual voice heard thru their vote. A small population with limited communication would benefit from an Electoral College as it would allow the people's votes to be accurately relayed. Now we have advanced communication and many ways to ensure accurate calculation and delivery of the population's votes.

Also, the current system robs the President if he wins only by Electoral votes as he will have a large percentage of the population who is not behind him - making his job more difficult and leading to a sense of division amongst the general population.

Presidents should be voted in by individuals - not an archaic system of measurement which is now obsolete.

Neither system (the present Electoral College or a popular vote) is the best choice for the nation. The current Electoral College is weighed down too much by the "winner take all" aspect that nearly every state has, and provides no remedy for cases when the vote is nearly split between two candidates and also limits the ability of third party candidates to compete fairly. A popular vote, while a true democratic method, is nearly impossible to run in a country with 50+ million voters without much more stringent accounting methods for votes, and again is unfavorable to 3rd party voters. A better system would combine the agglomeration of vote assessment that the Electoral College without "winner take all" systems with a Run-Off voting system so that votes for third parties are not considered "wasted".

Of course. Three times the citizens of the United States of America have voted for candidates that did not win the Electoral College vote and thus not the presidency, despite having the popular vote. The Electoral College is a slap in the face for all Americans. It essentially says that unless the majority of the people in your state vote the way you do, your vote does not count. Personally, I am tired of my vote not counting just because I live a state that traditionally votes conservatively.

My vote should be added with those of my fellow citizen Americans to be counted together to determine our single most powerful leader for the next four years.

Every time I make my choice for president I feel that burning sensation in my face knowing that my vote does not count because 70% of the people in my state will vote differently.

As I understand it, you've had this system of electing your president since we granted you independence. The system hasn't worked well lately, but that isn't a reason to change. An unbiased media and voter education would also make a difference. In the past this system has produced some great presidents Millard Fillmore to name but one.

No. It should be replaced entirely. One word: Thunderdome.

The electoral college is a flawed system but with good intentions. You don't want to allow the small areas of dense populations be able to dominate the entire political landscape of the nation. Without the electoral college Ohio would have no say in the presidency at all. New York and California would essentially decide the winner each election. Then candidates would concentrate all of their time on those 2 states, and pander totally to the special interests located there. It is equally unfair that every election comes down to Ohio and Florida. I think there needs to be 2 kinds of reform. First, basic voting reform to a condorcet voting system, so that people don't feel compelled to vote for one of the 2 major parties. Second, reform the electoral college so that each representative votes according the the popular winner in their district rather than the entire state.

It should remain. It gives each person more voting power.

This is why we play series in professional sports. Last year in the NBA finals, Miami won the the best of 4 against Dallas. But what if Dallas had scored more points total over the entire 7 game series? Would there then be a case for them being the real champions? Of course not, and no one is saying so. Mathematically, by giving tallying all the points in one game to get a single "vote", it gives that single game much more significance.

Individual state's powers have been on the decline ever since the Civil War. We don't need to take away one of the last vestiges of it.

Yes.

Voting should be simple and transparent. Making it more confusing opens it up to abuse and suspicion of abuse.

No, it was the intentions of the founding fathers for one thing, and two, a true democracy is just unpracticle. N

The Electoral College is not the issue, it's the way the votes are distributed. Currently most states award all of their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote in their state, thus discounting the votes for the challenger(s) in that state. I believe the votes should be split into a percentage of the popular vote. Then the Electoral College would still work as intended while forcing the candidates to focus their campaigns to the entire country instead of a select few states. This would eliminate the situations we've had in the last two elections where the president is essentially chosen by one state.

Both systems are flawed, but that doesn't mean one isn't "better" for the country than the other.

"One Man, One Vote" is the main argument behind popular vote, but back when the country was made, almost the entire population was in the Virginia area and still most of our presidents were from that area. Now, as population is even less spread out, with no major metropolitan area in the Southern states, a popular vote would only more isolate the middle and southern states.

Changing to a popular vote would only benefit those who live in the major metropolises, mainly the Democrats.

America should stay with the current system, because, it is the best system for America right now (and 200 years ago). Perhaps when a popular vote becomes more realistic and would not heavily favor one party, then we can reconsider this.

No. On the surface this sounds like a good idea but when you realize that more populous areas would pull much more weight than smaller ones things get a little murkier. Politicians would start tailoring their campaigns to big cities and leaving smaller rural areas with less of a say in national government. Is that fair? No of course not. I wouldn't want people in NYC deciding whats best for people in Birmingham, AL. A more even weight is the better way to go.

Another this or that question, why not the other thing?
Between the two i vote for electoral college. There are good reasons we didn't choose old school democracy, mainly so that minorities don't get steam rolled by majorities. And it has worked pretty well through out our history and it should be noted, only varies from the popular vote in close races and has only disagreed with it on a couple of occasions.

It does suffer from the problem that it does the opposite of what is intended by making a few states important while the rest of us are pretty much meaningless. If the few states needed to win the election were to form a cabal they could easily direct the policy of the country to the detriment of other states. No nuke dumps in their backyards anyway.

Yes! the Electoral College system should be eliminated.

Reasons:

1. Historical - The first relationships of man have been natural democracy's as seen in early Africa. The leader of the nation and the council of elders is a timeless model. One man, one vote is a natural state of affairs.

2. Constitutional - Government by the people, off the people and for the people is the intent of our from of government.

3. Practical - Technology makes this natural state of affairs possible in America today. There is no one electoral collage between me and my bank. One dollar, one vote and the bank does not loose or miscount my votes. If they do miscount or mismanage my dollar votes they will not be my bank. Our Government can and must, do no less!

The electoral college ought to be eliminated because it is the only election in the country where the victor is not decided directly by the will of the people.

The system forces undue focus on states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, whose votes determine the viability of candidates in future primaries. Without denigrating the populations of those states, who is to say that their voters have any more right or duty to select the nominee from the parties?

The "winner takes all" system of electoral college votes means that states such as New Mexico that were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes cannot split their ballots to reflect the split in the populace. It also reduces the incentive to vote for voters whose views are against the majority in their state. I, for example, live in Texas. my "blue" vote is next to meaningless.

Get rid of it.

The electoral college was a system initiated in order to enable states to dispatch electorals to Washington to vote for them. This was necessary for running a democracy in such a lagre country, as it requird only the electorals to travel to the capital. With the information highway we live today, submitting a vote from San Francisco to Washington is a matter if seconds. So a popular vote system would make sense. Of course, a system where the parliament appoints the president would be beneficial, too. State legislation should be given more weight and importance, and direct democracy should be enforced. Electing parliament is more , or should be more important than electing the president. They make the laws, the president should execute them, but executive forces are deeply nested in the countries hierarchy. So the president is practically just a persona elected, not really a significant legal instance.

We live in a nation divided into patches of red, blue and purple. That's how the pollsters see us. That's how each presidential campaign decides to concentrate its effort and campaign dollar every four years. Increasingly, that's how we perceive ourselves.

The Electoral College only serves to contain the will of a nation into isolated battlegrounds of political ideology, while perpetuating a compromise between states at a time when the nation's citizenry identified themselves as Rhode Islanders or Virginians, rather than Americans.

It's high time to scrap it, thereby providing each and every American with the opportunity to vote for the most qualified and outreaching presidential candidate, rather than the most cunning political strategists.

The Electoral College system divides the United States into a battleground where the politicians fight for the most points. A candidate should not be able to earn the right to govern our country by scoring points. This "point scoring" system makes certain states more valuable than others. Why should the votes of people in one state matter more than others?

If we dispose of the Electoral College the votes of a majority of America's population will increase in value. As people learn they actually have a say they will pay more attention to the votes they cast. Poll turnouts will be better and people will vote for who they want to win, not who their neighbor voted for. Now the candidates will care about number of votes not points. As the race progresses candidates will scramble to gain the votes of the "tiny" people. Integrity will be key.

The electoral college system as it is now should most definitely be eliminated. Wyoming's 3 electoral votes were decided by 243,428 popular votes in 2004. California's 55 electoral votes were decided by 12,400,639 popular votes. Doing the math, you'll see that the vote of a single person in Wyoming is worth nearly four times that of a single person's vote in California! Arguably, the United States' most well known phrase is "All men are created equal," which the current electoral system fails to abide by.

Though a sheer popular vote would be an improvement over the electoral college, I suggest that the Borda Count would be a better method of voting. It allows you to rank the candidates in order of preference, giving people the chance to vote for a third-party candidate rather than boiling the election down to a vote for "the lesser of two evils."

Al Gore would like to remind everyone that he did win the popular vote. :)

Keep the popular vote, because it is democracy in choosing our leader.

The Electoral College needs to be altered, if not eliminated. The main problem with our political system, though, is its a two-party system and creating a viable alternative to the establishment is difficult. A parliamentary system, like in the UK, would be ideal as it accurately reflects the politics of the public.

At the very least, states should allow their electoral votes to be split up among the presidential candidates instead of "winner-take-all." In Nebraska, two of its electoral votes go to whomever wins the popular vote state-wide. The remaining votes go to whichever candidate wins the popular vote in each Congressional district.

This approach is a step towards recognizing that states aren't just red or blue; that every state has Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It more accurately reflects the political leanings of each area of a state and doesn't disillusion Democratic voters in a heavily Republican state [for example].

You mean tally up the number of votes for each candidate and declare the winner as the one with the most votes? Yes, definitely. This concept is pretty much used by organizations everywhere and is effective in "rewarding" those folks who take the time to examine issues and find the motivation and effort to actually cast a vote.

Otherwise, in a predominately green (or red) state where the outcome is determined well before everyone has input their decision, what's the point? The electoral college system encourages others to trust that an adequate decision will be made by the votes of others, so why bother adding my two cents to the total.

If people knew that every single vote really did count it might make a tremendous difference.

And looking back on the past seven years plenty of people have certainly wished things were different.