Am I the only one who thinks elections should be decided by popular vote alone?

[Rocknrule]

In 2000, there was a Dave Letterman Top 10 about what the FFs would say if they were still alive. The 1st one was "Remember that Electoral College thing we made up when we were drunk? They're still using it!"

Sums up my thoughts perfectly. What's the purpose of an electoral college? Doesn't it make sense in a democracy to pick leaders solely on who most Americans want? Plus, if it was all about the popular vote, Bush would've never seen the White House.

[BlueIdaho]

1. Yes.

Popular vote would put all the power to elect the president into the hands of a relative few big states - candidates could completely ignore most of America and still become president. There's a reason one house of congress has proportional representation and the other is strictly two votes per state.

[Orsino]

14. A few big *cities*, in fact.

The Electoral College doesn't guarantee that every state will get a campaign visit, but it does help.

[dysfunctional press]

2. probably not the only one...but i think that the electoral college has it's place...

and shouldn't be abandoned.

[cobalt1999]

3. Only if you want the candidates to limit their campaigning to a a few large states.

n/t

[Retrograde]

8. you mean the ones they don't campaign in now?

It would be nice to see a major candidate show up in California to do something other than raise money. New York can say the same.

The electoral college needs to change: I'd go for a proportional vote in all states, or one based on Congressional district with the other 2 votes going to the overall winner. Of course then we'd be complaining about district gerrymandering.

[mdmc]

4. time for a constitutional convention

:patriot:

[rgbecker]

5. Truth is, the deal made to get the colonies to agree to the "United" part

was continued down through all the rest of country for no apparent reason. So now, even though we all pay the same federal taxes, if you happen to live in Wyoming, your vote in the senate is worth about 1 in 250,000 while the California voter's vote is worth 1 in 17,500,000. Same holds true in the electoral college. One man one vote? I don't think so.

[Muttocracy]

9. electoral college isn't skewed quite as badly as senate power but yeah,

it's not one-man-one-vote. As for the "apparent reason" I assume it was because smaller states wouldn't give up their electoral power, and for much of our history popular vote wasn't really the goal (slaves, women, poor people, etc. not voting anyway)

[treestar]

11. The Senators supposedly represent the states

Rather than the people directly.

Nowadays that is not a big distinction as people don't really think all that much of the individual states as going against each other.

[ebdarcy]

6. I think the electoral college would be better if the results were proportional.

It kind of sucks that a candidate can win 49% of the state's popular vote, but none of the state's electoral votes. It's not fair to the voters either, and I think it helps to depress turnout. A lot of people don't think about the down-ticket races, and if it's already pre-determined your state is going red, why bother voting at all? I think a proportional result would get more people involved in the process and candidates would pay more attention to voters in what were once considered safe states.

Anyway, that's my opinion for what's it's worth, which isn't all that much.

[NeedleCast]

7. Probably Not, but it's a bad idea

[Muttocracy]

10. I'm with you. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. There is no ethical or practical defense for the electoral college

When the 14th amendment was incorporated it rendered American federalism a grotesque dinosaur.

If someone wants to argue the anti-proportional federalist Senate is a good idea they will have very few arguments on their side.

Arguing for the electoral college has NO arguments on its side.

The presidential vote of a voter in Montana counts almost exactly double that of a voter in California. That's indefensible.

[Stargleamer]

13. I agree totally. . .

To argue that popular vote would put too much power in the hands of the big states ignores the reality of what is going on. What about too much power for rural states? In 2000, Oregon sent almost as many people to the polls as Wisconsin, yet Oregon was stuck with 6 electoral votes to Wisconsin's 10. Also, in 2000, Calif. voters gave Al Gore more than 200,000 more votes than Bush--which is more than combined totals of a lot of states, but whether he won California by one vote, or by one million, Al Gore was limited to 55 electoral votes. No way can these things be fair. The electoral college subverts the ideal of "one person, one vote", because it is quite evident that under it, some person's vote count more than 1, just on the basis of where they live. And anything less than "one person, one vote" is unfair.