What Is Your Opinion on the Electoral College?

I absolutely agree.

I live in Kansas and even though I am unaffiliated with either party and vote in every election, I know that my state is already colored Red on every political map.

Doesn't stop me from voting my mind and conscience, but I would appreciate feeling like my vote actually counted.

:)

As a Texan voting for Obama (yes, we exist!), I agree with you. I'll still vote, to at least cancel out my dad's vote for Romney, but I know it makes no difference. (

I'm in Obamaland with all the Obamagasms all around me. I'm with the Mittster and love his Mittmentum.

It does suck that Obama will win Illinois although all the counties outside of Cook typically swing Republican.

I always vote even if I live in a blue state and vote red

I have had it explained to me in at least three classes, for some reason my brain refuses to accept the information in the long term. I guess it is boring...

The idea behind it is that there are X number of states, I say X because there wasn't fifty when they started all this. You had highly populated east coast states and then the more western states were sparsely populated. Imagine if those states could elect whoever will give them what they want just because they have a higher population.

It serves as a type of equalizer. Not totally but better than nothing. Each state gets a vote equal to the number of congressman, so the minimum is three votes, two senators and at least one representative. What it tries to do is preserve state rights, because we are a Republic, while still giving a say to the population as a whole.

At least for me when people say it should go it makes me think the slept through the explanation of what America actually is. France is a state, Germany is a state, we are an (damn see that word didn't stick either) but we are fifty states giving power to a central government. It is kind of economies of scale but I have the feeling that term doesn't help. You take on room mates to defer the cost of your apartment? Does that work? You wouldn't want one room mate having a greater say in the running of the apartment just because her boyfriend lives with her, right? She still only pays a fourth of the rent?

Anyway at least for me when I look at what the United States really is it goes a long way to understanding why the electoral college isn't such a bad thing. The popular vote has only lost four times, 7%, and who is to say that wasn't North and South Dakota trying to have a say in all this?
____________________________________________________________
I think when people look at red and blue states they are forgetting that is the majority of a State. States tend to vote for their needs, just because there are a some people, but not a majority, who see the needs are different doesn't mean the majority should have the ultimate say. In Missouri we tend to be red but that didn't stop me from voting for Kerry in 2004, that was me saying I didn't think Bush met Missouri's needs.

In 2006 I thought Missouri needed a Democrat for the Senate, a lot of people didn't agree, so I campaigned for her. The system isn't broke, people just need to see how the system works and make it work for them.

Oh, just in case my reputation doesn't proceed me, I am voting for Romney, I didn't want people to read I voted for two Democrats and think I was a Democrat, then again, don't look at Romney and think I am a Republican either, K?

I have very mixed thoughts about this issue. I am a conservative living in NY so my vote for president almost never counts since NY always goes blue. (I call myself a red-stater living in a blue state) The popular vote would have changed perhaps 3 elections in our entire history. I do think it's not right that swing states like Ohio & Virginia ultimately decided who our president will be - but they don't really. If NY and CA weren't both blue states then the "flyover" states wouldn't be the ones with so much impact in the elections. The framers of our nation wanted to make sure that the smaller states have input and say in the election of a president. They wantedto be ceratin that urban issues would not be the only pressing issues of the nation and the presidency. A greater proportion of our population does live in urban areas but we rely greatly on those who farm for a living (rural areas) and if their concerns were not given proportionate value we might not have the abundance and food supply that we have. Consider that many nations do not have "food security" and rely heavily on imports to feed their people - a nation can't be strong or healthy (physically or economically) until the basic needs of it's people are met.

So - while I understand hte issues and problems with the electoral college I also recognise the intent of our founders. Really, these were young guys, who were genius in many ways. The design of our nation with checks and balances, the electoral college, the design of the distribution of senators & congress is all genius and has weathered the test of time and change.

Ultimately, I do support the electoral college although I admit it's not perfect and I am negatively impacted by it. Until someone comes up with a better idea though....

If the popular vote wasn't what you wanted, then you wouldn't like it done that way either! The electoral college is a kind of checks-and-balances with the population.

to put it another way - do you always agree with whomever gets voted on/off the reality shows?? that's the popular vote in action - no matter the talent, etc...

On one hand, yes. On the other hand, states like Wyoming wouldn't have any impact without the electoral college. Simply....states with low populations would simply not be "heard" without it.

I think the concept is good. Not sure it's going as it was intended.

As an East Coast transplant in an embarrassingly red state (TEXAS), I will definitely exercise my right to vote for President Obama and Joe Biden. As women and mothers of daughters, has ANYONE thought about the direction our country will turn if the Tea Party and extreme Right has a say in who is nominated to be the next two Supreme Court Justices?

Don't be fooled - Mitt Romney and his "supporters" ... "controllers" ... do not have a clue what is best for the United States. His off-camera remarks revealed who he really is and who he will protect. They want to run the country like they run a business - only answer to the wealthy stockholders, forget the employees, economic impact to areas you serve and the long-term health of the company.

The electoral college needs work, but until a better solution is created, I have faith that it will keep the Oval Office blue for at least 8-12 more years. There is more at stake than voting the way your grandparents did.....

Our country was originally designed as a Democratic Republic, as we remain today. At that time, the concept of using a Representative of your community to travel to voice your local opinions/concerns was ideal. We had no other way of efficiently communicating across long distances. With all of the technology available to us today, the electoral college seems to serve little purpose. It is (from what I have seen) the main reason a lot of people DON'T vote in presidential elections. As you said, some place like Texas is a very red state, so why would a democrat bother voting when they already know how the electoral college is going to go? I think it had its purpose in its time, but now it may be time to just go to a popular vote. After all, if all of the national news agencies can keep a rolling tally of the votes during the evening, we've obviously got the communication part down.

I will admitt when it comes to the electoral votes I DONT GET IT. Anyways that being said I do believe that the actual vote should be heard. I know several people that will vote opposite me. I feel that their vote (however I may feel they are being nieve) should be heard as well.

Can someone PM me and take me back to that part of class I decided to sleep through and explain electoral votes more to me?

I think it's completely outdated and blatantly unfair.

It skews the focus of the election campaigning to a handful of toss up states.

And that the candidate who has lost the popular vote sometimes wins the election makes a mockery of one-person-one-vote.

I have felt this way since I first learned about it in grade school, and feel even more strongly about it now. I don't understand why more people don't raise a stink over this. It should be a bipartisan issue.

Here's a great article on a way it can be fixed if the constitutional amendment is too cumbersome. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-edwards/electoral-coll...

My daughter's class is learning about the election and all of that currently. The Electoral College does not make sense to her either nor to a lot of other classmates.
It seems a little outmoded.

The Nixon would have been president in 1960 instead of Kennedy if popular votes would have been the deciding factor. We wouldn't have been in Viet Nam. We wouldn't have had the Bay of Pigs fiasco and we wouldn't have had watergate.

There were a lot of other changes if the popular vote was the one that counted. All the way back to the early 1800 elections. We could give everyone a fairer shot if the states electorial vote weren't winner take all. There are 35 electorial votes in CA (I think.). So if California vote goes for one canidate in a 51/49 split, the winning candidate gets all 35 votes when it should be 18/17.

I'm voting for employment and prosperity. I'm voting for Romney.

Good luck to you and yours.

keep it. Popular voting will really be dishonest.

I agree. I live in DE which is already a small state so even if every Delawarean voted for a particular candidate and Californians voted for for another (even though both won one state) clearly the pick for California would win. To allow one candidate to get all the votes for a particular state just because they received all the electoral votes (even though the popular vote can be almost equal) is crazy and says that some votes count less than others.

For the post saying that states with low population wouldn't get many votes...they don't now....DE gets 3 and that's it!

I have learned an awful lot from this thread! LOL I do think the electoral college does serve a good purpose to ensure the majority of the people in all states have their votes make a difference. Although, in 2000 I sure didn't want George Bush to win all the electoral votes, so there ya go! I am in Nebraska which is a blood red state, but I know Obama did manage to snag one or two electoral votes in 2008, so it is possible to impact the way a state votes depending on how fired up a group of people are. It is very unlikely Obama will snag any electoral votes from Nebraska this time around because his momentum among voters just isn't the same as in 2008. You can only paint a picture of hope and change for so long until a reality of broken promises smacks ya in the arse! I have always voted Democrat, but this year I am with my fellow Nebraskans and voting for Romney!
A.

I agree with you 100%.
I'm in IL. We'll vote Dem no matter which way the popular vote goes.
So what's the point?

You took the words out of my mouth as I wonder about this too. Living in Kansas, which is Republican, I know how the state will go and often think why bother to vote. I watch the elections while they count the votes and see it be called for one of the candidates before they even get to our state usually because the electoral count is already met. I think they should at least count ALL of them and see who gets the most. But on the other hand, I voted already for Romney and I remember one year when Gore won popular vote and not electoral and I would not have wanted that either. So I think they should come up with a whole new way of voting and counting but not sure what it would be. I do agree with you though and it is a concern to me. I wonder if many don't vote at all because of this issue of states being one way or the other and they know how it will go.
EDIT: Maybe if someone can PM 2boys4me they could tell us all. :-)

I also agree with you. It is so outdated and so difficult to explain. (I'm a teacher) I wish we could get it changed but since when does the government actually listen to us? LOL

Outdated. Should be popular vote.

I also think the electoral college should go. It is an outdated concept for an outdated purpose. Every person's vote should count equally.

I don't intend on voting. I am in a very red state. Regardless of which way I vote, it doesn't matter because my state is already considered Mitt owned and the electoral votes are already in his column. My vote counts for nothing. At least if it was popular vote, every vote - no matter what your neighbors think - would go towards the individual candidate

I'm 100% with you, I agree. I'm in TX too, and I would really enjoy it if my vote actually counted. :)

It may be true that only a few elections have gone against the popular vote, but could that number be significantly different if so many voters out there didn't feel like their vote wasn't going to count? I have heard people say many times how their vote just doesn't matter because their state will go in a particular direction no matter what. I wonder just how many people don't even bother to vote because they think its pointless?

It makes you wonder what the true outcome of some of these elections would be if everyone knew their vote could make a difference if we were in a popular vote wins system. Would more people vote?

By the way, I am a Texan democrat, but always make sure to vote. Many others just don't.

I have ALWAYS thought that the electoral vote should be abolished. We, the People, should elect "our" elected officials and like you said, most of our votes don't even count. It's discouraging and makes me feel like I shouldn't waste my time going to the polls, but I do anyway!