Poll: Is The Electoral College system pointless?

[sheic99]

The Electoral College system has always seem fairly pointless to me. I do not know if anybody else feels the same way about. Instead of casting a vote for who we want as president, we actually vote for an Elector. This Elector traditionally swears an oath to vote for a specific candidate, but they are not required too. This entire process seems pointless and time wasting. The popular vote already has to be counted why can't the president just be elected through that?

 

[Danglybits]

I just think that every vote should count. This election and the last one has been so much about getting people out to vote but I know people who won't vote because they live in an area that will go the way they would vote any way or that won't vote because they're going to lose in the EC. Just doesn't seem right.

 

[Ultrajoe]

I think it's bollocks. Make every individuals vote count for one damn vote.

Your nation should vote as a whole, as individuals, and that way people with less votes can't win bloody elections.

 

[Eiseman]

I think it's bollocks. Make every individuals vote count for one damn vote.

Your nation should vote as a whole, as individuals, and that way people with less votes can't win bloody elections.

I think that's missing the real problem. What we have in the Electoral College is a set number of votes per state that are proportionate to the state's population. But when half the population doesn't vote, the number of votes a state has ends up representing far less people than they should, giving voters in, say, California, far more weight than they should.

See, it's because lazy or cynical assholes in the big states won't give their vote, that things get super-fucked up. And I for one won't pander to them by throwing away our system for a nationwide popular vote. I want to punish them for not participating, not just write them off. I'm thinking something along the lines of taking away electoral votes from states who fail to turn out a large enough percentage of their population. Maybe then people would be more involved. But I won't give up the EC as a whole.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Seems something of a waste of time to me. Given that electors are often from the upper echelons of society, there is obviously going to be a direct conflict of interests if the candidate that the majority wishes elected is going to say, tax them to the hilt, and the other isn't.

But then again, America's entire political system is flawed. Comes from not having a monarch.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

Popular vote is the best option... I wanted Al Gore. He would have saved us from the manbearpig

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

you underestimate the stupidity of the american population

 

[TheBluesader]

We only have the electoral college in the first place to make sure the lunatics don't run away with the election. The electors, who certainly are from the upper echelons, are supposed to recognize crazy if and when they see it and "fix" it so some crazy cultist doesn't take power and purge us all.

If anything, it's the most aristocratic thing about our system. You know, aside from the perpetual incumbency, biopoly of the major parties, and billionaire corporate heads bribing congresspersons to get even more tax breaks.

Last time I checked, though, no crazy cultists ever got that close to taking over the country, so it's probably about time we did away with the upper-class babysitting.

Then again, everyone is a flaming idiot and I'm just biding time till I can go back to my home planet where everyone ISN'T a flaming idiot. So I could care less what you fools do. Nuttier you are, easier the invasion will be.

BWAH, HA HA HA HA!

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

It's pointless and voting should be mandatory AND IT SHOULD BE FREAKING HOLIDAY.

 

[Matthicus]

My problem with the electoral college is that it is one of the biggest reasons that people don't vote. People I've talked to anyway. The general consensus from them is that they don't vote because their particular vote doesn't do anything.

Ex. I live in MA, which is one of the bluest states on the map. My friend's dad is a staunch Republican, while I don't agree with him, I encourage him to vote anyway. His mindset is that his singular vote wont count for anything, and the sad thing is, living in MA, he's right. On the other side, my own Dad is a Democrat, but he doesn't vote because he thinks his Democratic vote wont do anything in a known blue state.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The electoral college system is designed so that the less populous states are still worth campaigning in. If the US president was decided in a true popular vote there would be no point campaigning in the smaller states, that means no policies designed to attract people in those states, and basically the political scene of the United States being geared to serve the needs of California, Texas, and New York.

No, what really needs to be done is proportional assignment of Electoral College votes according to the breakdown of the candidate votes. That would give a closer relationship between the popular vote and the electoral vote, but still prevent the most populous states being dominant (it also turns every state into a battleground state).

 

[polymath]

The Problem with it is that the popular vote doesn't always win (most famously when Al Gore lost to Bush)this only happens once every blue moon but it is a flaw in the system. However, if it was popular vote states with a larger population would have more sway and so issues in those states with a smaller pop. might not get addressed. Here in Europe with the EU, a similar system is being used. An attempt to change the system to popular vote through an amendment known as the Lisbon Treaty, was blocked after my country, Ireland, had a referendum (the only country to do so) and the treaty was defeated because people feared that we, being smaller than big countries like Germany and the UK, would lose out in the popular vote.

 

[GloatingSwine]

We only have the electoral college in the first place to make sure the lunatics don't run away with the election. The electors, who certainly are from the upper echelons, are supposed to recognize crazy if and when they see it and "fix" it so some crazy cultist doesn't take power and purge us all.

The electors are a function of state legislature more than anything. How they must vote is determined by the state constitution. (In every state except Maine and Nebraska that means they all vote for the winner of the popular vote, except in Florida in 2000, where they couldn't be arsed to wait for a proper count and the legislature took over.)

 

[TheBluesader]

The electors are a function of state legislature more than anything. How they must vote is determined by the state constitution. (In every state except Maine and Nebraska that means they all vote for the winner of the popular vote, except in Florida in 2000, where they couldn't be arsed to wait for a proper count and the legislature took over.)

Like I said. Old rich white guys making sure we don't have too much fun. Why the need for paraphrase?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

the issue with the electoral college is it's very easy to exploit

the college does not have to take the vote of the people, they can vote for whomever they want. a similar thing happened in 2000 with bush and gore

 

[goodman528]

I think most of Europe works on proportional representation OR first past the post. Both are much simpler than the American system. I really don't see why America can't adopt something that's more direct.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

1st-past-the-post seems to be the most rational system. Under ideal circumstances, Proportional Respresentation would be the ideal, but the sheer fragmentory nature of it leads to fundamentally weak governments.

 

[Saskwach]

1st-past-the-post seems to be the most rational system. Under ideal circumstances, Proportional Respresentation would be the ideal, but the sheer fragmentory nature of it leads to fundamentally weak governments.

Australia's upper houses are determined by proportional representation and I would chew the noses off anyone trying to change that; the upper house is the only place minority opinions/parties have any say at all. Also, it often protects government from being ruled by one party at any one time.

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

It's a system created for reasons that no longer apply to today's world. Back then, how could voters from South Carolina know about a candidate from New York, or vice versa. The answer was to have a select group of well informed men make the correct decisions based on their home states voters opinions.
However, today, anybody can learn anything about candidates. I think it's an out-dated system that will never change.