The Electoral College is it obsolete???

Though this inspired by The Captain's thread, i think u will see they are 2 different subjects if not feel free to close it.

Well we in America have a serious problem with the way we manage the election process. We have a completely obsolete system (electoral college) that is extremely falable. And sometimes makes people think their vote doesnt count, for example if i lived in Texas and wanted to vote for Kerry in 2004, or California and wanted to vote for Kerry in 2004, neither of those votes really counted. They WERE counted, but in the grand scheme of things they really didnt make a difference.

The electoral college was created to keep 1 state from continually electing their candidates into office, i dont think theres any scenario that it still applies to today.

Also another problem with voting is the electoral college is inherently unfair, for example if u lived in Montana(Popuation:902,195 from census 2000), then you would have 3 electoral votes, and if i lived in Washington State(Population:5,894,121 from 2000 census) i would have 11 electoral votes. Therefore Montana has 1 vote per approx. 300732 people now if the electoral college was balanced PROPERLY then Washington state would have about 19 votes. So u see the little states have more power than the states with larger populations. Not that it affected this recent presidential election, but i suspect it may have affected the 2000 election. Which would totally change the world as we Americans know it.

So based on ur own research, and the evidence ive provieded u, do u think it may be time to do away with this... outdated voting system?

Yes. No one place has anywhere near a majority of the population anymore. It doesn't make tons of sense to keep it around. Just a straight up all out popular vote seems right. Thats how EVERYONE else wins their senate seat or house seat or governor's seat. So why not the President?

The electorial college weas set up by teh Elites of this country.Because they think the average american can't think intelegently..

And even if that is true(I am sometimes suprised by the stupidity I see, though by no means am I immune to it) it doesn't mean it shouldn't be counted.

Now the electoral college needs to go... that may inspire more people to vote... the EC sometiems make people think their vote doesn't count.

If there were no electoral college then big cities get to pick the president every 4 years. The founders wanted to make sure that even the little guy had some say, and without the electoral, you don't count unless you live in LA, NYC, San Diego, San Francisco or Chicago. I think the best way is to choose based on congressional districts rather than by states, but that's still an electoral system.

I don't think it would elemenate say... because we already don't have say, many people in my school district voted Kerry but the state when Bush. so where did our vote go? straight popular I think we should try if that doesn't work then try some medium.

Yeah it does needs to go.It goes against democracy.but there will never be a true democracy in this world and universe we occupy.Becuase oyu will always have the elites in a civilization that doesnt want to lose that power.If the electorial college was out then those elites can't choose who goes to office or not over the power of the people.Thats how it works now.They choose not us.We just sadly but truly vote for fun.But thats when it comes to presidential elections.If it wasn't for the progessive party.We would be haivng a electorial college for a tax vote for a state gov. vote.So really with or without it doesn't matter we still have a lot of good.

what's wrong with good proper proportional representation. or what we have in scotland here which is a mixture of both. you get two votes. one for the constituancy system and one for the proportional representation system. this way it balances out nice and fair. the big parties will still gets lots of votes (some people will vote for them twice) which keeps out nasty smaller parties like the bnp. but also gives smaller parties the chance to be represented by being voted for in the second part because they have no chance of winning in the first. so all votes count this way and prevents nasty small parties getting too much power. which used to be a big problem of just plan PR. while getting rid of wasted votes in the constitancy method.

one question is britains voting system similar to americas? please lost any difference and similarities. thank you.

The people have no control over the electorial votes.

A. The electoral college has information about candidates and situations that we don't understand. Their purpose is to save us just in case we really do choose a president who is truly a threat to our countrie's well-being (Which, I think, is a choice that has NEVER been made, which is cool, but I wouldn't want to risk losing their protection.)

B. What Gnostic Yevon said. Just because there's more people in big cities and heavily industrialized places like New York and L.A., doesn't mean that the lives and resources of those people can drown out those of many other states.
Candidates would neglect the needs of everybody else if those populations weren't necessary. Our country is not so small as Scottland. It's big, and we have lots of wide open spaces that, though lacking in sheer numbers, cannot suffer neglect. I don't want a shattered nation or an obliterated agricultural economy.

The real problem with the electoral college is that it makes the candidates campaign selectively instead of nationally. States that have only a handful of electoral votes get passed over during campaigns and that in and of itself feeds into voter apathy because half the country feels as if they don't matter because the politicians don't come to them, to listen to them or even consider them for much of anything because they as a collective majority are worthy 3 or 4 or 5 electoral votes.

Take care all.

Maybe, but it's better than if the countries that "only" get 3-5 electoral votes suddenly have to relay on a scanty population.

It's all mostly relative. The only difference is that there's a positive side to the electoral college. So I say we keep it.

The other big problem is that the country is so divided that, in addition to only campaigning for the bigger pieces of the electoral pie, candidates only campaign in the swing states, which lessens the amount of people who can hear and really have a say in the government even more.

Take care all.

That is very true, but again, I severely doubt that erasing the electoral college would change much of that.

Do you know what? At my college, a program to help writers get published, which required funding, was knocked out.
I asked my friend how he voted. He voted against it. (This is an intelligent kid I'm talking to, mind you. Neurology kid. Smarter than me, maybe. Probably not, but still smart.)
Anyway, he didn't know what it was, and figured he didn't need to support it. When he heard, he said that "maybe it was worth saving, actually."

Right...

I think that even intelligent people don't understand the issues across the US. I certainly don't know what the hell New Englanders vote for. And the lower population will still get the shaft once politicians realize that they're votes aren't necessary.
Of course, I'm relying on speculation here, but the "swing vote" might merely become more important without an electoral college because the "swing voters" will most likely have similar needs since the more populated areas are big cities or heavy states.

Bah! What do I know. I'm not a politician. I just don't think that the system is broken. Not yet. Erasing the electoral college would, I imagine, simply lead to new and unknown problems and loopholes etc that we can't yet fathom. The defenselessness of it also sounds very, very dangerous. I don't like to mess with the very few strings that hold our government in it's place. Our country is great because it's free. I don't think, however, that we need to make ourselves anarchical (If that's even a word).

Your points are well taken good sir.

We live in a society where information can be accessed and passed freely, especially with the advent of computer technology. I can find out about local bills in Alaska if I access the proper files and the like. The problem is, no one seems willing to make the effort to actually get aware about these issues. For instance, in the example you mentioned Martyr, your friend probably could have gotten all the information he needed about the programs he was voting on but for whatever reason didn't and thus voted without really knowing why he voted.

When the Electoral College was first created, it was believed that your average citizen was not in the know enough to have final say on all the issues of the country. Many, many of the founding fathers were afraid of mob rule and rightly so because oftentimes, mobs are not informed but go by instinct and can be swayed into something that might be entirely false. Yet, today, according to recent studies done by USA Today, nearly 70% of the country owns a computer with internet access, yet only 50% votes when perhaps, all of the people who do have access to actual information can be in the know and make informed opinions but just don't. Mob rule doesn't have to apply any longer because your average citizen CAN be informed if they make the effort. Go to websites that are actually based in fact, .gov or .org sites and you can cut through the spin and see the heart and meat of an issue.

It boggles my mind that people have access to so much information but decide not to use it or at least allow it to help them make a decision or form an opinion.

Perhaps, it's not the electoral college that needs work so much as the mind of your average American.

Take care all.

Plus the most important fact, that it is UNFAIR. We have been putting into practice a system that is flawed, for no other reason, but because its flawedness makes it fair? I think a flat vote will do wonders for the election process. Lord knows it would have saved us from Bush in 2000...

The electoral college is about as obsolete as the Senate is. It was originally designed as a counterbalance to the popular vote similarly to how the Senate counterbalances the House of Representatives.

EDIT: Although, I would like a little more certainty that the Electorates would vote for whichever candidate they say they probably will vote for.

can someone give me a break and educate my ignorance on the differences between british and american voting systems?