Electoral College: Should it Stay or Should it Go?

[formerkywrestler]

Keep it. Some state may more toward a proportional method of alloting the electoral votes. The votes are handed out on the basis of who wins each congressional district in a state. The overall winner of the vote in the state them get the 2 electoral votes that represents the states senators to Congress. I a cannot think of them, but I believe 2 states have already adopted this method.

Maine and Nebraska.

[bugatti]

I like the EC, but I would like to see states split up their votes. Currently how it is, you win California, you are 1/5 of the way to securing the Presidency. For example, last night it would be good to see California split their votes say 35 votes for Obama, 20 for McCain.

 

As alluded to, Main and Nebraska have this system. This would ensure candidates travel to more than the same 10 states over and over.

[stickymitts]

I like the EC, but I would like to see states split up their votes. Currently how it is, you win California, you are 1/5 of the way to securing the Presidency. For example, last night it would be good to see California split their votes say 35 votes for Obama, 20 for McCain.

 

As alluded to, Main and Nebraska have this system. This would ensure candidates travel to more than the same 10 states over and over.

 

I like this...

[Covercorner]

I would favor the proportional system used in Maine and Nebraska. All it takes is a change in the state Constitution of KY. If we Kentuckians truly want this to happen, we should contact and bug the heck out of our elected state representatives.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I strongly favor retaining the Electoral College. Anybody who lives in a small state would be nuts to vote to abolish it.

 

Agree.

 

Althought this was an electoral college blowout, this race was about 500,000 people away from McCain winning.

[titletownclown]

I like the EC, but I would like to see states split up their votes. Currently how it is, you win California, you are 1/5 of the way to securing the Presidency. For example, last night it would be good to see California split their votes say 35 votes for Obama, 20 for McCain.

 

As alluded to, Main and Nebraska have this system. This would ensure candidates travel to more than the same 10 states over and over.

 

That is pretty much my opinion. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't mandate how electors are distributed and it is left up to the states to decide this issue.

[Eta Rho]

Party affiliation should have nothing to do with whether one supports the EC. Party registration numbers shift over time and the elimination of the EC would probably be permanent. Even as a Democrat in Kentucky, I would oppose abolishing the current system because candidates would pay even less attention to the state if only the popular vote mattered. There has already been too many state rights taken by the federal government. The Electoral College is a good reminder that the framers of the Constitution thought that the rights of individual states were important.

 

Well said. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[cch5432]

Maybe the most fair way is to keep the electoral college, but mandate so that the primaries are in order of states with the least electoral votes up. That way the small states have more of a voice in choosing their candidates, and the big states vote them in (like they already do)

 

Anyone think this idea is worth anything? Or just good for nothing? I was just throwing something out there.

[Getslow]

Looking at the 2000 election, recounts led to a legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court. The fact that those few electoral votes would win the election caused a madhouse in Florida. Under a system where the popular vote is the only thing that matters, what happens when a candidate is within 200,000 or so votes of the other across the board. Can you imagine the two parties trying to track down the different counties all across the nation where a recount would help them gain a few votes here and there?

 

If there is no electoral college, then winning certain states doesn't matter. So Kentucky was solidly Republican... no reason to do a recount here in 2000. But go the popular vote way. If someone didn't need Kentucky but just a few thousand votes to make the race closer, then maybe Louisville would have had a few dozen lawyers sweep in to start lining up expert witnesses about how the ballots work. It would be the same all over the country in states that went solidly one way but maybe had areas inside it that were more even.

 

If only for practicality's sake... let's leave the system.

[saint4]

I think that the Presidential candidate should get the percentage of the electoral votes the same as the percentage of popular votes. Like say a state has 10 electoral votes, and one candidate got 60% of the votes, that candidate should get 6 of the electoral votes and the other candidate should get 4. I do not like the winner take all.

[HHSDad]

The Electoral College needs to go. It serves no purpose. How would you like to be a Republican in California, Illinois or New York, or a Democrat in Texas? You might as well stay home on election day.

 

I'm in favor of one person, one vote. That's not what the electoral college offers.

[ladiesbballcoach]

The Electoral College needs to go. It serves no purpose. How would you like to be a Republican in California, Illinois or New York, or a Democrat in Texas? You might as well stay home on election day.

 

I'm in favor of one person, one vote. That's not what the electoral college offers.

 

You go popular vote and then you take the exact same situation and say that the voters in many other states that are not great population hubs and make their votes irrelevant.