why should people who want to vote 4 nader have to votes for Kerry so Bush loses? I say we should have elections a dif. way. heres my plan: on the ballet, there should b three questions not just one: 1. Kerry vs. bush 2. Nater vs. Kerry 3. Bush vs. Nater y dont they do that?? agh it annoys me.
I think the whole election system in the US is really suspicious... It's way too complicated to actually work.
Yea I've just been readin up on your electoral colleg system works... Just don't make any sense at all... You would think that they would tallythe total ammount of votes in the whole country to determine the leader?
I say the best reason to actually support the electoral college it taken from this article: Some states with complex regional electorates choose to elect a head of state by means of an electoral college rather than a direct popular election. The United States is a noted case where, to avoid the dominance of urban electorates and those of very populous states such as New York and California at the expense of smaller communities, the President is elected by an Electoral College, made up of electors representing the states. The college gives the candidates more reason to go out and try to win a majority in each state rather then counting on a large support in isolated, large urban communities. It also provides a little more balance of power between small states and large states. It is doubtful to think it will be changed any time soon, as 3/4 of the states would need to approve an amendment to the constitution to change it, but small states would likely oppose it.
Is there really that much difference in the way people act and think in each state, so much so that each state need to be represented equally? I think it would work out better if it was just a simple majority wins ... It just dosn't seem fair to me....
Well here are some good articles on it anyways: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._electoral_college http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college and from a BBC article There are 538 votes in the Electoral College. The number per state equals the number of its representatives in Congress plus the number of senators. This gives small states a slight advantage because all states have the same number of senators - two - regardless of size. For example, California has 55 electoral votes - about 10% - though it has 12% of the US population. Wyoming has three electoral votes representing 0.56%, though it has only 0.18% of the US population. Why does the popular vote not determine the presidency? When the US Constitution was written in 1787, the 13 original states fiercely guarded their rights, with small states fearing they would be overwhelmed by larger ones. At the time, there was also little enthusiasm for entrusting the election of the president directly to the people. So the task was given to an Electoral College and each state legislature was given the right to choose its delegates. Over time, political parties asserted their right to choose these delegates, and today they are elected. If no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives chooses the president.
It's totally not fair. Take my lovely state for instance...South Carolina. We are a Bush state. Say Bush wins by 51% in SC...we give 8 votes for Bush. So all the other votes don't count, really. Only the winner in each state counts...and even then the EC doesn't have to follow the popular vote. The Electoral College may have worked just fine in the late 1700's-early 1900's...but it is an archaic system that needs to be done away with.
I've read a lil more on the subject, and I see it making sense when there was just the 13 states, who all didn't get along and pretty much wanted to be their own sovreign nation. But that was over 300 years ago. Now I'm not saying that Canada is a true democracy....but the U.S of A definatley isn't one :sunglasse /my 2cents
