Electoral College (Revised)

The difference lies in the fact that if a candidate won the majority of a state's population's votes then that candidate wouldn't receive all of the state's votes. Example: If 3/4 of the voters in Texas voted for Candidate A and the remaining voters voted for Candidate B then Candidate A should only receive 29 votes instead of 38. That is a difference of 9 votes, which is more than a lot of states have. (That is if a proportional system were in place.)

Therefore, a candidate would have to campaign for the most votes instead of just the most votes in some states. Sure, most of the locations may stay the same based on population, but a candidate couldn't be ensured the massive boost that winning a state like California would give them.

"I don't think the people who voted for the losing candidate would be content with saying "at least it was fair"."

At least their vote would've counted toward helping their candidate at all.

Your first half is arguing for proportionate representation through the electoral college system. I can understand that, and I wholeheartedly agree [although in the end it probably wouldn't make that much of a difference]. The reason why this isn't such a big issue to me personally is because out of [correct me if i'm wrong] 56 elections overall, there were only 4 times when the national vote did not coincide with the electoral vote.



Not really. Not if I'm reading you correctly. From what I can make sense, you're saying that if you're candidate loses the state election using the EC system, then your vote is a lost vote.

Then what's the difference if your candidate loses a nation-wide popular vote? It's a lost vote either way. At the state level or at the national level, a vote for the candidate that lost is ultimately one that was wasted.

See, it's all just a big game when it comes down to the wire. You can change the rules all you like, but that won't change the fact that there will be winners and there will be losers. And losing never feels good, no matter how close you get.

Its a tricky question. I wouldnt trust most peoples opinions on candidates in this country. However on the other hand, the college could just vote in whoever benefits themself.

Im not a big fan of changing how the system works now. It isnt perfect, but no government is. I dont take notice of it much unless it directly effects me, like internet regulations. Alot of problems just cole down to single mindedness and stubborness.

Legally, they're allowed to. In pratice, though, this is completely untrue. All electors in every state pledge their vote beforehand. They can technically vote for a different candidate, but the backlash they would receive from a faithless vote would certainly deter anyone from doing it.

On top of that, 24 states even have laws to punish faithless electors. So that point, while valid, can be largely overlooked.

Well, if we are talking electing president, if the faithless elector suceeds and their candidate is elected, could the candidate not just pardon the elector? If, they had a prearranged agreement, that is.

What you're portraying is akin to an act of bribery, which wouldn't bode well for either the President elected or the elector. At the very least, the President would be impeached, and the elector would undoubtedly lose face in his state.

Even without legal punishment, an elector would still be chastised and even kicked out by their own party if they fail to adhere to their pledge. Electors are chosen for their loyalty and commitment to their parties; acting against it has grave consequences for them outside of the law. The President can't pardon that.

True, though ive never been a fan of our governments party system. I thinl anyone who wants to be elected should have a shot, as long as they have the qualifications. Though, the qualifications arent that hard to get. New ones would need to be put in place if the party system was done away with.

That's for sure. Our government is highly inefficient. I can understand our founding fathers wanting to purposefully make an inefficient system where the power was sprinkled here and there like confetti, but lately it's been getting kind of ridiculous. The parties themselves are fragmented up the ass and that's why we never get any consensus on anything.

Yep. In my opinion we are headed for anarchy. Things in the rest of the world are looking glum aswell.

Man, that would suck. At least I wouldn't have to worry about school loans anymore.

I dont know...some anarchy would be nice. I feel the world is too routine.

Perhaps we should move towards a more confederate system. Each state being generally independent with the Feds stepping in as adjudicator for disputes. The founding fathers were very ahead of their time when they gave the Federal Government a narrow list of responsibilities explicitly spelled out in the constitution and left the rest of the responsibilities, rights and powers to the people (and to the states via the people).

I'm hoping people realize how far they have strayed from the constitution and make a dramatic push to return to it.

This is very true. One thing that irks me is the fact that the general populace puts the weight of the responsibility for social and economic reform completely on the federal government's shoulders. At such a high level, it's nearly impossible for anything to get done because the demands of one state won't always go in line with the demands of another.

We're not a social-democratic state, we're a federalist republic, which means the majority of the responsibilities actually lie within the states themselves. The federal government's only responsibilities, aside from enforcing the Constitution within each state, should be foreign involvement and policy, and national security. Anything else, take it to your state's legislature and your governor.

EZ-2789 I think I understand your want for an it doesn't matter option in this poll, but I think that getting rid of the system is a bit far-fetched, and I'd like to believe that you do to. No system is perfect, but to completely scrap it for another is at best unwise, because it would waste money, it would close jobs, and people still wouldn't be happy. Revising the system seems like the choice I'd go for, so that each state splits their electoral votes based off the votes of that state. This would put some people out of work, and it would make the votes of stupid idiots count. This could be dangerous, but then again, you have a 50 50 chance of getting it right, having a voting test would be prejudice. Everyone would still be upset, and the candidate with the most money would still win. Why waste the resources changing everything when we could just make it a lil more fair.

Sure, I would be for a revision that put into place a proportional system. I can see how you come to the conclusion that voting tests would be prejudice. I would simply suggest better education.