Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's a simple question. You see when I was in grammar school my 8th grade history teacher defined the electoral college in more or less the following way: politicians thought the average person was too stupid, uneducated, and uninformed. They didn't trust them to make decisions. Granted this teacher was also an alcoholic, but still.

So I would think most would agree people today are smarter, more informed, and more educated. Especially when it comes to being informed.

Should this practice be done away with entirely? If not, should it at least be dramatically altered?

Yes because it goes against the will of the people. Its the governments way to elect who they want, not who the people want.

It should definitely be reformed so that one winner does not get the entire state- the states should be broken up into areas according the number of college votes they get and each area has its own contest for that one vote.

How about when Bush lost the popular vote and he still got elected.

I'm glad it was him and not gore, but still a sham

I would just think in the current era why would merely going by popular vote be so bad?

With the way things currently are doesn't it leave candidates trying to cater more towards the states where they can earn the most points by winning?

Yes.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It should definitely be reformed so that one winner does not get the entire state- the states should be broken up into areas according the number of college votes they get and each area has its own contest for that one vote.

Not a bad idea.

Though I'm still slightly partial to the 'one person = one vote' concept and then tallying those up for the winner. Most straight forward form of voting/electing who the people want which I can think of.

I agree with removing the electoral college, though the answer to if the average voter is informed enough to make an intelligent vote is a firm "no".

I'll certainly miss throwing my vote away by voting for people I'd actually like to see in office rather than the better of two evils, though. I can do silly things like vote for a green party candidate now because I know that California is going to vote not-Conservative no matter what I or like-minded people do.

In a one person-one vote system, I'd likely have to vote for the shinier turd, lest I accidentally "Ross Perot" the dirtier turd into office with my throwaway vote.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I can do silly things like vote for a green party candidate now because I know that California is going to vote not-Conservative no matter what I or like-minded people do.



I've used this tactic several times Def wouldn't do it if I lived in one of the purple states

I ****ing hate the two-party system.

It's horrid, when either party knows they have roughly 45% of the population no matter what, it doesn't force them to keep their word. Get in a strong 3rd party that can pull 25-30ish percent, you'll see both Dem and Repub politicians keep their campaign promises.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It should definitely be reformed so that one winner does not get the entire state- the states should be broken up into areas according the number of college votes they get and each area has its own contest for that one vote.

Not a bad idea. If implemented it would create a panic between the 2 major parties in the U.S.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's horrid, when either party knows they have roughly 45% of the population no matter what, it doesn't force them to keep their word. Get in a strong 3rd party that can pull 25-30ish percent, you'll see both Dem and Repub politicians keep their campaign promises.
Or even a party that consistently pulled 10-15% would accomplish this. This isn't actually impossible; if the Tea Party were to split from the Republicans, they'd probably be a viable third party. Viable not in the sense of ever getting a president elected, but in the sense of possibly getting a sizeable share of congress and getting some governors.

We are pretty much slipping into a Soft Tyranny type Gubmint anyway so ....yeah sure. Get rid of peoples right to vote. Today's brain dead citizens won't miss it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes because it goes against the will of the people. Its the governments way to elect who they want, not who the people want.

I'm with Time here, straight popular.


One idea people push is it'd 'force' politicians to hit more states and such. Instead, though, they just hit the same battleground states, and hit them heavily.

Some people in some states have their votes matter more, some less.


It favors neither party- both parties have ended up the ones electorally disadvantages before, so it's basically just a random screw-you-over factor.





Not really. The final result is still winner-takes-all, since there's just one president.

Among the advantages of ditching the electoral collage, throwing the doors open for third parties is still not one of them, most of the pressures to consolidate around one party or another are still there.