Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
What implications?
There is problems with the the system...
(I recognize that’s an understatement but in a sense, the electoral college can work and be a more true representative of the country than either the popular vote and the current electoral college.
I would keep the Electoral College but award the elector votes based on each Congressional District. It’s already being done. It would be interesting to compile data from the 2000 & 2004 elections and see who would have won with a system like this one. Both elections were quite close. It would be along the lines of each House of Representative is picked. The house was in Republican control them but I'm not convinced the Presidential results would have been the same.
The problems are;
1. Each state wood have to abandon the "winner takes all" system as it is now. But, I don’t see that happening in the near future.
2. No matter how vicious Democrat & Republican parties spar together, they will combine forces to keep the two party system, IMO...
- John Q Citizen
February 21, 2009 10:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.