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?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
We're talking about the system not one election
What implications?
I am not sure that the system would work in the long run. I think that every person should have there vote counted. I do not understand why that would not be the standard system.
You said that this system has been in place for hundreds of years. The reason that the electoral college was created was because during the first elections there was no effective and standardized form of voting. The states were better equipped to count their own votes, and because states population was a much simpler way to assign value to their votes, that was what was done.
Today, votes are counted electronically with a small margin of error. 126 million people voted in the 2004 election. Over half of those votes were counted in less than a day. With all the technology that we have today, why even break the voting down into states? What does it matter what state they live in. The reason that the electoral college is still in place is because the small states like having more power then they should compared to their size. But if states are not assigned power (only the individual) then i don't see the problem.
And as the title suggests, what would the implications of having everyones vote count for one vote be exactly? I am curious what you think would happen.
- Jefe32
October 9, 2008 7:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.