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
Democracy or Consent of the Governed
- From Evergreen Freedom Foundation
By Evergreen Freedom Foundation - ...because freedom matters
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You have failed
There is a legitimate objection to that argument, but you have missed it completely with your future telling argument, which is truly bogus, because you haven't established why that would be a reasonable prediction. The reasl objection is, with a popular vote, battleground states would still matter more, because there are more votes to be gotten there. The votes in a "red" or "blue" state are largely decided, but there is a larger undecided population in battleground states, so candidates would focus their efforts in those places. It's nice to be the logic police.
- roy1167
September 9, 2008 11:24AM
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.
Democracy is about the process, not the result
The purpose of democracy is not to produce results that are considered "good" or "acceptable" by you, me, or anyone else. The purpose of democracy is to enact the will of the people.
As such, the whole argument that the electoral college is better because "it works," or that a popular vote is better because it could produce better results, is completely missing the point. Election systems cannot and should not be judged by their results - that's as partisan as judging them by whether they're more likely to produce Democratic or Republican presidents. You may not want "increased polarization and regionalization of American politics," but who are you to judge what is acceptable in American politics and what isn't? The question is not whether the results of an election are in line with what YOU want, the question is whether they are in line with what THE PEOPLE want.
- Kwiz
December 8, 2008 9:09AM
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.