Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?

http://www.usergateschool.com Possibly the most exciting sneak peek yet, purely for the comments it has been generating, and more importantly for the questions it asks about the nature of ‘home’. We each have our own history, http://www.txnheducation.com/ prejudice, preference, and our responses to someone else’s home reveal our preconceptions. Should home be a mausoleum of memories, http://www.stillnotasleep.com gathered over time, reassuringly present and on exhibit to reassert our identity? Can a home which does not use every inch of space to constantly remind of ‘who we are’ challenge us to shape the future afresh every day? http://www.rocaleglobal.com Can this website overstep the boundary of offering beautiful decorating ideas? http://www.iwishthisappwould.com This sneak peek is a welcome challenge to rethink the preconception that ‘home’ must be a mirror image reflection of oneself. Home is also a process, in flux, like a personality. http://www.buckleupwa.org

It's certainly no attack that the Electoral College non classical franchise arguing has sparked goodish discuss.As the payoff surfaces gallery into November is it abstraction to graduate from the Start Padre's Electoral College construct http://www.testbells.com/650-379.html

I have the feeling that this blog really have all great qualities. Book review example

The final result of a voting really depends on various indirect factors like the campaign, popularity of the person and current situations in the area. As the post says, if popularity of Al Gore was considered, he would have become the president in the last election. So, it is late to recheck the current voting system.

Thank you for sharing to us.there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post.I would like to join your blog anyway so please continue sharing with us

Hate them with a passion too.

I've been searching this for my assignment! thanks a lot! I will read more after my research about Academic Essay .

The answer to this is simple. If you want the major metropolitan areas to control this country, then opt for popular vote. If you want the vote weighted so that everybody's vote counts, then go with the Electoral College.

You are true about this and I exactly thinking of the same thing.

Swimming Pools Brisbane

I totally agree with you due to his popularity he will be the US president.|Affordable research paper|

|Write my research paper|

It is discovered that so many of the conventional universities have struggled to draw interests of students in the past decade, with simply the rich and the traditional choosing to send their sons and daughters into old-style universities. With modern colleges of education, and several other types of university being established, it is no wonder that people are deciding the more cost-efficient method of getting their education

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law , it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote . Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections , but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government . The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote , everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections .

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

A great document we all love begins: "We, the People,"--That's us--"of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Union of what--People or States? Obviously it is talking about states. The election of President has gone from a leader of a Union of States to a leader of welfare reform structured to the passion of the people. A switch to a popular vote seems like the next domino to fall and it scares me to death. I'm by no means an expert, but the history strikes me: It seems ever since the close of the Civil War, a push away from true Federalism (a collection of states united under a federal government with both state of Federal governments possessing certain powers) to a Nationalist system (a single government directing the lives of the people) has and is taking place. (See the Civil War Amendments [13-15], Progressive Era Amendments [16-17,19], etc.) The way I see it, when they dissolve the state lines, that is when we can go to a straight popular vote because that is when it would be the United People and not the United States. With the turbulent times foreseen ahead, now is not the time to test out a drastic change in election of the most powerful position on earth. I do see the constitution as a work-in-process and times will perhaps necessitate alteration; however, I do not see a change to a straight popular vote as a wise alteration. The "Father of our Nation" in his farewell address warned about changes in government, saying that we should "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious [OR alluring] the pretexts." He went on to say, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard..."(1) As George Washington would know, time, habit, and experience are vital. Sadly most Americans lack the experience to say which is better for the nation and those that do may be out voiced (I'm not saying I do).
Thanks for everyone's comments.

(1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (see verse 19)

It's obvious that many people are frustrated by the Electoral College system, usually because they don’t understand it. It feels so arbitrary and doesn’t make sense to most people. The truth, however, is that it was established to protect us from mob-rule. No, not mob as in gangsters and thugs, but mobs as in angry masses of people trying to out-yell the rest of the people. Simply put, it was established to prevent the major cities like New York, Miami, Chicago, Las Angeles, and the like from dictating every election while the rest of the country can’t get a word in edge-wise. Our country is simply too big, and too diverse for direct voting to be successful, hence why the Electoral College was established to maintain balance. That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, however.

Here’s the solution: Instead of the winner takes the state, the winner should take the district. That is, our states are already divided into political districts due to the election of representatives in Congress. When a presidential election happens, each district’s representatives should do their job and be required to vote based on their constituency. If their district votes for John Smith, then the representatives for that district should vote for John Smith in the Electoral College vote.

This is a very fair way to provide more direct, popular voting while still ensuring the protections that the college system offers us in the first place.

As a NJ resident who sits back helpelessly while my state goes blue each and every election I should be more in favor of a popular vote system to make my vote actually count. However, given the fact that most other countries follow popular vote... and they usually have somewhere between 19-50 different political parties who can't agree on anything... I am in favor of sticking to the electoral college. If Europe is an example... give me Electoral College anyday. Popular vote is an issue that only gets attention when Democrats continually lose elections as they're looking for other ways to stack the deck in their favor. This is why it's usually the blue states, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois that want to pass legislation to give their states electors to the popular while at the same time, obstructing any attempt by Republicans in California to split up that states 55.

There is a way to change the current voting system to make it more representative of the whole US population. It requires a change to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to :

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of -Senators- to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

This change effectively gives each State, as a sovereign entity, an equal franchise in selecting the President and Vice President. On the State scale, each person would be better represented and provided more individual local power per vote in the electoral process as each voting person represents a larger group (of those who choose to or choose not to vote) on the State scale than on the National scale. On the National scale, each state would be equally represented by the electorate and have equal power in choosing the President/Vice President. While the candidates gaining the majority of electorates would still be elected, no small number of states with larger populations could control the electorate over a larger number of smaller states. There would essentially be 50 games in the election of which 26 must be won (probably actually slightly more giving due recognition to DC and the territories to participate as well). This, I believe would action would provide a more balanced representative government requiring the President/Vice President, and the political parties, to be more responsive and work towards the greater good of the entire country.