What do you think about the Electoral College? Should it be reformed? Why or Why not?
552103
GET RID OF IT.  THE GUY WHO GETS THE LEAST VOTES SHOULD NOT BE IN THE WHITEHOUSE, LIKE THE CURRENT PRESIDUNCE.
109017
The Electorial College was set up by the Constitution giving the winner of each state a number of electors equal to the Number of Members of the House Of Representitives and 2 for the Number of Senator's from each state.  Each of the original states felt as though they were independent nations belonging to a larger Federal Nation.  This type of voting made each states representation in the National Election on an Equal basis to each other.  Today we have 435 representitives in the House of Representitives total, plus  2 Senator's for each state then we add 3 electors for the District of Columbia and we have a total of 538 electors.  To win the presidency you need a majority of the eletorial vote or 270 votes or better to win.  A person can get a majority of the electorial vote and not win a majority of the popular vote.  This  was the case in 1992 when we had three way race and Clinton won well over a majority of the electorial votes and only had 44% of the popular vote.  No candidate had a majority of the popular vote in 2000, however Gore had the most by over a half a million votes, yet he lost the electorial college in a heavily contested race.  There have been arguements over changing this to a popular vote election, however this would require a majority or over 50% of the popular vote and usually with minor candidates the winner may not have a majority and a run off election would have to be held between the top candidates creating further confusion and delays in knowing the winner giving less time for a smooth transition of power.  While the states do not have the power that they originally thought they wanted, the electorial college still makes sense for being fair to the states.
774517
I think the idea has some merit, as long as people are allowed the option of abstaining or spoiling their ballot paper.\n\nMy primary concern though is making sure that people make an informed choice, I think that is at least as important as increasing turnout. I think compulsory voting would only exacerbate the problem of uninformed voting, unless you make people sit through presentations from all the candidates on the ballot paper and then pass a test afterwards...let's face it, that ain't ever gonna happen.
108874
I think it is completely outdated for an era in which information spreads so quickly and easily. THe Electoral College was envisioned for an agrarian society in which the masses were not "trustworthy" enough to select a president. The electors were supposed to actually select the president. Nowadays, the electoral college is a rubberstamp that could go awry. See also: Bush/Gore 2000 election
1046108
It works well, particularly in making smaller states matter. The majority of the states would stand to lose a significant amount of voting power if we went to a straight popular majority system. The president needs to represent the largest possible crossection of the country, which can't happen if he just caters to the large population centers, which is exactly what would happen without the electoral college.
601542
On the one hand, I applaud the concept of making every participate in our democracy.  No one should feel marginalized if they had a hand in electing their leader.\n\nOn the other hand, I am like a lot of the Founding Fathers who expressed severe doubts that the average person could make intelligent decisions.  I live in a typically middle class area where you would expect people would have the education and the interest in politics to understand the issues.  However, the amount of fallacious thinking I encounter is downright scary.\n\nI'd have to consider your idea further, but right now my gut tells me this: If someone isn't interested enough to vote of their own volition, how meaningful will making them put an "X" in Box-A, or Box-B ?  A lot of these people would know nothing about the candidates.  I think it would encourage candidates to "dumb down" their campaigns, and pander to certain groups.
274254
Most americans who dont vote do so because they either dont care or dont think their vote counts. One thing that i feel would make a difference in the number of voters in this country would change the system to be a direct election and get rid of the electoral college. Another thing that could be done is what some countrys like Australia do and fine those people who do not vote, another possibility would be to make election day a national holiday like Italy does and surprising ly Italy has the highest percentage of the national poulation of voting age that vote.
961975
the electoral college is very fair.   It gives each state equal voting representation.  If we didn't have the electoral college all elections would be decided by NY, TX, and CA.
1005940
It's happened in 1888. However the popular does not matter. It is the electorial vote that matters in our system.
743705
C. \n\nTechnically the answer could be argued for either, so if you picked A, and it's wrong, but can give a good argument, then you may get credit for it.  A good argument would say "The people of the nation elect a president because it is their votes that make the decision on who the state casts a vote for.  The people are a necessary part of the process of the way the electoral college is executed - de facto vs. de jure."\n\nIf the answer is A and you picked C, then I would argue the following. "The electoral college's electors actually are the only votes that matter when electing a president.  The chosen elector for a state could choose to go against who his state votes for, therefore, the electoral college system is responsible for electing a president. de jure vs. de facto. "
514893
Not sure if that would help. But I would like to see the electoral colege go away so everybody's vote counts.\n\nIf there were no electoral college, bush would have lost his election and we wouldn't be in this mess.
387258
The US was designed as a representative democracy, not an ideal democracy.  Thus we have representatives to vote for us in national elections.\n\nThat being said, the electoral college does have flaws and should be modified or eliminated.  But then so should the 2-per-state Senate, don't you think? Kind of bizarre when someone in Rhode Island is 100 times better represented in Congress than someone in California.
210265
My solution to the Electoral College would be split up the states vote by Congressional House of Rep. districts. and then divide each states populous vote by district. To where a candidate could loose a state but still get an electoral college vote accordance with the percentage of the populous vote of that state.
934208
These are two different questions.  Look up electoral college and constitutional amendment in a civics book or online.  As for what Kentucky should do, let them do what they want - Nebraska and Maine have already taken similar actions.
300526
This is because each state is allotted a certain number of "electoral votes."  It is based on the population of that state.  For example, NY State has 31 electoral votes.  After the population goes to vote and it's decided who the majority is, the electoral voters (those 31 people who represent our votes) go and cast our ballots.  \n\nNow it's a simple majority rules.  Say that the majority (let's say 60%) voted for Kerry and 40% voted for Bush. None of that 40% goes towards the electoral votes.  It's all Kerry.\n\nNow they say that the electoral college (electoral votes) was first created because back in the late 18th Century, people weren't educated very well.  They wanted some sort of buffer, so they created the electoral vote, which was essentially where the voters could vote AGAINST the population's vote, if they felt it necessary.  Just so you know, they can still do this.  \n\nIt creates a huge problem today.  Al Gore actually won the populous vote, but not the electoral vote...pretty unbelievable that the president that was voted in by a majority wasn't actually placed into office, huh?\n\nThe problems that it causes is that presidential candidates focus their attention in a non-pleasing/non-ethical way.  Instead of spreading themselves around, they specifically target those countries with high electoral votes.  Of course you can argue that no matter what they are going to target bigger states, but I think that eliminating the formalness of it all will encourage candidates to venture off to states not normally visited.\n\nAs you can tell, I'm a big supporter of eliminating the electoral vote.  I think that most people are wise enough to vote in a sufficient way; after all, at least they have a high school background (most anyways).  It's outdated for our times and I for one think it should be removed.
1060432
a lot of people think that the electoral college is antiquated and no longer necessary and think that the president SHOULD get elected by popular vote.\n\nalso, in the vast majority of times, the electoral college and the popular vote match, so no one gets their panties in a wad until they don't.  \n\na lot of people don't know that the electors don't have to vote for what their state voted for.  Ohio went for bush on the popular side, but had the electors exercised their option and voted for Gore, there would be nothing the voters of Ohio could have done about it, and we'd have President Gore instead of President Bush today (since Ohio was the swing state this last time around)\n\n***please note that i have not expressed my own opinion, just what the issue is***
13967
Good explanation here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College\n\nBasically, the people vote, and the representatives of the Electoral College get to cast the real vote.  Who gets to be in the Electoral College is based upon the people's vote.\n\nThe Electoral College can do something unexpected, and vote against the will of the people.  But that doesn't happen very often.\n\nSo really, the people's vote is simply to determine which PARTY gets to put someone into the Electoral College, to cast the REAL vote.  And then a very small number of real people - individuals who are in the Electoral College - determine who the President is, by casting a vote.\n\nYes, it's a stupid system!