Electoral College VS Popular Vote

Do you think that the system we have in America should be replaced with a system that implements the popular vote?

If we didn't have this system, candidates would have to make a broader appeal and campaign in states that they don't bother going to now. The idea that you either get all of a state's votes or none of them just doesn't make any sense, and it does not really reflect the views of the people.

Also, right now, it is possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (happened to Al Gore and Andrew Jackson). This is just messed up.

I guess I don't have a problem particularly with the Electoral college system, but rather with the winner-take-all systems in most states, where if a candidate wins a state they get all of that state's electoral votes instead of a proportional amount.

I'm surprised that there isn't more outrage over how stupid that is. It invalidates the votes of almost half the country if you just lop all of a states votes into one party or another.

Other than that, the electoral college is fine to me. Equal representation rules.

It doesn't make sense... but hey, Obama is winning so I don't mind.

Remove the electoral vote....it totally sucks.

But as long as McCain doesn't pull a bush, and weasel his way in...I'll be happy for four more years...

I've yet to have seen the point of this wonderful system our founding fathers have implemented, but evidently it's the best thing since sliced bread because it's survived since the beginning of the country. I guess it's supposed to encourage presidents to campaign in accordance with the population distribution such that every state has a voice, but presidents concentrate more on appeasing the true majority of people. I don't think it's working very well.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and say that the electoral system is good because......

uh.......

It makes sure that all states have an equal voice in government by giving smaller states proportionately more votes? (That doesn't even sound convincing.)

Also:

McCain conceded! Whooooo!

I think we should have a system whereby you can split up your vote however you want.

Why should it be winner takes all inside your mind?

Originally Posted by SimonKurciski

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and say that the electoral system is good because......

uh.......

It makes sure that all states have an equal voice in government by giving smaller states proportionately more votes? (That doesn't even sound convincing.)

Also:

McCain conceded! Whooooo!

Well, the real Devil's Advocate position is that the electoral college would give rural areas and urban areas the same focus, so that candidates wouldn't just spend all their time focusing on the needs of population-dense cities.

Originally Posted by anderf

Well, the real Devil's Advocate position is that the electoral college would give rural areas and urban areas the same focus, so that candidates wouldn't just spend all their time focusing on the needs of population-dense cities.

How so? Why would any candidate want to campaign in Alaska, with 3 electoral votes, when they can campaign in California, with 55?

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

How so? Why would any candidate want to campaign in Alaska, with 3 electoral votes, when they can campaign in California, with 55?

Why would they want to campaign in California which is essentially locked democratic as of late when they could campaign in the key states like PA, OH, and FL?

But in heart, I see where you're coming from. If everything started out neutral from the beginning, campaigning in the larger states would be a much more dominant strategy. But then again, why would it not, even with popular vote?
--donut3.5--

Originally Posted by donut3.5

Why would they want to campaign in California which is essentially locked democratic as of late when they could campaign in the key states like PA, OH, and FL?

But in heart, I see where you're coming from. If everything started out neutral from the beginning, campaigning in the larger states would be a much more dominant strategy. But then again, why would it not, even with popular vote?
--donut3.5--

I'm not saying that popular vote would accomplish this. However, if what anderf said was the intended purpose, it's certainly not accomplishing it, and doesn't really seem worth the trouble.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

I'm not saying that popular vote would accomplish this. However, if what anderf said was the intended purpose, it's certainly not accomplishing it, and doesn't really seem worth the trouble.

True.
One of the biggest ironies I've seen are the diehard conservatives complaining about this system now, and how the popular vote should decide. Apparently they don't have any memory of 8 years ago, when they were saying the exact opposite.
--donut3.5--

The electoral college is better than popular vote because the general population does not know what is good for it, it knows what it wants. The general population is fortunate enough that what it wants happens to coincidentally be good for it, or that it is eventually shown that what it wants is the opposite of what is good for them.

IIRC, the winner-takes-all thing isn't a problem with the electoral college, it's a problem with how individual states choose to run their electoral college. There are states that commit electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote.

Originally Posted by Teh_Ephy

The electoral college is better than popular vote because the general population does not know what is good for it, it knows what it wants. The general population is fortunate enough that what it wants happens to coincidentally be good for it, or that it is eventually shown that what it wants is the opposite of what is good for them.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, so I won't argue the point. But, even is what you say is true, how does having an electoral college help matters?

Originally Posted by Teh_Ephy

IIRC, the winner-takes-all thing isn't a problem with the electoral college, it's a problem with how individual states choose to run their electoral college. There are states that commit electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote.

Well, yeah, there are. But only two of them, (Maine and Nebraska, I think) and neither one has very many electors (the both have four, I think.)

Originally Posted by SimonKurciski

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, so I won't argue the point. But, even is what you say is true, how does having an electoral college help matters?

It wasn't sarcasm, but whether the general public is a bunch of idiots or not is (unfortunately) rather subjective, so there wouldn't be a point in arguing anyways. The electoral colleges help in that it is their job to be informed on the issues. IIRC, the electoral colleges don't technically need to follow the popular vote.

Originally Posted by SimonKurciski

Well, yeah, there are. But only two of them, (Maine and Nebraska, I think) and neither one has very many electors (the both have four, I think.)

And that blows that half of my post out of the water.