EDIT: After posting I realized that this is probably the wrong forum. Mods, please move wherever this belongs.
I understand that the main arguement against this is that big states would have the most say. Big deal, is my response. If the majority of the country
wants one person to be President then so be it. America is by the people, for the people is it not?
The majority of the population wanted Al Gore yet guess who became president? Unless popular vote directly elects a president, I feel that voting is
just an illusion of choice. The people really have no say in who becomes their leader. The electoral college is based on an outdated truth that the
majority of the population is uneducated. That is not the case nowadays.
I think it is time to give america back to the people. If the majority of the population vote for 1 guy and he stinks it up, oh well, the majority
wanted him.
Elections are too easily tampered with and corrupted with the current system.
If you think about it, how much say do the people really have in anything that goes on in their government?
[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Cutwolf]
|
big deal you say? what if those states with the majority of the population voted for people you didnt like? you'd be complaining about that.
but as it stands you're complaining about a system that at least attempts to bring a balance in the voting process for those who live in smaller
states.
there's a reason why the system is set up the way it is...mob rule. this was foreseen and thats why the system is set up the way it is.
BTW the presidential election is the only election thats like this. the majority still decides who their congressmen are, their senators, etc.
this whining and complaining about the system doesnt work. wanting it reworked to fit you POV isnt gonna cut it either. again THIS is why the system
is et up the way it is. this mob rule mentality is absolutely dangerous.
|
 big deal you say? what if those states with the majority of the population voted for people you didnt like? you'd be complaining about that.
Oh well! I voted for who I wanted so I could say "i told you so" if he stunk it up. You claim it would be mob rule, yet isn't this country "by the
people, for the people."
And wow, our senators are elected by us. Too bad the senators are VERYeasily misled by the commander in chief (see: Iraq War)
|
As much as I dont want bush and hope he is not the president, The electoral was made for a reason, not to be unfair but FAIR, We may have to revise
this since times have changed along with Populations, but it was a fair way to do it.
It sucks it worked out the way it did, but it does seem that if it worked the other way people would complain then to.
JUST make sure you vote
|
Where are you getting your info about why the electorial college was put in place ?
My understanding is that during that time there was no way to communicate votes to the capitol without a person traveling there.
The rep counted the votes in his district and then traveled to washington to vote for what the majority wanted within each district. one vote per
district was my understanding
Now the federal government has allowed states to change that. In some states the person who gets the majority votes now can be given all the votes
for the whole state which is not a true representation of the vote.
I agree the electorial college is antique and needs to be done away with. I think they keep it for the sake of posterity. The goal was for the
person who received the majority votes to have the presidency... but as you have all witnessed that is not the case any longer.
|
Chevy, you are correct, as well is the Prankster. As with most decision, there was more than one with that one.
The election was not stolen, not by the electorial college or by Bush. I can point at atempts by the other side that are conclusive, to include media
collusion, but it is neither here or there. What I do think, though, is that the media is very much biased and works very heavily in one direction.
Now if you are a democrat, you may think that is no big deal, but I do. Furthermore, if they were to be biased toward Bush, or any other republican
candidate, I'd be very fearful as well.
Media tinkering is dangerous, no matter what side they are pulling for as we should be able to count on them to be non-biased and give us all
the facts so that we can make our own determination of who is the best candidate.
After that, of course, we'll have to find a candidate that will actually do what he says he'll do. I think there's a better chance of having a
non-biased media than to have a straight-up president!
|
