Analyze criticism of the “Electoral College” system and the alleged advantages (continued below)?

Question

Analyze criticism of the “Electoral College” system and the alleged advantages and disadvantages of various reform proposals.

Answer 1

So do the slackers just post their homework as yahoo questions?

Answer 2

We need for the people to do their own

voting, not delegates or superdelegates.

The time for this practice to be changed

is now.

Answer 3

first, it's obvious that some of the answers here are from people confusing the democratic party's superdelegate system with the electoral college...

the electoral college was put into the constitution for some basic and very simple reasons which are still relevant and important today...

our country was founded as a 'republic', and along with having a king, the idea of a 'democracy' was pretty much a horror to our founding fathers.  their idea of a 'representative republic' in which people of high character and in good standing would be elected to positions in congress and so on was based in the belief that these good men would do what was right without regard to cost and/or personal or political gain.

along the way, of course, much of that has evaporated, and the terms 'constituency' and 'political expedience' have come to head a long list of aberrations which have developed.  much of what is wrong with our country actually does have its source right here among us as the people because we have been taught to believe that this politician or party...or the other one...or another one, maybe...must be kept in power, or conversely, voted out of office.

that was never the point, but simply put, it is now just about the whole point when you view america in reality.

the electoral college was conceived, though, with just this problem in mind.  our founding fathers realized that, politically, there were already some great divides in our country, much of it economical in nature, and much of it due to simple situation.  

the office of the presidency and the vice-presidency is the only national election we hold...all other politicians are elected at or below state level, but for these two highest offices, the election is nationwide.  and they wanted to ensure that no certain type of economic or political factor could control this highest election, so they conceived of the 'electoral college', and it always has the same number of members as the total of our congressmen in washington...

if you've ever watched the TV reporting on the presidential election, you'll have seen the map of the US shown in, most times, red and blue, the colors representing the two major parties as they win the various precincts and states across the nation.

if you notice, it always has the democrats faring very well in large, populated ares, such as around our major cities, while the republicans do better in the more rural areas.  that's a general picture, and there are always a few exceptions, of course, but in large part, it is accurate.

and that is just what our founding fathers faced.  boston, new york city, richmond, baltimore, and several other large cities of the time held a very large portion of our population, and because of that they had many more precincts than you would have found out in the lesser populated areas.  But the fact is that the country was very agricultural back then, and industry was much less than it is today.  most americans were rural or at least far less urban then, and that holds true today as well.  small towns and cities abounded then and now.

and they needed something to ensure that the major population centers, all of which existed on 'business' fare more than agriculture and other earthy endeavors, couldn't control this one and only national election endlessly.  thus, the electoral college.

take away the electoral college today and it is likely that you would wind up with one very powerful party...the democrats...and one far-less powerful party...the republicans...at best.  

this isn't because the electoral college favors the republicans, though.  the reality is simpler.  our nation today is made up of a far greater population, and most of us have 'jobs', depend on the organization of government and business way more than the people here at the birth of our nation.  a simple majority vote would always be self-serving, while our present system of precincts and so on, including the culminating electoral college, serves to make way for real balance and meeting the needs of all.

my dad always told me something about this in real life.  his point was simple.  we rule our lives by majority vote in many things.  but, the fact is, being the majority is not always being right, it's simply being on the side of most of the votes.

and...face it...the majority can easily be wrong.  look at any law that's been passed that you disagree with, especially those from our supreme court and so on.  the majority passed it, or approved it i should say.  but is it right?

i'd say be very careful before you go to work on our electoral college... history shows us that, in the end, the college has always been right in line with the popular vote, sometimes narrowly.  but without it, well, we've all seen how things can go when our society gets to moving without such guiding and controlling things...we don't have to agree politically here to agree nonetheless on this one thing...sometimes the majority vote just isn't what it should have been.

Answer 4

The idea of a "Super Delegate" or any delegate that is somehow different from other delegates is wrong.  ("Super delegates" are the only ones that HAVE to stick to what the voters voted for in the Democratic Primary.)  The fact that delegates are allowed to change their vote after the voters have spoken is just bad policy.  That's the only real mark against it I can think of.