I think electoral votes are unfair. Why does America have them?!?

Question

Why doesn't the government just let America vote for itself?

Answer 1

I agree.

[Four Presidents won the popular vote but lost the presidency: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).]

It hasn't happened often, but when it does it sure P's you O.

  

Answer 2

I absolutely agree!!!

Electoral votes were necessary in the days of horse and buggy. Now with instant communications they are far more of a burden than an asset.

I am certain that 30% of the people do not bother to vote as they know their state will go 100% the other party regardless of what their vote.

Answer 3

read a basic government book you dummy :] thanks for the 2 points

Answer 4

If the electoral votes continue, in the future there will come an election where the votes of 100,000 will matter more than the votes of 1,000,000.

Trust me. This is why electoral votes has to go.

Answer 5

America was supposed to be closer to an alliance of states than a single country.  The idea was to share assets for common defense and have every state benefit from an economy in which traders can cross borders without getting taxed.  Also, we hopefully wouldn't be constantly at war with one another.  The founders really meant the US to look more like the Eurpean Union.  Each state was supposed to be 99.99% autonomous, with the fed stepping in only under very limited circumstances.  

For this reason, your vote for a federal official isn't exactly an individual vote.  Your state votes on your behalf, depending upon the outcome of the local elections.  States with big populations get more electoral votes because the founders figured that it wasn't fair to let tiny states with only a few people have as much say as big states that represented a much bigger portion of the US population.

I get why it doesn't seem fair, particularly in light of how much power the fed exerts over the states.  It also means that politicians tend to largely ignore people that live in states with fewer electorals, and go after the biggies like CA, TX, OH, NY, PA.  Also, you have people like Bush who lose the popular vote but still win the election.  But, it's in the constitution, and we'd need an amendment to change it.

Answer 6

Agreed.

They want us to *think* we get to vote, but the electoral college is in place just in case, "we, the people" do not vote as they wish.

Answer 7

America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. To eliminate the electoral college would severely infringe upon the rights of individual states as well as their citizens. The process is completely fair by virtue of the fact that it ensures that the President is chosen by the American people throughout America, not a certain state or region.

Answer 8

More of "The Constitution is a living document" c**p...

You people need to study history to understand what you really are suggesting here...  Your forefathers fought long and hard with one another to come up with a system that was fair and would stand the test of time...  And your willing to just throw it out as if it's a used diaper...  Well, I don't think our forefathers are the ones here that are full of ****.

Answer 9

If more of your state votes for Canidiate A, then Canidiate B's votes pretty much won't count :/