Electoral College

[Greg]

The Electoral College consists of the popularly elected representatives (electors) who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.
The election for President and Vice President is not a direct election by United States citizens. Citizens vote for electors, representing a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election. In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

The United States presidential election of 2000 was a contest between Republican candidate George W. Bush, then-governor of Texas and son of former president George H. W. Bush (1989–1993), and Democratic candidate Al Gore. Bush narrowly won the November 7 election, with 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. The controversy in the situation was that Gore had won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, but Bush had the most electoral votes.

The argument comes up, because the electoral college system is "winner take all," is it a fair way of electing the president of the United States? Is it fair that you can have the most people vote for you, but still lose the election
Discuss.



Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

 

[Lambda]

Yes and no.
It was created because of Alexander Hamliton's "great beast." In which he called the common citizen the great beast. I appreciate the fact that it allows the more educated people to choose for us, however I disagree with it at the same time because it basically means that our votes mean nothing.

 

[oblivion9032]

i don't think its fair and most of the time they electoral college follows the popular vote anyway so I really don't see why we need it anymore and the people are more educated now than they were back when it was created when they "feared the uneducated masses" or "feared the mob" and most of the campaigning is done in the larger states like California and New York because they have a very large amount of electoral votes so the candidates mostly focus on trying to win the big states (so perhaps they could just give each state one vote so they would campaign equally maybe?)

 

[Evan Wears Prada]

I do agree with the electoral collage because it allows more educated and politically experienced people to have a big impact on who is elected rather than a citizen who voted for a president because of his skin color or something about the person rather than political experience and their views and plans.

 

[FireZ]

I do agree with the electoral collage because it allows more educated and politically experienced people to have a big impact on who is elected rather than a citizen who voted for a president because of his skin color or something about the person rather than political experience and their views and plans.

Why does it matter where you live in the U.S.?

 

[Clashfan]

I do agree with the electoral collage because it allows more educated and politically experienced people to have a big impact on who is elected rather than a citizen who voted for a president because of his skin color or something about the person rather than political experience and their views and plans.

Not really, states nearly always give their electoral votes to the candidate who wins popularly. What it does is make it so that the only states that really matter in an election are the "swing" states. It also effectively ensures that if you're a democrat voting in a state that is bound to go republican (or a republican voting in a blue state), your vote doesn't mean shit.

 

[The Riddler_]

The argument comes up, because the electoral college system is "winner take all," is it a fair way of electing the president of the United States? Is it fair that you can have the most people vote for you, but still lose the election
Discuss.



Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

States can choose how they give their electoral votes. It's just that the most common choice is Winner takes all.

I think the best choice is the Congressional District Method. It gets more voices out than the winner takes all method.

 

[Greg]

Im 2000 D.C. had a mix up on votes. One person did not vote, and neither or the three people will admit to it.