Eliminate electoral college in presidential elections?

You do realize, that given how 21st century elections have played out, your suggestion would virtually guarantee Democrats held the White House in perpetuity?

 

That may happen anyway and probably will if Clinton wins. However, it is much more difficult to steal a national election than a statewide election.

 

All States have the option to delegate electors, either by district or winner take all and 48 have used WTA since the 19th century. Electors are also not bound to their voters choice. Top this off and the Congress certifies all Elections. Since the US was a rural country in the beginning or many fewer urban areas, it might be worth checking out using a district only system, but it would and should be up to the States and not many would change.

 

It altered the course of history.

Definitely no Obama 2008 if Gore had won.

And we might've gotten Hillary 8 years earlier.

It is fun to speculate on the what-ifs.

 

Do you still have your W Bush yard signs as collectables?

 

Maybe they should stop always voting the same and this problem will disappear. Dont let them take your vote for granted

 

If a president represents us all then what does it matter?

 

As the president does not have absolute power then how can there be a true mob rules political structure? Do we not have protections for minorities and safeguards that limit presidential power? If so then what harm is caused by a straight up democratic vote when electing our presidents?

Big cities are an amalgam of various parties and the unaffiliated. According to Gallop the majority of Americans are independent.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

 

The executive has been grabbing more and more power. The founders did not want everyone voting, they did not want the president elected by popular vote. They wanted representative government not pure democracy. If not for cities a democrat would never be elected as president

 

Did they want pork barrel spending tantamount to a quid pro quo that adds untold billions to the deficit? How about an election system that is pay to play thus leaving us with two of the most hated candidates we have seen in recent history all because they have a lot of money and financial backing from powerful groups aka the lobby? How about the unethical influence the lobby has in the political system? I think if we could resurrect our forfathers that they would be ashamed by the mess we have made of the system.

Do you hold the forefathers high? I do not, and the reason is that while they created the wording for a free society, many did not live up to the very ideal of freedom that they supposedly espoused.

I am for a representative government below the president, but I think a president should be picked by we the people as it is we the people that the president should represent. Perhaps some may be thrilled that an Idaho vote counts more than a California vote, but what does it really matter when California has roughly a 25x larger population than Idaho? Does not a president represent all American states and territories? If so then again what does it matter if a presidential vote is a pure democratic vote?

The democrats alone do not have enough power to win a presidential election as both the DCN and the RNC are the minority as most Americans are independent.

 

They didnt want a fed or a national income tax without which these things would not be possible. This is what happens when you pick and choose which words of the founders you decide to follow. Its what liberals call progress

 

I personally believe in the original method for electing federal positions=

President and VP selected by the Senate and elected by the House

Senators done the same way by state legislatures

Representatives elected by each Congressional District. No outside money allowed.

 

What harm is caused to America if we elect a president through a popular vote vs the electoral college?

 

I believe the founders knew what they were doing. Weve already messed things up bad enough by changing the way Senators are elected. They built in checks and balances with a good reason though progressives might find them quaint

 

Nope. Disagree. Allowing the House and the Senate to elect a President would never get anything done for the other party. We currently have a Republican House and Senate, so of course they are going to elect a Republican as President. Same if we had a Democrat House and Senate.

Not really a democratic process, is it? It's a bunch of stuffy incumbents deciding the direction of our country, when a large majority of them can't even be bothered to show up to vote.

 

I don't have much to add here, but the electoral college is the best system to fit our nation, a nation of states.

 

It was also never proposed by anyone, especially not the founders

You only have the people to blame for keeping on voting in the same losers. The people cannot always be trusted to always do whats best for the nation. Thats why the founders set things up the way they did

 

Which does nothing to tell me exactly what harm would be caused by the presidential election being left to a popular vote.

 

How about a Candidate from California would have a built in advantage over say one from Alaska, Also the founders never intended for with the president or the federal government to have the power it has now

 

How so? How does the electoral college nullify geographical differences and place candidates upon equal footing?

Yet this does nothing to answer my question as to what harm would be caused by a president being elected by popular vote.

 

Every vote does not count with the electoral college. And one state should not be more important than another.

 

By making the little states or swing states important to win. What we need is more swing states. Again the problem is the people keep voting in the same morons

 

A popular vote makes the above moot as it erases boundaries such as city, county, and state lines as all are lumped into one huge voting pool.

Not sure what can be done about that.

 

Yes getting rid of the electoral college would give back a representative government in theory, diebold voting machines still make me sketchy of fraud since they can be tampered with. If a system of checks and balances were put in place maybe then I might trust the process i.e. a sheriff, and a random deputy were chosen each election to test the equipment and hold it in custody until the voting begins. To be chosen at random like a lottery for the whole state to watch on TV or in person if people so choose. Minimize the opportunity for corruption.