jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (5 posts)

Is the electoral system out-of-date? Should we elect our U.S. presidents on pop

  1. Timothy Anderson profile image97
    Timothy Andersonposted 2 years ago

    Is the electoral system out-of-date?  Should we elect our U.S. presidents on popular vote?

    There have been four occasions in U.S. history where a would-be president lost the election, even though he had MORE popular votes.  It happened in 1824, in 1876, again in 1888, and a fourth time in 2000 when Al Gore had 540,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush.  Bush had 271 electoral votes, and Gore had 266. 

    Is it time for a change?

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12950399_f260.jpg

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    Past time to get rid of this antiquated system.  What a different world we might live in today if we'd rid ourselves of the electoral college 20 years ago.  Check out the National Popular Vote movement.

  3. Annsalo profile image85
    Annsaloposted 2 years ago

    My opinion is we need to continue popular vote. However in an ideal world testing would be required prior to voting. I think far too many people vote who have no understanding of politics.
    There are enough free resources no one should be uninformed, yet it seems the masses usually are.

  4. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    The Electoral College defeats the purpose of a Democratic Republic in one person one vote. The elector college changes the math to ignore that one person one vote.

    Isn't it bad enough that when one party wins the presidency, then the voters of the other party will not be represented for the next four years by the president. Why, because the president is going to be loyal to the party, and not the voters. Especially not those people that voted against the president.

    The parties have and continue to divide the country even more so than slavery did it causing the Civil War. No matter the outcome of the 2016 election, the results will conform to those of the part presidential elections. That means that there will be no progress or prosperity for the country, as evidenced by US history.

    It is time to cast aside voter loyalty to the party, and focus on how to be loyal to the country. Yes, that does mean that party loyalty is being disloyal to the country.

  5. tamarawilhite profile image92
    tamarawilhiteposted 2 years ago

    We have the current system so that cities and states that have a bare majority don't overwhelm the interests of the rural and suburban areas.

 
working