regardless of who wins I think this needs to be abolished. Anyone see any value in keeping it around?

Hey Tony,
We agree on this.
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Actually, there is huge value to having it around. The electoral college makes is feasible for the president to campaign. By know what areas have the most pull, candidates can plan accordingly. Without the electoral college, candidates would be forced to campaign, well, everywhere. This is not physically nor economically possible.

Also, the ORIGINAL purpose of the EC was a safeguard to override the popular vote in the case that the public attempts to vote in someone that obviously should not be in office. No lie.

I think with the Internet and the news service what it is today that the traveling to campaign is moot. And the chance of all of us getting together and writing in a common candidate is ludicrous. Those were valid points but no longer hold water.

I flunked out of the electoral college and had to attend community college. I don't remember what their mascot was, but it was either Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich... (c:

Yea.... let's do away with it so only California and New York see campaign commercials.

An easy to understand explanation of the Electoral College

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpzyc014025400nov01,0,3308949.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines 

Yo chipslave:

Your real name wouldn't be Cartman or Kyle, would it?

LOL

JonR

"the ORIGINAL purpose of the EC was a safeguard to override the popular vote in the case that the public attempts to vote in someone that obviously should not be in office."

According to WHO?!?!

My vague recollection is that the EC was to compensate for the western states being jealous of the eastern states, and the southern state being jealous of the northern states, which is so not an issue now (HAH!). Abolish this ridiculous piece of BS.

The EC "a safeguard to override the popular vote." Read Fed Paper #10. America was never intended to be a democratic nation, but hey, shrub won the popular vote tonight. W is statistically the role model for your avg. American.

Screw you JonR...

Im going home! LOL

Since we the people do not really vote for the President, what the heck, keep the EC

EC is needed as others have stated to ensure a moron does not get elected. Last night it was proved that it works by sKerry not getting elected.

I vote keep the EC!

Without the EC, only the densly populated areas like NYC and LA would potentially decide the entire outcome.
I say keep it.
And this is coming from a Republican in Massachusetts! My "vote" never counts because the local unions and state workers support democrats regardless of the quality.

But I do say this: All 50 states should abolish the "all or nothing" distribution of the EC votes.
Why not use percentages to divide the votes from each state according to margin of victory?
Look no further than Ohio this year. 140,000 votes seperate the winner and loser, yet the winner gets ALL the EC votes.

Change it, but don't eliminate it. Middle America, our Heartland, should matter.

gater I disagree. la and ny went kerry but bush still took the popular vote.

I am in the heartland and think the EC like the unions is unnecessary

This is a very old debate. Usually begun by someone whose ox got gored (pun intended). Forget about it. It's a little state vs. big union thing and it's here to stay.

LLT, I know it is an old debate and I was never gored. I voted for the winner both times.

If you think "abolish the Electoral College" you should remember that the federal government represents the individual states.

The candidate must win a majority of the individual states to win the office, not a simple majority of voters from across the country. Winning a simple majority would be easy: simply promise people in large cities on the coasts exactly what they want and your victory is assured. Campaigning and trying to win 50 individual states is far harder and leaves the winning candidate with a majority of STATES, not a majority of VOTERS.

What does it matter if 300 million people are spread out evenly, or 300 million people are huddled up around harbors and rivers? One person, one vote, count 'em up, bingo.

I always enjoy this debate and truly appreciate everyone's opinion. But, the fact of the matter is without this measure of equalizing the electorate, many states and folks would not be truly represented.

That and the fact that candidates would only stump in populated areas and national dollars would only go to local or state candidates in those areas.

I think the system could use some tweaking and I am a proponent of adopting some type of electoral system here in Oregon for state measures. Currently we have two counties that decide policy for the entire state. And frankly, that does not work. Especially if you have a state with diverse land use and resources. It is unfair for the corporate rich areas to dictate policy that adversely affects rural and farm areas.

DRJ

if anyone cares, i'd like to see the electoral vote divided proportionately among the candidates in each state. i think that would be equal and fair.