|
I agree. We are set up to do it, so why not? I mean, we ALREADY count the votes as part of the
electoral college's "suggested" vote. Besides, the electoral college can vote against what the
people want. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If we didn't have the electoral college, then we wouldn't have Bush. That's probably the best reason
for abolishing it.
Seriously though, I think the Electoral College is outdated and unnecessary. The EC was used to
decide the President in the event that there was a very close contest. During the 1800's through to
the mid-20th century, the EC served it's purpose well in closely contested elections where it would
have been difficult to have and sort exact numbers to determine a winner.
Today, counting is far more accurate with even the narrowest of margins. I think advances in the
counting part of the electoral process have eliminated the need for an Electoral College. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The nice thing about the Electoral College is that it simplifies any problems that arise if the
popular vote is really close nation-wide. For example, if we have switched to the popular vote and
have two candidates in 2008 who each get 60 million votes give or take two hundred votes, then we
face a situation where instead of just having to recount Florida's votes, we have to recount every
single vote in the entire country. Recounts cost tons of money. And 50 state by state recounts would
be disasterously expensive and much more likely to produce untrusted results because of the huge
opening for vote tampering in such a massive recount. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
05 Mar 2008 17:21
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
