<p>I personally don't.</p>
<p>what about it? the electoral college? the age limit? </p>
<p>or something else?</p>
<p>Electoral college is fail. </p>
<p>If the electoral college must exist, each state should split its electoral votes based on the distribution of its popular vote.</p>
<p>I think it should be based on popular vote where "every vote counts".</p>
<p>do you understand the reasoning behind it, though? I'm not completely behind, but in general, think it's a good idea.
I know that, originally, it was set up so that laymen that didn't know politics couldn't choose a bad president, but i'm talking about the reason that is hasn't been changed. </p>
<p>I mean, based on the numbers, without the electoral college, a candidate could win half a dozen large states, lose the rest, but still win the election (if he really gets a high majority in those states). the electoral college makes it so that candidates have to campaign in more states (theoretically).</p>
<p>the problem with it is that, while the candidates don't campaign in the states with the most people, they instead campaign in states w/ a high number of electoral points (whatever they're called... my mind just blanked), such as OH.</p>
<p>i'm not saying it's great, but i do think i prefer it to a popular vote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the problem with it is that, while the candidates don't campaign in the states with the most people, they instead campaign in states w/ a high number of electoral points (whatever they're called... my mind just blanked), such as OH.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't actually campaign in states with the most votes, they campaign in states which are very close to a 50/50 split. If you're a republican and a state is 75% democrat, even if it is large, what's the point of campaigning there? You're much better off going to the smaller state with a very close race where your presence and meeting people could have a much larger influence.</p>
<p>I was talking with a friend about it, and we thought it's a kind of neat system. Politicians will visit large states for their fund raising drives, since large states tend to have wealthier populations, and they'll also visit the smaller states due to their possibility of swinging to the other side.</p>
<p>The electoral college was a good IDEA, but it's definitely kind of messed up.
As usual though, I agree with poseur :]
[quote]
If the electoral college must exist, each state should split its electoral votes based on the distribution of its popular vote.
[/quote]
:] At least then it's closer to a popular vote.</p>
<p>Don't like it. Why?</p>
<p>I'll be 17.</p>
<p>Even if I could vote, my state is quite heavily Obama, so it's a given. Even though I'm a definite Obama supporter, I actually feel worse for the McCain supporters in Vermont, whose votes won't be worth jack.</p>
<p>The electoral college drowns out the minority way too much to be considered real democracy, so I think it should be replaced. Considering the election is for a national office, I think a pure popular vote would be the best solution. Its certainly feasible given today's technology.</p>
<p>The Electoral College is SO unecessary and insulting. Yes, the majority of people are crazy, and I can't believe they have a role in choosing the President, but it's irrational that a candidate can lose the popular vote and still manage to "win" the Presidency. </p>
<p>The Electoral College was originally created so uneducated farmers wouldn't be able to vote, but in this day it's impossible to be uninformed. Regardless of their level of craziness (I've learned from my after school job at a bakery that the average person is crazy, basically), most voters follow the election campaign and can make an educated choice. We should count each and every vote in the country to determine the President.</p>
<p>I think you guys got it backwards. The Electoral College was created so uneducated farmers wouldn't be snowed under by the crowded city folk, and that they would still have a say. The original intention of the EC, after all, was to create compromise</p>
<p>But on the other hand, I think that it completely nullifies the importance of the popular vote. If a president with less public votes than another loses to the majority holder, as it did three times in our history, then there's something wrong.</p>
<p>But then there's the fact that the EC would fix the problem of having no president polling more than half of the popular vote (a good example would be the 1860 presidential elections, where around 60% of the public favored a different nominee other than Lincoln).</p>
<p>I'm sure that our founding fathers had a good reason for conceiving of an Electoral College, and that, up to this day, it still hasn't been removed. I'll just assume that wiser heads have debated this, and that the pro Electoral College-ites won (the fact that amending the Constitution would be extremely arduous probably helped the cause, too). For the most part, it's done a good job of picking our presidents.</p>
<p>I kinda like the electoral college system b/c i think it helps the small states get heard and represented. It's definitely not perfect, but I'm not so sure popular vote is the way to go. I'm not sayin that I have an alternative, I'm just giving my 2 cents worth. But I still hate the electoral college system for the 2000 election and I'm a republican. Gore should have won that hands down. And it's not like it's going to matter in this election either. Obama has both in the bag and that's coming from a republican.</p>
<p>^ FYI that's what they said with Gore and Kerry.</p>
<p>Sometimes polls are quite inaccurate.</p>
<p>Bradley</a> effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>I know what the bradley effect is but to be quite honest, I haven't seen it at work. You can argue that for the NH primary where he was aheda but clinton ended up winning, but I think the Bradley effect is something of the past.</p>
<p>It's not only the Bradley effect. It's also the perception of most people (at least that I'm aware of) that Obama is the clear winning. While this is in fact a democratic year, history has shown us that these kind of races are tigher than they appear.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm a republican and want McCain to win. But statistically speaking, research polls take into acount the likelyhood of the people that they polled into acount and there are going to be more young voters this year than ever before because Obama has excited them so much. If McCain does win, I'm glad. But for Obama to have that much of a lead across the board, it's very unlikely that he will lose this one, but not impossible.</p>
<p>I know literally nothing about how the voting process or thing works other than the fact that I can't vote.</p>
<p>^ Here's a primer.</p>
<p>Civics</a> 101: How the U.S.A. elects its President - Nachrichten English-News - WELT ONLINE</p>
<p>
[quote]
Considering the election is for a national office, I think a pure popular vote would be the best solution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I suppose this makes you decide the question if it's the states electing the president or the citizens of the nation.</p>
<p>Back when I was young and ignorant, I thought the Electoral College was a great part of American elections. Now, I think the people who take part in the EC are really corrupt & screwed up.</p>
<p>The gov needs to have more faith in people voting for the right president. Politicians are unbelievably corrupt and nothing like what Washington & Founding Fathers expected politicians to be like - disinterested folks who use their power to benefit the masses.</p>