Why take two years campaigning to the public when in the end the electoral college is the one that end up picking a president?
22-25, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
You win the electoral college by winning states, each state has a different number of electoral college based on the population. So you have to campaign to the people or you lose the state, it's exactly what happened to Hillary Clinton, she skipped Key states and lost to Trump.
It's a good system because it keeps the 5 or 6 most populated states from choosing the President.
It's a good system because it keeps the 5 or 6 most populated states from choosing the President.
Ynotisay · M
Do you happen to know which city Electoral College is located? ;)
It's a terrible system. Federal law impacts ALL states equally. Why should the states with larger populations suffer? Why should the citizens of those states also receive FAR less in federal funding per person than less populated states? Why should a state with 1 million people have the same voting power as one with 40 million?
It was put in to place, in essence, to stop con men from taking office. They wanted the will of the people to determine the Presidency. This was at a time way before electricity and people in the more remote states didn't have access to the same information as those in the large cities. That's not the case any longer. Irrespective of how recent votes have turned out I think it's an antiquated system, is no longer necessary and does NOT represent the "will of the people." The popular vote determines that.
It's a terrible system. Federal law impacts ALL states equally. Why should the states with larger populations suffer? Why should the citizens of those states also receive FAR less in federal funding per person than less populated states? Why should a state with 1 million people have the same voting power as one with 40 million?
It was put in to place, in essence, to stop con men from taking office. They wanted the will of the people to determine the Presidency. This was at a time way before electricity and people in the more remote states didn't have access to the same information as those in the large cities. That's not the case any longer. Irrespective of how recent votes have turned out I think it's an antiquated system, is no longer necessary and does NOT represent the "will of the people." The popular vote determines that.
freebird · F
The college is supposed to represent the people, so you still have to appeal to the people
View 2 more replies »
Ynotisay · M
@FreeSpirit1: I think we're more of a representative or constitutional Democracy. We're not only a "democracy" just like we're not only a "republic."
And there are elections in which the majority wins on local and state levels.
What I'm speaking to are federal laws being made via disproportionate votes. Senator X from Wyoming has the same voting power as Senator Y from California despite California having about 75 times the population. That's not representative of the "will of the people," which means all the people, under the federal banner.
And there are elections in which the majority wins on local and state levels.
What I'm speaking to are federal laws being made via disproportionate votes. Senator X from Wyoming has the same voting power as Senator Y from California despite California having about 75 times the population. That's not representative of the "will of the people," which means all the people, under the federal banner.
JenniferB · 46-50, F
Because the public chooses members of the Electoral College in each state.