for my century mark post I am starting this poll. this is the first time I have strated a topic.

what do you think. I think it is a good idea, but it could really use a revamp. third parties need to have a better chance of getting some votes there, because as long at the system remains the way it is, no third party will ever get a vote. (ross perot won 19% percent the last time he run, 1996 I think, yet he didn't get a single electoral vote)

also, I am not 100% sure how the college works though, for example, who picks the electors?(I think the state legislators do) if someone could post some links to info on it I would greatly appreciate it.

I like our system of needing to win the majority of a vote in an area to get the electoral votes. I do not much like the system of multi-party parliaments and their cumbersome mechanisms needed to piece together a coalition government. An executive branch needs to be able to whether political storms and needs to be able to act without worrying about losing power all during his or her term.

I also like the electoral college system because it decreases the likelihood of sectional parties. For example if 98% percent of the people of the New England states wanted a particular candidate they could likely determine who the next president was in a truly free democracy. in the present system it would only give x number of electoral votes and the overwhelming majority would be roughly equal to a 51-49 vote in favor of the other candidate from California.

I do think,however, that electoral votes should be split inside a state. This way a vote would go out based on one electoral district and not a whole state. In our present system increasingly politicians need to focus on CA, TX, FLA, NY, and IL and can increasingly ignore many other states along the way.

We sort of had this topic going already but it had been forgotten The Electoral College

I'll close the old one and let this one stand.

I like the electoral college system as it is. I believe it has served us well over the years. For one thing, it gives smaller states a bigger voice in a Presidential election and that is the sort of thing that distinguishes our nation as a Republic as opposed to a pure democracy.

It needs to go. The electoral college allows for votes to be not counted. If the majority of the country votes for someone they should win, but with the electoral college this doesn't necessarily happen.

Just to prereply to one comment that I have heard before about my stance on this: It doesn't matter that Montana and other desolate states don't get as much of a say you can't give them more credit based on the state they live in and you can't take away from higher populated states just because they flourished.

The Electoral college reflects the role of the states in our system of dual sovereignty between the states and federal government.

Abolishing the college would bring about a substantial lessening of the role of the states and enhancement of the role of the federal government, which is not something I would care to see.

And to re-prereply to Limpubus, the Electoral College is an administrative intermediary that keeps some of the power in the states. Could just be the Libertarian in me, but I do not want to be ruled by an urban cabal that is devoid of any compassion or allegiance to the millions of rural Americans.

The Electoral College makes absolutly no sense

Get rid of the Electoral College & keep the Popular Vote

I think that it makes sense, but I don't like the idea that an electoral representative in a state can vote for whomever they choose regardless of the popular vote in the state.

Thats the part that has always bothered me also.

But does anyone have any idea how we could keep the best of both.....equal representation of all states, but a non-corruptable way to appoint/elect electors?

Electoral college is obsolete. In what way is it representing small states a bigger represtation?

Electoral college was just a way because back then we couldn't get the popular vote in (or just not in time). Now that we can, we should stick with popular vote. It makes more sense.

So, using this logic, if you lived in S. Dakota, it wouldn't bother you if the presidential candidates never visited your state, took an interest or an opinion on the problems in your state, but merely pandered to the urban centers on both coasts, with a pit stop maybe in Chicago?

We started on this grand enterprise as a confederation of states, all contributing to the success of the nation, all equal, all deserving of representation. I vote we keep it that way.

I've thought a long time on this one. Yes, there is a better way to do it, but a good portion of the constitution would need to be rewritten. I doubt this will ever happen, so, until some other nation comes up with the better idea, leave it as is.

The idea is to have two presidents: one with a focus on foreign policy and the other with a focus on domestic policy.

Keep the electoral college for the domestic policy president--that way, the states have more of an equal voice in what directly affects state issues.

The foreign policy president would be democratically elected because he or she would be representing each and every US citizen to the rest of the world.

All parties would be able to run two candidates.

Voters would be able to split their votes (as usual). Allow two vice presidents, but split up the cabinet positions. Build another White House somewhere, maybe in St. Louis, for the domestic president. That would undermine beltway mentality for a while and keep DC as the US national center.

I'd also like to see a constitutional amendment that requires each Congressional bill to address only one issue at a time. No riders.

Ah, if only I were King for a day

Ah, much like the dual Kings of Sparta.
I like the idea, but the FEC is already a mess, not to mention VNS and the networks bungling of election night returns. I think it would be too chaotic for our system, and we already have a hard enough time getting people to realize their obligation to vote.

BTW, I'm with you on no riders.

I think maybe we should keep it, but there needs to be some changes. the electoral votes should be based upon districts, and the canidates should have to win the districts rather then the entire state.

donttread, as it stands now, the candidates don't really focus on states like s. dakota, as there are only like 2 electoral votes, instead they focus on states like florida, cali, new york, and other states with large numbers of EC votes. by having to win an entire state no third parties can ever get an EC vote, but by needing to win districts they stand a better chance.

I think the entire system needs a revamp, for example, only one company counts the votes as they come in (VNS) this leaves far to much room for fraud to happen, especially with the touch screen system, which has already had problems.(people in texas trying to vote dem, said when they hit the touch screen dem button, it selected rep)

the electoral college keeps mob rule from happening, which direct democracy tends to turn into (50%+1 is mob rule and all that is required in DD) so it does still serve some purpose, it just needs to be reorganized.

Dontreadonme, a running president goes to many states, including your example of South Dakota, because every electoral vote counts (at least personally, I think it does).

Well, if every electoral vote matters, than why don't the people of South Dakota matter? If they have a respectable number of electoral votes, they would have a respectable population, making it worth the pit stop to South Dakota. Well, wouldn't it?

What difference does it make if a presidebtial candidate visits your state or not? Oh no he didn't step on the soil of the state I live in boo hoo.