I heard some stupid girl in my school bitching about how people complain they didn't get who they wanted for president and they don't vote.

Guess what?

YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT

For those of you unaware of the electoral college system, if 50.01 % vote Bush, and 49.99% vote Kerry, all the Kerry votes don't count. That's right, they're down the drain and all the "Electoral College" votes go to Bush. It's completely unfair and the electoral college should be disbanded.

BTW, if you come here with the "the founding fathers set it up!" argument, just keep in mind that just because the founding fathers say it means they were right.

Even if the people's votes did count it still wouldn't be very democratic. Look up all of the complaints about the electronic voting systems, theirs a couple documentaries on it too.

That'd sure be a disturbing argument to use against Constitutional rights like free speech, no establishment of religion, and other freedoms.

I agree with the founding fathers on most things, but I'm sorry, the electoral college is just plain stupid.

So you would prefer what? Proportional representation like exists in the parliment style government?

or you want the person with the straight amount of populat vote to win?

The electoral college is a safe gaurd and a good one to have, in my opinion.

It dates to a time when states were considered to be actual STATES that were united under a federal government..these days people think of states as just areas on the map.

The electoral college also protects the US, in theory, from something like what happened in Germany in the 1930s. If the common US people did sort of "fall in love" with an extremist.. a dangerous person.. the Electoral voters technically can vote differently than how the people of their state voted. I dont know if they would have the courage to though..

I would prefer the popular vote to win. And that's real great, last point, because we all know how the 2000 election was simply wonderful.

Ok, here I go sounding stupid again. I learned all of this in school or was suppose to, but some one please explain to me why we vote if the electorial vote can be over turned by a few people. I understand its to protect us but I just dont understand any of it actually.

Yes, but it seems that Bush's detractors didn't think that the electoral college was such a bad idea when 2004 rolled around.

that system of electing a pres was made sum 300 years ago when those people could not comperhend our way of life in the year 2006, so i do think it might be a good time to change the way we pick our monkey......errr i mean leader

cricket.. I understand your point.. There is still a reason to vote even if a few people could overturn it. In theory, those few people would only overturn it in extreme situations. If Im not mistaken, there have been a few cases already (more than a hundred years ago) that a few electoral college voters have voted against what their popular vote indicated.

I believe that this was put into place because the Founding Fathers were optimistic on most levels but had a certain distrust of the common man. Remember the founding fathers were not average men of their day. By and large they were wealthy, well educated, landed people. Several times in their actions you can see them seem to hesitate to trust "normal" people.. who at the time often were illiterate, often landless (a big deal in their time).

I dont believe in a straight across popular vote. The reason being is population heavy states would have undue power. The electoral college starts with every state having a minimum then adds by population. By straight vote.. California and Texas plus a few few midsize states could almost form a block against the interests every other state. Or alternatively, someone could have a minority in nearly every state.. a landslide in Texas, California, and Florida and win the popular vote.

I think the desire to choose things this way comes from the identity of states having almost disappeared, subjegated to the national identity. But I think it is worth asking if voters in Texas really have the same goals in mind as those in Maine or the best interest of New Hampshire at heart.

thank you Vetamur, can I ask another question? Who are these people who have this vote?

The people who cast the vote are basically normal men and women. To be perfectly honest, I cant remember how they are selected and I dont have the time right now to look it up. I will get back to you later tonight (my time..Im in Japan) and tell you.

I do remember a journalist at one time was planning to try to become an electoral voter so he could vote against his states vote to draw attention to what he also thought was a flaw in the system.

I understand the need for it not to actually be a pure popular vote, but I still don't see the logic behind the electoral college. Not today, anyway.

ok cricket..I hope you appreciate this...I had to go dig out an old book I had almost forgotten I had to answer your question. Haha.

How Presidential Electors are chosen varies by state. They are nominated by their states in the summer before the election. Some states Electors are nominated in primaries, some do it state party conventions..in all states the names must be provided to the Secretary of State at least a month before the election.

Earlier I mentioned that electors can technically vote against what they have been selected to do. The official term for this is "faithless elector" and apparently (as of 1995 when my book was written) 24 states have laws to punish a faithless elector but none ever have been.

I thought there might have been A case of this..but actually there have been a whopping 158 cases of "faithless electing". 71 of them were because a candidate died before the voting (he was the losing candidate so a crisis was overted). There have been 2 abstentions and even some apparent mistakes. Usually faithless electors act alone but in 1836 23 Virgina electors changed their vote together... anyway...

Now having reviewed by book...I can also remember a few reasons to support it (some are mine, some plagiarized..I will cite at the end of post)

1) The system forces candidates to seek approval across the entire country, not only a populated section (contrast it with the system in India, Russia, and even the Roman Empire)

2) the system maintains the FEDERAL character of the nation as a collection of states.

3) It ensures that minorities cant be simply ignored. In an all or nothing system, close elections can be decided by minority groups giving them some political power they wouldnt have in a straight popular vote.

4) Results in a the two party system.. which provides stability. See Italy as a contrast.

5) A group of minor things perhaps: isolation of election problems (corruption, etc), mitigates turnout related irregularities (a hurricane in part of country would mean fewer voters there.. in the current system the states still has the same amount of electoral votes..even in in theory only one person in the state votes), and finally protects against the death of a candidate. The electors are supposed to find a suitable replacement.

Obviously there are arguments AGAINST the system as well. But Im not going to point them out because I like the system. Haha.

a dry book but informative: The Electoral College, William Kimberling. FEC, 1995.

a fun book aimed at a younger audience: American Democracy. Jesse McVail, ATC Press, 1993.

Thank you so very much Vetamur, and I do appreciate the time it took you to answer my question. I learned something I should have learned in school. It does give me insight into what and how I will vote in the next election. Thank you again.

The electoral college give's partisan bias (by bias I mean the only two canidates that exist signifigantly) to two incopetent parties. I personally think we should just do away with the entire executive branch and give (limited and upheld by the senate) executive powers to the speaker of the house during a time of war or immediate crisis.

The electoral college doesnt create incompetant parties.The ELECTORATE does that by not insisting on a higher quality of candidate. The electoral college doesnt significantly contribute to the evolution of a two party system, which while not perfect, does go a long to in curbing extremism.

As far as giving the legislative branch executive power, I would strongly disagree there as well. Seperation of powers is a good thing.

While they don't create it, neither do give incentive for their evolution. Not only that but since the current two party system is based upon a certain set of beleifs this effectivly keeps independently minded people out of federal government.

I concur that they should be taken away because they can be hacked and bad people can get into office, i.e. GWB.

Predator..if enough people believe in a new idea or philosophy, new parties can form and come to prominence. The US has basically always had two parties, but the parties have changed (for example there was once a Whig party).

As far as bad people getting into office..there is an old saying that goes "You get the government you deserve".