Today marked the victory of George W. Bush over John Kerry in the presidential elections, but interestingly it was also the first election in which Bush also won the popular vote nationally. Particularly after the 2000 election there were many suggesting that we should abolish the electoral college and elect soley on the popular vote. How do you feel about this suggestion?

I think electoral, because of its reliability.

Could you explain why it would be more reliable than a direct popular vote election (not questioning it, just wondering what your logic is, mind you)?

I think the Electoral College is unnecessary and - quite frankly - stupid. I don't care who you vote for, as long as it is your vote and not your state's that counts.

electoral college voting is really stupid...

for example: in california, bush got quite a bit of votes, and if voting was based on the # of votes rather than a number based on who got the majority, then bush would've gotten like 40% of california, one of the biggest states there is...

percentage is important, and can determine the outcome....just cuz u have 50.0001% percent of a state's votes doesn't mean u should get all of them....that's rediculous logic....

Of course, if it weren't for the Electoral College, we never would have had that idiot in the White House in the first place.

no, it should be all about the national voet. when i vote i want it to really matter . besides the big stats get screwed in the electoral collage system so definitly no for electoral collage.

i think popular vote would be more representative

Right on, now what will it take to tell the country that..

The Electoral College is just a reason for a person running for president to only do a few of the "important" states that will get them the most votes.

how hard is it to compare 2 numbers?, *krayvis waves a 'Popular Vote is Best' banner.*

All the anti-Bushies out there want to do away with the electoral college.... I would like to point out that if that happened, all presidents would be elected through urban voters only, ignoring middle America (the heart of America). That would stink. Although Dem/Urban states make all the money, the middle states make all the food.

You speak of it as if it were a democratic initiative. The elecotral college is obsilite, the results of the needs of yesterday, when it took months to count up votes. The election wouldn't differ much, simply because the populations of states (give or take 4 years) are what decided electoral vote count anyway (to put it another way, votes would mean nearly the same thing, but the election would acurately reflect the American view at the time of the election, and on to of that, elections would be truly decided at the time of the election [since, although formally obligated to vote with their parties, there is nothing binding an elector allow their vote to match the vote of a majority of the people they represent]).

In truth, Sharkface, I don't see how what you are suggesting would happen, since the more populous states in the elections, as they are now, get more electoral votes anyway. What it comes down to, in truth, is this: the elections, as they exist now, reflect what a majority of each individual state said, not what a majority of the American people said. The country, as a whole, should decide who leads it as one. It would force both sides to campaign in every state, to fight for every voter. And in the end, whoever wins more supporters would win the election, whether democrat or republican. What's really quite ironic, though, is that the other reason the Electoral College exists is that some of the founding fathers didn't believe that uneducated farmers could decide alone who would support the country (hence the elector's liberty to vote against those he represents).

In conclusion, don't treat what is potentially a bipartisan initiative as a partisan one simply because, at this time, it isn't convinient for the ones you support. In fact, if we had switched over this election year Bush would've been the clear winner far earlier than he was. Incidentally, the heartland on it's own could turn an election no matter which form of election you go with. But New York's republicans and Texas' democrats would finally have a voice. The election would be America's election, not the election of each state added up.

Ouch, I got owned.......


I'm just pointing out that the long term prospects, although the people are better off for it, farmers and such..... they will be without a voice.

If that's the way you feel then, quite frankly, I don't see why you're complaining...the electoral votes of each state are based off the newest census...so an electoral vote would be close to porportional to the population of each state, and thus, theoreticly, the major popular vote conbribution from that state

I got totally owned..... backing away.

Hey lets face it. I agree to an extent with all the people against the electoral college, but why go against something that has worked for hundreds of years? Even though it pisses some people off that their candidate won the popular but not the electoral vote i.e. bush and gore , AND even though i hate bush's texas butt, just stay with the electoral system. its what's been working for 228 years.

we need moe democrats to get off there lazy asses and vote more.

*Superbasemaster clears throat loudly behind my parents....* This area of New Jersey is heavily leaning Republican however. (Inferring that Blitzkreig is a democrat) Hopefully people like the Libs on this forum and I can change this in the near future!?!

i would like to say that no one is purly one party but your right I am a democrat POWER TO THE LIBERALS... but at least not the eccentric ones... crap i contradict my self...

any way the elcotoral colleg is once again BULL CRAP why vote if your state does ity for you?