Thread: Electoral College: Out of date?

Is the Electoral College out of date?

Does the Electoral College hamper the fight against illegal immigration, because Presidential candidates have to kiss up to certain states with large electoral college votes and large Hispanic populations?

If the President was selected by popular vote---this is the age of computers and high technology that could could count the popular votes reliably---would our fight against illegal immigration be a lot easier?

THE POPULAR VOTE IS DEFINITELY THE WAY TO GO.

LET "WE THE PEOPLE" DECIDE WHO WILL RUN THE COUNTRY.

Originally Posted by mirse

Is the Electoral College out of date?

Does the Electoral College hamper the fight against illegal immigration, because Presidential candidates have to kiss up to certain states with large electoral college votes and large Hispanic populations?

That's a good point. I have long worried about the fact that illegals are consentrated in California, New York, Texas, and Florida -- the top four most populous states. Of course, the areument FOR the electoral college is that it gives smaller states a voice. However, IMO this only holds true if the top four are split -- which they usually are. California and New York going to the Dem and Texas and Florida going to the Rep. If the influx continues, these four states will be in the same fold, most likely for an OBL Dem. The small states will lose their power BECAUSE of the electoral college. Winning those four would seal the deal. But I think we need to amend the Constitution first......or get rid of the illegals.

I don't know about the electoral college hampering this issue, but one thing I'd like to do is amend the constitution so that House members run for reelection every year, and senators every 3 years. This ain't the 18th century anymore, it's easy to vote, I'm tired of these shmucks trying to pass crap in year 1 hoping everyone will forget by year 2 (or year 6!)

Does the Electoral College hamper the fight against illegal immigration, because Presidential candidates have to kiss up to certain states with large electoral college votes and large Hispanic populations?

Removing the electoral college would empower these large states even further than they currently are. Presidential candidates would rarely bother to campaign outside of California, New York, Texas, and Florida - and these states would quickly figure out it would be in their interests to form an alliance.

The founders discussed having a popular vote instead of the electoral college, but decided that it would bring about a dictatorship of larger states over the smaller ones. Over time the resulting disenfranchisement would cause a civil war and tear the Union apart. I have heard that over fifty percent of America's population lives within 500 miles of Cleveland. A good portion of the other half lives in California, so the original reasoning still seems true today. The South, much of the Midwest, and most of the Western states would be looking at perpetual political defeat.

Probably, amnesty would be much easier to achieve if we only had a popular vote...these large states would steamroll the rest of us, especially with the way their populations are trending.

Removing the electoral college would be devastating to the country's election process.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they designed the system, and they intentionally did not create a direct democracy. A direct democracy is tyranny of the majority. It is the next step to a global government.

We need to move back towards the founding father's principles of state's rights, not farther away, if there's any hope left for this country.