The Electoral College in US Elections

Americans elect their president using a representative system called the Electoral College. The system strikes a balance between the interests of large and small states. This video explains this complicated system and discusses its drawbacks and benefits.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• America.gov
• U.S.
• president
• Electoral
• College
• democracy
• U.S
• elections
• Ohio
• 2008

[bikerdude97]

who thinks The Electoral College should be gone?

[flylike1]

20) If you try to make a case for tyranny of the majorityyou would have more success with this one created by the Electoral College.Swing states decide the election,creating tyranny of the minority, and lock states prevent minority votes from having significance,tyranny of the majority. If you believe in balancing tyranny with tyranny,then the EC is perfect. If not,the EC should be abolished in its entirety,in favor of the Popular Vote,thus allowing one vote to equal one vote,once and for all.

[utubetrollcopycat]

No, just yours.

[waveoflight]

your vote is worth nothing.

[macarion]

flylike1, I salute you. Thank you for spreading the truth.

[Civsuccess2]

Also, founding fathers don't want "mob rule", so they let state government get control of the people who vote.

[flylike1]

19) Logically, we elect members of City Council and Mayors by city, Representatives by district, and Governors and Senators by state; quite simply, the electorate votes for its leaders throughout the area in which those leaders are allowed to govern. The President of the US is not the President of certain states as the Electoral College would suggest. By this logic, the President should not be elected by subdivisions of the region in which he/she represents, but by the region as a whole.

[flylike1]

17) I find it rather disheartening that those 10 million Republicans from California or 5 million Democrats from Texas could have NOT voted and there been absolutely no difference in the election; the same can be said for any voter who is not part of the majority in his/her state. For a vote to not be counted toward the election of the office for which it has been cast is a basic infringement of the very laws designed to protect the voter.

[flylike1]

16) Republicans in California go to the polls, in 2004 about 10 million, in fact. Yet continuously and unmercifully their votes are not counted toward the election of the president because they happen to not be the majority party in their state-the same can be said for Democrats in Texas;5 million Democrats from Texas would like to have a say in the election, but instead have their votes thrown out.recently new ad campaigns have bombarded the communications media; get out and vote it implores.

[flylike1]

15) What this means is that politicians have no incentive to campaign in lock states as only a majority of votes are needed for all of its Electoral Votes-the result for that state is inevitable regardless of whether or not the minority and undecided voters vote.Instead, those swing states are given improper and unjustifiable power;how can it be logical, or in the simplest sense,fair,for one voter to have more power over the election than another voter simply by merit of where he/she resides?