|
MESSAGE BOARD Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?
In "Peculiar institution," Alexander Keyssar describes the nearly successful effort to get rid of the Electoral College in 1969-70 and suggests that its survival may owe more to the legacy of slavery, and the political power of the South, than to efforts by small states to preserve any mathematical advantage. After the experience of the 2000 election, and the prospect of a repeat this November, has the time finally come to abolish the Electoral College? Who stands to gain? Who to lose?
Page 7 I agree that the electoral college is not delivering upon it's promise. Although the system is required to prevent rural areas from being dictated to by large metropolitan areas, the concept of a person winning 51% receiving all of the electoral votes for that region skews the true results of an election. We should keep the electoral college, but split a states votes by the same distribution as the popular vote. Dave M, Cambridge Yes, it is long overdue to get rid of the electoral college and let the citizens of the US be the acutal ones to elect the President of the United States. Louise, Beverly, MA yeah great ideah lets let the morons in california, new york, florida and texas determine how the rest of us should live!!! sorry but i prefer the balance, rationality, and sanity that the voice of an entire nation brings. peter, charlestown I think it should go away. Every other balloted office is decided by the popular vote. Why should the presidency be any different? Eric, Boston We do not need another Dermie the Hermie. Abolish the Electoral College and succeed. Beezer, Charlton, MA Keep the electoral college, but have the states divide their votes in such a way as to most closely match the popular vote in that state. Neil, Cambridge I think its interesting that so many people think that the electoral college is undemocratic. It absolutely is democratic. In fact, its about making sure that all voters are heard not just the few that live in metropolitan areas and think that their votes are far more significant or important than the rest. However, to point out what another said, we are really a Republic and the election of the President is predicated on the States, not the individual voter. So, what New York has to say isn't important to Nebraska or Texas. The reality is that the popular vote is important in each individual state as that determines to whom the electoral votes will go. Another raised the possibility that the electoral votes don't necessarily have to go the popularly elected official in the indivdual states and while that is technically true, it has never been done toherwise. NEVER. And to those who know nothing about the Constitution, the Constitution protects the minority. So your comments about being subjugated to the will of the minority is in reality, within the spirit of the Constitution since the majority is always in danger of being a tyranny. So too for the minority. The electoral college provides balance to that conflict. Rebekah, Somerville Based on the results of the last Presidential election Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes... What this means is thanks to the outdated Electoral College process there were 500,000 voters whose vote did not count... What message does that send to young voter, or voters period for that matter... Get rid of it... Rodney, Westboro It is simple fairness, is the vote of one person in California worth more than one in Delaware? All of the reasons the Founding Fathers used to establish the Electoral College (not the least of which was to give power to the aristocracy of that era), have long since past. As much as I have hated the nastiness and length of the 2004 campaign, it's time for the rest of the USA to see candidates, not just those in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Let the candidates fight for every vote, not every state. Francis, Washington, DC yes the system is antiquated and has out lived its usefullness withg the Internet, Television, Radio and Cell Phones, but Bush will not get rid of it because that is the reason he is in office. Under an unfair system. Daniel , Westminster
|
Read the story: 
