Should we abolish the electoral college?
What's the point of it? I mean if half the population live in one state that has to distribute electors to other states that don't don't have enough of a large population to gain 3 electors then what's the point in voting. Why should California count less than Ohio. One vote equal for all regardless of location or ideology in a region. What do you think?
The founders gave it to us for a reason, and in this case it defended our nation from the criminal Hillary Rodham Clinton and her mobs of insane liberal idiots.
I don t think we should abolish it, but I do think we should modify it. Rather than having winner take all states, divide the electoral votes on a percentage of votes cast basis.
it forces candidates to pay attention to the small states and their, mostly rural, issues. so -- no. we keep it
If you look at the history of how the constitution came to be written, you'll know why it's there. The main point is so that small states don't get ignored. The small ones of the original 13 insisted on some recognition that they ARE states, and that resulted in the Senate (where all states are equally represented with two senators each, big or small) and the electoral college. What the electoral college does is bias the election of the President a bit towards smaller states, and that kept everyone happy back in 1787.
And that's still a good reason for keeping it. Otherwise you'd have the big cities on the coasts deciding the result every time and all the rural states in between might as well not bother voting. They have different needs and those need recognising.
That's not to say it couldn't be improved. Deciding who the electors are was left up to the states, and the inevitable result was they nearly all went for "winner takes all" to give whoever got most votes in the state the most advantage. Once one state does that, they all will. A good improvement would be to require all states to give their electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in the state. For example, Trump narrowly won Florida - instead of getting all 29 electoral votes, he'd get 15 and Clinton 14. It would get you as close as possible to the popular vote while still keeping the reason for the electoral college.
No. The point of it is to give 48 states an actual say in the election, as the population of NY and California alone would lock up a winner. If you're going to force states to remain in the union, you MUST give them a say in how the union is ran.
I think the electoral college will be just as it is today when your great-grandchildren are asking this same question.
I do have a suggestion for you, though: Find something productive upon which to focus, 'cause this issue sure isn't.