The problem is, it's not well to begin with.
When you can have electors voting for the candidate they want, no matter if their state's voters elected another candidate, then this is a system that is flawed and does not uphold democratic principles.
When the electors are tied, the vote is transferred to the House of Representatives, and they elect the president.
It's quite possible for one candidate to win the popular vote by a landslide, and yet lose the election to a candidate with less total votes.
We need to get rid of the electoral college, and let the voters decide elections. One person, one vote.
The electoral college is not some sacred concoction of the founding fathers. It was a compromise. Jefferson said it was a bad idea. So not all people were in favor of the system to begin with.
Despite the election craziness in 2000, I think the electoral college favors the democratic party. Check out this calculator:
grayraven.com
The democrats pretty much have a lock on the western states, the northeastern states, the north central states, and this year, without Nader, Florida will go in the Democratic column.
I have these states in the democratic column:
CA-55
CT-7
DE-3
DC-3
FL-27
HI-4
IL-21
IA-7
MA-12
ME-4
MD-10
MI-17
MN-10
NJ-15
NM-5
NY-31
OR-7
PA-21
RI-4
VT-3
WA-11
WI-10
Which will likely give the dems the win with 287. If you want to argue about NM and IA, as they are close states, that still gives the dems 277. It's going to be a tough election even electorally for the republicans. I predict that third party candidates will not do well this year, and that end result will put the dems in the whitehouse.
That said, I still think it should be abolished.
Orca |
