No, the people were represented. Last time I checked 30 states were 10 more states than 20. We are a constitutional republic and the President represents all 50 states. Just because some states, cities, suburbs, or other areas are more populus does not mean that they have the right

But this rule was not invented by the Republican or Democrats. The Republicans didn't come into existence until 1854. If you have a problem with how the electoral votes are distributed, then take it up with the State governments. Not all state subscribe to the winner take all rule. Some distribute the electoral college votes by congressional district.

No, because by relying only upon the majority you do not treat the republic as equal. Some states are more populus than others, why should the people in those states vote carry more weight than a less populus state. The President represents all of the individual states as the nation's leader, and thus all states people should be represented equally, which is exactly what the electoral college does.

And that is a tired excuse utilized by those who have failed. Time and again they cry we only had the choice of two evils. Consider once again that only 30% of the people are registered Republican and 30% are registered Democrats, that still means there are 40% of the population who claim to be independents. Again, if a third party candidate came along who could appeal to these people, they would win the election. The problem is not with democrats or republicans, the problem is with the third parties.

(1) Once again eliminating the electoral college only makes some peoples votes count. We are a nation comprised of 50 individual states, the minority of states should not be able to dictate to the majority of the states just because they are more populus.

(2) Immediate runoff elections change nothing. And again this is best resolved at the state level and not the national level.

(3) And again, once a third party candidate comes along that is viable, why should people change their vote???

dmk

The idea is that the will of the people would be done, not the states will. Just because someone lives in a geographical area with a lot of other people does not mean they all think alike or would vote the same as their neighbors. If all the votes are counted, the will of every person is counted and not discarded or included by the majority of the other people in their state. All voices should be heard and counted.

hear hear!!!!! hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!

Once again, the will of the people is determined through the electoral college. In 2000, Gore carried more of the popular vote, yet manage to win only 20 states. Why should the voters of 20 states outweigh the voters of 30 states?? They shouldn't. And the electoral college ensured that they did not. If we elected a president only by popular vote, a candidate could win the election and only have to campaign in 15 states. So the other 35 states don't matter. Try again.

dmk

Sorry, the will of the people is what this country is founded on, not the will of each state. Just to simplify my point lets say 100,000 people vote on a given subject. Let's say 40,000 live in state A, and 10,000 live in statesB,C,D,E,F, and G. Of course these states are divided by imaginary lines.
Lets say eveybody in state A votes for Candidate #1 and all the rest vote for the other guy, Cadidate #2. It is pretty simple to figure out that Cadidate #2 is wanted by the majority of the people. Just because some law was incorporated in the days of horse and buggy does not mean that this majority should be out weighed. Say state A has 7 electoral Votes and the rest have 1. Just because the people that live in State A have more Electoral votes is not a reason to give the election to
#1. The majority wanted #2. It is pretty simple to see the facts of this given situation. To put #2 in office is not what the majority of the people wanted. The will of the people is NOT determined by the electoral votes it is distorted by them. The will of the people can ONLY be determined by the majorities votes. Nothing else even matters. Who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to say that because of some stupid law #1 shouldn't win? Give that shit a rest. We all know what is fair and what is not fair.
I notice the only people in favor of the electoral system are Bush fans. Give it a rest. Right is right and wrong is wrong! Bush should not be Our president. He lost the election and only a loophole has him in office.
I think it is now time for YOU to "try again",
although I don't know why you would think you have a chance of changing everybody's mind on something that is common sense and just simple right from wrong.

The will of the people was filtered through the electoral college, not determined by it. The person that gets the most votes should win regardless of how many states are carried. Having a point of view that is different from those in your community should NEVER dictate if your vote means something or not.

Candidates under the electoral college only have to cater to the states with the most electoral votes. You can win the presidency by carrying only 11 states! You need 270 electoral votes to win. Here is a breakdown:

State / # of electoral votes

CA 55
TX 34
NY 31
FL 27
IL 21
PA 21
OH 20
MI 17
GA 15
NJ 15
NC 15

Total: 271 Electoral Votes

Enough to reach the white house with only 11 states. So the other 39 states don't count???

TRY AGAIN!





In the past 200 years, there have been more than 700 attempts to abolish the Electoral College in Congress, 100 of them advocating election of the president by popular vote. All have been rejected. Why do those in power want to keep something that so obviously keeps them in power??? hmmmmmm, real hard one there.

When is the last time a candidate actually stepped foot in all 50 states? If ever!

I absolutely agree with you! Well put. Whereas I think Bush is one of the worst presidents ever, I am not sure Kerry would have been any better.

What part of the fact that we are a constitutional republic do you not understand????? Since the electoral college is established in the constitution it is the law of the land, and as such, it is what must be followed, that is who I am to say that the law should be followed. As far as the electoral college, no liberal had a problem with it when Clinton won the election carrying only 42% of the electorate, only now when they lost a squeaker is there outcry.

I am sorry but the law as it is written is not a loophole, it is a system that has served this country for its 200+ years in existence. Once again even in your example you have 1 state dictating to the other 7 states what should be done. What if that one state contains all the major metropolitan areas, while the other seven contain the suburban and rural, why should that one state dictate to the others what is right. Once again, the President represents all the individual states as a whole, he is the national leader, and he should be a representative of all those who voted.

dmk

And other than Ronald Reagan, name me a Presidential Candidate that carried all those states?? The only way to change the electoral college is through consitutional amendment, and that will not occur. First you will not get 2/3 of the vote required in the Congress and second you will not get 3/4 of the state legislatives to pass it. Why??? Because the electoral college gives each state the power as the other states, hence the reason why there are 2 Senators from each state, and that the House of Representatives is based upon the population of the states. By you misguided logic, it would possible for a state like california, which is more populous than other states, to have elected to congress representatives from only California. Don't confuse democracy with constitutional republic, they are two different beasts.