Thread: How is having the electoral votes a fair way to elect the president for our country?

It makes things seem crooked. Big surprise I know.........politics and crooked.

The poplular vote should be all that counts because then that represents the majority of Americans, right?
What I suggest to keep things at least somewhat fair, is then, each state can only count as (1) electoral vote. The candidate that receives 26 or more wins. That way they don't cater too much to the top 10 states that have a large amount of electoral votes to offer. Is that a good enough compromise?

We have a federal system, each state is in control to a large degree of it's own affairs, the electoral college shows how in our federal system the federal government is supposed to answer to the individual states, and it keeps the numerous small states from being trampled over from large urban areas

If the popular vote were the deciding factor in the election, then the major cities, (Crap Holes) New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and the rest would elect the President. Many states with few people would have no say at all.

That's why the electoral collage is the best way.

Electing by population would be a fairer way of voting. The people could vote directly for their candidate. How many of us know which delegate will vote for our choice. I sure don't. If delegates are the determining point then shouldn't we be well advised on who they are and how they will vote? With the delegate vote only a few states really count, which is why the candidates really pound the voters there. The candidates don't interact with the residents in low delegate states. It was decided weeks before the election as to who will win. Low delegate count= low voters

It isn't. It is time to begin to elect our leaders by popular vote. In Texas Republicans pushed through redistricting in order to gain more seats in Congress."In December 2005, the Washington Post reported, "Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo" uncovered by the newspaper. [7] The document, endorsed by six Justice Department attorneys, said "the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts.""The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo noted. The article also stated that Justice Department lawyers "found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options." Nonetheless, Texas legislators proceeded with the new plan "because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state," the Post said about the document.

Democrats criticized the 2003 redistricting, citing the lack of precedent for redistricting twice in a decade, considering it had already been done in 2002, and argued that it was being done for purely political gain and was therefore gerrymandering. Statements by some Republicans lent support to this claim, since many publicly stated their expectations of picking up several Republican seats. Some minority groups argued the plan was unconstitutional, as it would dilute their influence and possibly violate the "one-person-one-vote" principle of redistricting."