The electoral college has been our method of electing presiden's sinc eth constitution was
formed. With increasing popoulations and the addition of third parties, it can be
questioned however, as to wheth or not this i still a functional method of elections.
There have been many cases in history where a president has been elected to office
without having the popular vote. Because after all when you vote in the primaries, you
are not voting for a candiate, you are voting for an elector who then in turn voted for the
candiate that won the popular vote in that state. Seems to work okay, right? Not quite.
Let us say thata candidate has 56% of the vote in a state. That doesn't mean he gets half
of the votes, that means he gets all teh electoral votes that state has. This no big if you
live in Vermont, but if you are talking about California with 54 electoral votes, you are
talking about a lot of electoral votes! If you got 36% should you get about that much of
the electoral votes, that would be close to 18 electoral votes you could have towards your
victory, but instead you get NONE, nada ZIP!
Perhaps revision is the answer to this problem or maybe it is just fine the way it is.
After all it is a simple fool proof plan. YOU get none or you get all. It doesn't take a
math whiz to figure that one out now does it. And with the people nowaday, we probably
don't need anything oo complicated. But is it really fair?
We are after all a DEMOCRATIC nation. Which means the power lies in the people,
but it wouldn't really seem that way if more people want a candiaite to be president, but
another man gets it just because he won the electoral votes. Revision is definitely neede
whether it be by popular vote altogether or by arranging electoral votes by percentage.