electoral college discourages voting and is anti - democracy
 

So whats it's use?

"So what's its use?"

Let me rephrase. If this electoral college discourages voters from voting and is anti-democracy why is it in place.

to cheat the masses. works well, too. ask mr. bush.

"Allow me to rephrase my original question. If the electoral college discourages voters from voting and is anti democrazy, why is it in place to begin with?"

:thumbsup

Thank you. But you did get what i meant to begin with.

Oh no, the grammer police have entered the thread...

The EC gives smaller states like Delaware, Vermont, North and South Dakota etc. a say on who gets elected and gives them the same power in the Senate as say New York or California.

We are in a democracy. If the majority of the nation's votes (popular vote) say that candidate A wins then how can the EC award the election to Candidate B because he has more EC votes.

it's grammar.

lol

"We are in a democracy. "

Hate correct you but no we don't !

The USA is a Republic !

:helpme :error

we are basically a representative republic but for some things, like presidential elections, we have a democratic vote. but I agree that the EC is outdated and should go. It makes peoples votes worth more or less depending on where they are from and to me, that's not right. Each vote should have equal value.

Exactly Exactly.

And what it does is discourage some votes which ruins the whole "democratic vote"

For intance. If you are in a "blue state" like california. Which has been called for the democratic party each time but once (Regan's win).
And you live in california and want to vote republican, there is no point, becuase the majority will vote blue and the EC will go to the democratic party and if you did vote republican then your vote is worthless.

this is one of the exact reasons it needs to be done away with. Same would go if you lived in texas and are a democrate and know that your candidate has no chance in hell of winning the state, why bother voting?

Here is an interesting site. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/sta...sFacts0626.htm What they do is break down each state by electoral votes, population, #of registered voters and how much each vote is really worth. For example, in a perfect situation each vote would have the value 1.0 or each vote is as valuable as the next but this shows that in california your vote is only worth about .85 of a vote while in wyoming your vote is worth 3.2 votes when factored into the electoral college. So someone in wyomings vote is worth almost 4 times what someone in california's vote is. to me that isn't right.

the EC might give a voice to smaller states, but is it fair if that voice is bigger than it should be? Take for example this: If you add up the populations of ND, SD, ID, MT, NE, KS, UT, WY it is about 11million people. Total those states have 27 electoral votes. Now look at PA they have about 10.5 million people but only 21 votes , Ohio has 11 million but has only 20 votes and michigan has about 10.5millon peole but only 17 votes. So the electoral college makes the votes of the 11 million rual living people in smaller states worth about 60% more than the votes of people living in michigan. that is not an equal voice.