isn t the electoral college outdated now that they can count all the peoples votes?
2016-11-01T16:50:39Z
they could not always count the popular vote and now they can shouldn't it be one person one vote = majority wins?
2016-11-02T05:46:47Z
if 49% of people in a "large" state voted for a person, all electoral college votes go for the other person. so if 99% of all the small states voted the same as the other 49% then that person would have the majority of the popular vote and they should win. with the electoral college this may not happen, shouldn't the majority of the popular vote deceid?
-j.2016-11-01T16:41:49Z
Favorite Answer
Yes. There is no good reason that someone in Wyoming should get a "better" vote than someone in California.
The electoral college is not about making the votes easier to count,
It is about making sure that a huge majority in New york does not silence the voices of the people in Kansas.
It makes it so the president is elected by the people of the Several States, not the People of the country.
If you take away the electoral collefge, then the candidates will ignore the states that are close, and concentrate on the states where they have big majorities, trying to make them bigger.
If I can turn a 60-40 lead in California into a 70-30 win, that is worth ten smaller states won narrowly, if there was no electoral college./ With the electoral college, a 51-49 win is worth the same as a 70-30 onee.
No,it has nothing to do with being able to count votes. The purpose was to keep a few states with large populations to be able to control the government and that is just as important now as it was originally. It's the same reason that each state has 2 senators regardless of population.