Electoral votes, stop this rule?

You need to research so you understand how this works & why..

But they DO count. Don't you know how the electors are chosen? That's what the people vote for. They choose the electors for their state in whatever way their state decides. THEN the electors vote the way the people told them to. Well, they should - and nearly always they do. In some states it's illegal for electors to vote for anyone but the candidate they were chosen to support.

Though most states have decided to do a simple "winner takes all" - whoever gets most votes in the state, even if they only win by one, gets all their slate of electors chosen. So voting for the loser doesn't count. That's the real thing wrong with it. And this isn't written into the system, because each state can choose for itself how to choose the electors.

The whole reason it isn't done as a straight national vote is to prevent a few big states always deciding the result. Back in 1787, the smaller states objected to doing it that way - doesn't just BEING a state count for something in a federal country? So the electoral college was invented to bias it a bit towards the small ones, and then the small ones agreed to sign up to the constitution. Otherwise the constitution might never have been agreed.

Certainly it could be improved, and requiring all states to choose their electors in proportion to the people's vote instead of having "winner takes all" would get it closer to how the people voted. it would eliminate the election being decided by just a few swing states - candidates would have to fight for every single electoral vote, and your vote could be the one that tips one more vital electoral vote for your candidate. But to do this would need an Amendment.

There IS a point to the electoral college - it makes all parts of the country count more, the rural areas as well as the cities.

Citizen's votes do count, they select who votes in the electoral college.

Citizen votes do count, but they count by state. The Constitution allows the state legislatures (the people that you elect) to decide how a state picks its electors. All states have opted for some variation on the popular vote. (And the main variation -- electing some electors by congressional district) has not yet altered the winner of the national election. No one or two states are large enough to determine the national popular vote by itself.

The end result of the electoral college is to force candidates to campaign in swing states (about a dozen or so states) and ignore the rest of the country.

The people of each state does count the votes from them. Then the electoral college delegates vote for the

person who won that state. Therefor the citizens who voted does have their vote count.

If however there were no electoral college vote then only 5 states would control the election and then the peoples

vote would no longer count.

Former SSgt.

The electoral college was designed so that one region of America, or one state, cannot dominate the outcome of the election.

If not for the electoral college, New York and California would determine the outcome of elections. It would be worse than disallowing the popular vote because the effect would actually nullify the votes of many millions more- and entire regions or states with no influence on the election.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it does precisely what it was designed to do- and it was designed by James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, who based it on the Lycian Confederacy of Ancient Greece.

doesn't matter what we think. the deal reached in 1778 [or so] was that the EC would allot proportionately more votes to the smaller states. this was required to get them to join the union [The United States] where they feared that they'd be overwhelmed by the voter count of the large states.

if electoral aren't contingent on population some states are more represented by the electoral college than others. this in itself is unconstitutional