have any of you thought the all or nothing rule in teh electoral college is unfair? that if a candidate wins by 1 vote, he gets all of that state's votes? is that really democracy? soon this will turn into a battle over the big states and the smaller states will loose their importance in presidential elections.
Need Help?
We hope your visit has been a productive one. If you're having any problems, or would like to give some feedback, we'd love to hear from you.
For general help, questions, and suggestions, try our dedicated support forums.
If you need to contact the Course-Notes.Org web experience team, please use our contact form.
Need Notes?
While we strive to provide the most comprehensive notes for as many high school textbooks as possible, there are certainly going to be some that we miss. Drop us a note and let us know which textbooks you need. Be sure to include which edition of the textbook you are using! If we see enough demand, we'll do whatever we can to get those notes up on the site for you!
U can never please everyone...
"To many people spend money on things they don't need, to impress people they don't like, with money they don't have."
"When all else fails read the directions."
tallgeese wrote:soon this will turn into a battle over the big states and the smaller states will loose their importance in presidential elections.
It's not a battle over the "big" states, it's a battle over the "most populated" states. If more poeple like in California than in Delware, shouldn't California get more electoral votes?
The larger states should h'ave more electoral vores because they are more populated. The smaller states won't lose their importance because they are always guaranteed 3 votes, no matter what the population is.
eh there are different ways so far. Currently it's per state and if in that state a certain president wins - then they get all of that state's electoral votes. I don't think it's specifically defined in the constitution but there are different ideas about how the electoral votes should be distributed. For example, there's the one where if the president wins the popular vote, they get 100 automatic votes, and then other other votes are based on the states or something...there's one that's proportional to the popular vote...etc. And it probably won't change into bigger states v. smaller states because it is based on the population and what the population wants...but eh, currently it's kind of unfair b/c even though a candidate may win popular vote - it still might not win the electoral college votes
i meant big states as in populated. states like colorado split their electoral votes. why can't we do that? all or nothing policy seems anti democratic to me, because if you win by a thin margin, you disregard half of the state's votes.
The most populated states receive the most votes because that's where the most people are. I think the system should stay the way it is.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" - Abraham Lincoln
That's the difference between Representative Democracy and Democracy in it's essential form.
[IMG]http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_02.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_39.gif[/IMG] [URL=http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=150]http://www.thepeop....