After you've explored the electoral college, please answer the following questions:
- Does the electoral college accurately reflect the choice of a majority of Americans? Why or why not?
- Would a simple majority (who gets the most votes) be more fair? Why or why not?
79 comments:
1.) No, because it counts only for the population of certain states, therefore getting more votes than others.
2.) Yes, adirect vote would be more fair, because then everyone's vots would count.
this isn not fair because it changes peples votes to the majority of the states votes
i think a straight vote would be more reasonable because it would make everybodies vote count
1) No because it counts only for some states because some people want to vote for others and maybe it is a 49% vote v.s a 51%,more better for the people to vote.
2)Yes it whould be fair because a direct vote whould make everyone's vote count and make it fair to all
Does the electoral college accurately reflect the choice of a majority of Americans? Why or why not?
No, because electoral votes are more valuable than regular votes so if more than 50% of the electoral votes vote for one president that that president will most likely win.
Would a simple majority (who gets the most votes) be more fair? Why or why not?
Yes, because then the president that wins would be the president that we want.
1) Yes, I think that the electoral college does accuratly reflect thwe choice of the majority of Americans. Bcause, it is the majority of who people voted for. But, on the other hand it dos not do anything for he opposing side. So I do think it is far, but i don't entirly agree in doing it.
2)I Believe that a simple majority woulld be much more far because, it would let everyone express there thoughts on the subject that they are voting on.
No i do not believe that the electotal college fairly represents. It is not fair because it is not your single vote you are part of a group not your own person.
I think that a majority vote would be more fair! Every person gets their own independent vote.
-Rachel Kahn
No, the electoral college does not accuratly represent the majority of Americans votes because people dont get to vote directly, one of the representitives has to vote for a group of people. A simple majority would be more fair because then the people can vote directly. That way it would be more accurate.
1)I think it isn't fair because not everybody vote is equal. Because some people live in a bigger state so that means that their vote is not equal than somebody in a small state.
No because some of the smaller states' votes are more important because only a few people live their, therefor the vote is mare used or more important than a bigger populated states votes.
No because the if someone tells that person that they might give this person a bigger reason to vote.
Ariana:)
1) The electoral vote does not intirely reflect the vote of all americans for example in 2000 George W. Bush won the election but Al Gore had more votes by americans.
2)It depend on the candidates bercause if one is more popular he/she might get more votes.
1) I don't really think that the electoral college accuratly shows the choice of most Americans. I'm sort of...in between. For example: If 1,000 people vote for McCain, but 1,001 vote for Obama, then the electors would say that all 2,001 people would have voted for Obama. So your vote (If for McCain) wouldn't be counted...added to the other states. It just doesn't really seem to work.
2)I think a simple majority would be more fair. It seems like it would work better. (Im not done I will post later)
1)No, it does not accurately reflect the choice of everyone because it does not give each vote an equal say in different states.There is also the possibility that a lot of votes could get ignored.
2)Yes it would because not all of the votes for a given state would go to 1 candidate
1. I do not think that this is a fair way to vote because we as the people do not really get to voice our oppinion.
2. a verdic would be more fair because then all of our votes would count.
1 ) Does the electoral college accurately reflect the choice of a majority of Americans? Why or why not?
* No this isn't fair because it changes the votes of who 'really' won the presidential vot.
2 ) Would a simple majority (who gets the most votes) be more fair? Why or why not?
* Yes because whichever president with the most vote, people think would be best president would be fair.
1. Does the electoral college accurately reflect the choice of a majority of Americans? Why or why not?
No, if you use the electoral votes, the population votes don't matter any more. And it wouldn't be fair because you wouldn't get to have a say in the voting.
2. Would a simple majority (who gets the most votes) be more fair? Why or why not?
Yes, because this simple majority voting will make everyones vote count.
1)No I do not think the voice of the people is represented fairly because no matter if 49.7% voted for McCain, and 49.8% for Obama, McCian's supporter's votes are disregarded.
2)Yes it would be more fair because the voice of the people would be represented mor fairly.
No because it only counts for the population of specific states, and some get more votes than others
Yes it would be fair because every persons vote would count and no one would feel like they weren't important
1.) No, becasue the people are not actually voting on who they want for president/vice president; the electors are, so it only really shows the majority of electoral votes.
2.) Yes, because it would really reflect who the people want to elect and it would ensure that everyone's vote would count.
1.) I do not think our current method of voting is not fair because our president is supposed to be selected because they have the majority of votes. Since we live in a democracy, each person's vote should matter,but our system sometimes disregards certain votes and is not based on exact number of votes, as it should be.
2.) I think we should have a direct voting system because the citizens of the US are supposed to have the power to chose their government, and our voting system technically takes that ability away from certain people.
1. No because its only the majority for certain states so less than half of the votes didnt count.
2. Yes, so that everyones vote will count instead of only the majority of people who voted.
1) I think it isn't fair because it doesn't let everyone's vote count. For example, California is a Democratic state and are going to choose Obama. Since all the representatives have to vote for Obama, the people in the popular vote who select McCain aren't really doing anything to change the election and they might as well not vote. The same thing goes for the Democrats in Texas which is a Republican state.
i will put question 2 in soon. :)
1. No, because each state has only a certain amount of votes base on there population, so the lager states have a bigger say in things.
2. yes, it would be more fair, so the common people like us would have a bigger say in who they want to vote for.
-Even though it gives more power to states with a smaller population and is more convenient, I don't think it's fair. It doesn't allow a tremendous number of voices to be heard and it forces the senators and representatives to vote for someone they might not like.
-This is a hard question. It eliminates a lot of power for smaller states, which I don't like, but come to think about it, they do have less people, so it's fair after all. ;)
Today when I was coming home from school I saw two apartments, one with the "McCain Palin" sign and one with the "Obama Biden" sign...it was interesting. Sorry for being off-topic (again).
~Anny
1.) No, it is not fair because a candidate could win by majority, but not become president. Also, if one state was very close the other party's votes wouldn't count.
2.) Yes, a popular vote would be much better becuase the majority would win and there wouldn't be a chance of one candidate winning by the electoral votes, but not have the majority.
sorrey, yes I am done.
This method is not fair because the votes for candidates in states where the other candidate will pronbably do better do not count, which technically means that the electors choose the president, not the popular voters.
A direct vote would be more fair because it would make all popular votes count for a certain candidate even if a different candidate had the majority of votes from that state.
Sorry about the "pronbably" in my comment. It is supposed to say "probably".
a) I think that it does not represent all Americans because the political minorities in states do not get represented, for example; Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas.
b)Yes, because not a single person would be left out, other than those who are too lazy to vote.
Logan, you got it flip-flopped. Democrats in California, Republicans in Texas. :)
Sorry, had to do that.
Yes the electoral college accurately reflects the choice of a MAJORITY of Americans because When you vote in California the MAJORITY of whoever the state votes for gets all 55 points from California.I also think that a popular vote would be more fair because everyone's vote counts.
No, the electoral college does not accurately reflect all US citizens because it would be like taking our class (19 students), having them vote on a color - purple or green - and purple losing by only one vote. The elector would therefore be assigned to vote green, the 9 students who voted green and the 8 students who voted purple consolidated to one green-voting elector. Not everyone would be represented.
and...
Yes, I think a majority would be more fair because every person would count in the election, while in the electoral college each state is represented depending on the population.
-Gaby Clarke (period 7)
1.)the electoral college is unfair because people are not voting directly because one person votes for a group of people and he can be persuaded to vote the opposite of what the majority of that group says.
2.) a direct vote would be more fair because everyone would be represnted and eveyones vote votes would count.
1. No because it does not represent a whole country together, instead it represents 50 states put together.
2. A direct vote would represent a unified country better rather than individual states.
Mr. Yedid,
Today I was driving down El Camino Real and we stopped at a red light at Lecadia. There must have been a hundred people, and all held banners either for no or yes on Prop. 8. It was insane! The police were even there because they were blocking traffic. I think this proposition is bringing out passion in a lot of people.
-Gaby Clarke
Oh yeah Gaby...I saw that too! It was weird. Even my parents are talking about Prop. 8, which is strange, because they never talk about stuff like this...
* No, because it does not really matter how many people vote for which candidate, it just matters if the majority of the state votes for a candidate. Also after they figure out the majority, the electors vote for wich ever candidate had the most popular votes. After that, which ever candidate has the most votes, all the votes, including the votes for the opposite candidate go to him/her.
* Yes, a simple majority would be fair because it would have all the people's say in who becomes the president, and after all, our country is, "By the people. For the people."
no because the electoral college does not let everybody voice get heard and changes peoples votes to what the majority wants
yes I would think so because everybody's vote will be counted for which candidate they want
It is unfair because everybody's voice is not heard and it changes your vote to the majority of other peoples votes
I think it would be better because everybody's voice would be heard.
1) No it is does not because the Americans popular vote doesn't even matter, and the elector's vote is the only one that counts, and it makes people's votes the majority of the state's votes, so it is unfair because, for example, if 8 people voted for pizza, and nine people voted for hot dogs, then the hot dog votes would be the only ones that count.
2) Yes because it would mean the president that the people want would be our president.
And it's really confusing. I couldn't get it until 5 minutes before I left class...
sory my comment is confusing
no because there could be a majority by 300 votes and changing the other votes would be unfair by making them vote for a candidate they do not want
no because everyone's voice does not get heard
No, the whole system is confusing, not your comment, Kristen.
* Does the electoral college accurately reflect the choice of a majority of Americans? Why or why not?
yes it does because it gets the general feel for who the people want as our president. true it doesn't voice everyone but its very effective for voting.
* Would a simple majority (who gets the most votes) be more fair? Why or why not?
both ways have advantages and disadvantages however a direct vote
would get everyone but a it would also take longer. Again an Electoral Collage would get the general feel for who we want. would you want everyone in a state to vote for McCain except for 2 people
and have to count all those votes.
Nope I didn't think so
Always off topic anny... but, while we're on the subject... I saw them too!! There were police there and they were running across the roads and stuff. I guess it is a little out of hand but it is still good that they are fighting for what they believe in.
BACK ON TOPIC...
2) I think a direct vote would be more fair because it would count everyone's vote and maybe it would be impituse (did i spell that wrong?) for more people to vote because they would think their vote mattered more.
Also on that matter, the president would be the most popular and there would be less conflict with the government. The president also (like mr. yedid said) would not feel like he was popular and more people disliked him than liked him. It would suck to be the guy who got more votes though and didn't win.
Well I'm not as off-topic as some other people I know...
Well said Gaby Clarke! :)
I like your wording... i toadilly agree w/you
very funny anny
Was that sarcasm? >w<
Back on topic...
Thank you for posting the quote, CJ.
This may be a little off topic but I was just watching Monday Night Football and they had a short interview with both Obama and McCain. I thought it a little supprising that they, the producers, could get Obama and McCain interviewed on the day before the elections. One more thing was that Obama and McCain were not at the studio but somewhere else. You could tell this because when they switched to the shoot of Obama or McCain the backround had a lighter contrast then the studios. This is actually one of the first times I have been random.
I agree with Henry because it doesn't represent a whole country like Russia. Instead it represents 50 states joined together.
2. Yes it would be fair. Because if the candidate that the majority of people voted for became president, everyone would be happier. But they wouldn't be happy if a candidate that no one wanted to win, won, than they would be unhappy, and they might and probably will dissagree with that president's opinion. wow that was a long sentence!!! come on people! Comment!!! I don't want to stay on this site alone!!! Is anyone else here? If so say something. :P
this may be a little off topic too, but i was watching 10 news and they said that they got a new touch screen presentation board, and they showed the US with it colored blue and red (to symbolize the democratic and republican parties) and changed the colors and drew lines with just the finger. And the reporter said that they would be using it more tomorrow night.
Heyy.
Oh yeah Beckie, I saw that too.
Anny
Hi.... :P
u did,....wow
@ Muffins- Go to my blog, we don't want to be spamming here.
@ Everyone else (I guess)- So apparently everyone thinks that the electoral college thing isn't fair?
Yes, many people can see things on TV at once, by the way.
1. I do not think its fair because the winner take-all states, your vote(and we say your vote always counts) doesnt neccisarily count in the acual election of the canidate. also, it would give some smaller states a more important vote.
2. I think a straight, direct election would be more fair and everyones vote would count, but the "excitable masses" might get "exitcable"(going back to my free ice cream comment) therefore not choosing who may be the most qualified and/or the best canidate for the job, just the popular vote. However, the electoral college was created 300 years ago, and instead of detached, souless, non biased people voting on the electoral college, it has been complicated with the pledging that they now do(this WAS NOT the case 300 years ago)
It does not accurately reflect the voter's choice because electoral vote is a "representative" form of electing a president. A popular vote clearly takes all votes, and chooses the winning candidate.
Elections should be by popular vote in order to be fair. People would acctually get to pick their president. It will be much more fair in the sense thet people literally get what they want.
So very professionally said, Gus.
Did you guys who were driving on Leucadia see me? I may or may not have been out there. ;) Jeans, black t-shirt, black hat.
It was quite a scene out there, I'll say. Someone threw a taco at some people who were out there.
wow. that would stink
hi eric!!!
Mr yedid, what is your picture? Is that you making the peace sign?
Oh whoops, Logan didn't get it flip-flopped. xD
What channel is the election stuff on?
1.) No, because it counts only for the majority of the people who vote, so it doesn't clearly represent all the voices of america.
2.) I think that voting (a straight vote) directly would make sure EVERYONE'S voice was heard!!!
No, beacause lets say that you voted in Califonia ,and you voted for McCain your vote does not count if Obama wins that state. If a canadate wins a very little magen the winner gets all of the electoral votes not just half or tree quarters. It would be more fair if the majority rules because more of the peoples voises would be heard allthough a lot of the voting public is uneducated it would be for the better, we the people should be able to pick the presedent if we are putting our tust and money in him\her.
1.) No, because some populations of different states are bigger or smaller, so in smaller states, their votes would mean a lot more than a bigger state.
2. Yes, it would be more fair because the president is our employee, and we deserve to have more of a say in an election. not only 538 people.
For all of you who weren't able to watch the elections, visit: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/, and refresh every few minutes to get live results! :D
~Anny
OBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMAOBAMA OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA!!!!
1)YES,because it only counts for the population of some states,instead of getting more votes than other Americans.
2) Yes, it would be more fair because the president is our employer, and we do deserve to have more of a say in this specific election.
ABSOLUTLY NO MCCAIN
NO MCCAIN,NO MCCAIN NO MCCAIN,I am so happy or glad that MCCAIN LOST.
from:JELLO
to:EVERYONE:) :) :) :( :( :(
i guess you could say that jello, but i sorta feel sry for him....GO OBAMA!!!!
No because the votes toward the less popular choice are just "thrown out" and are not used.
Yes because it shows exactly how many people are for each choice so each vote counts.
I found the transcripts! Just go to my blog (by clicking my pic and then clicking the name of my blog), and you'll have it all!
~Anny
Post a Comment