Why Would Howard Dean want to eliminate the Electoral College?

Good insight.

Personally I've always seen Screaming Dean as a Republican in drag. I mean the guy is great for the Republican party! He's as much of a warning shot as say ... 'Hamas Jimmy'.

If the Democrats can't win this time around I will be laughiing my ass off for a long time to come. And if they DO win I will be laughing AT them for at least four years!


What's Selling On eBay?

He believe sit gives theDemocrats the edge. Obama may be popular, but without Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio he is on trouble. Dean wants places like Iowa and Vermont to count more because they favor Obama.

I've never totally understood the whole electoral college/delegate thing.

In this day and age with electronic voting and instant communications, the electoral college really isn't needed. I'm on the fence on this one. I prefer that our candidates win by popular vote. This is one area where it is a little gray.

Howard Dean told Time Magazine - that is the magazine that told lies about Ron Paul when they mentioned him at all. They are a Bushite Global Government One World publication and nothing they print is to be believed. If Time is for it one would be wise to be against it.

I dont understand why, they do this... It confuses me..

MDP for years people have known the electoral college is outdated this is not a new concept.

Lori-

I disagree. It is a very large debate for just a simple thread like this, but if you were to eliminate the electoral college large portions of the Country would be virtually ignored in the intrest of large cities. Hardly reflective our entire country. The in between could be something to the tune of congressional district rewarding of electors or something to that tune. Simple Popular vote is not reflective of the differences of States and the Republic

MDP my point was that this has been discussed for many years that the electoral college is outdated it is not a new concept that Dean has come up with.

You are right and wrong about the smaller areas being ignored in favor of larger areas.

First getting rid of the electoral college would mean one person one vote...so yes as far as campaigning goes the politicians would seek out the larger populations like New York in favor of places like Iowa. But since the electors are based on population then it in essence means the same. The only reason why Iowa gets attention is because we are first in the nation for caucus'.

I understand why the Continental congress instituted the electoral college back in 1821 or whatever but truly it is outdated.

People don't seem to understand.

Why does Texas have two senators and Rhode Island has two senators? Why not let Texas have 6 senators and RI, Conn, and Mass can all share one. The electoral college eliminates the possibility of the major cities dominating elections. It's a little thing called equal representation. I'm sure Howard Dean would love to get rid of the electoral college and use the same system the DNC has used during this primary season. That should work out just beautifully.

These days with the megalopolis, it is hardly a problem to represent the rural areas by popular vote. People don't live in the same agricultural world that our society once lived in. Probably the popular vote should decide elections in today's lexicon. I'm reluctant to change because I see the point of the electoral college. Things have changed, however. We are no longer a society of farmers.

Too many people on both sides of the fence want to ignore the Electoral College. The College forces politicians to at least pay lip service to rural states and voters, something that would be lost if we went solely popular vote. Its very hard for many critics to remember (perhaps acknowledge is a better word) that we are a Republic of laws. I forsee major lawsuits if the win by whoever in 2008 is not decisive. None of the candidates seem to give a rat's ass for anyone or thing but themselves so to think they'll abide by the Constitution may be a stretch.

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com