Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 month ago

Is the electoral college there to mainly cater to republican presidential candidates ?

I keep seeing that if the electoral college didn’t exist, New York City and Los Angeles alone would decide every presidential election. The majority of the countries population lives in those two cities and those are majority democrat cities. So is it safe to assume that the majority of Americans are democrat. Every time republican has been elected president, the electoral vote was the opposite trend of the popular vote which also means that the majority of Americans are democrats. Part of me agrees with the electoral college because it gives the republican candidate a fair chance where if it was just popular vote, the democrat would always get elected. At the same time though, it’s weird having a president that the majority of citizens didn’t elect. 

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    One thousand people living in a city will be far more effected by changes in Washington than one thousand people living in a rural area, whose lives really don't change or interact that much. 

    So, whatever happened to no taxation without representation? Doesn't the same thing apply to voting? You're saying one life in the Heartland is a thousand times more deserving than a thousand who live in LA or NY, even though they're more impacted by Washington red tape than a rural inhabitant. There's got to be a better way to save the farms than that. I'd vote to get rid of the electoral college and have a one person, one vote system. And also urban farms. 

  • 1 month ago

    I don't want NYC and LA running the USA.  They are not good examples for the USA.  There are probably 3 sets of different kinds of democrats and at least 2 sets of different Republicans.  Neither party is the part of old.  For instance, President Trump takes better care of the American people than Joe Biden will.  From Hunter's laptop we know that Biden takes care of himself.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Does someone have a time machine? 

    The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution was created on September 17, 1787;  presented to the states on September 28, 1787;  ratified on June 21, 1788;  and became the supreme law of the land on March 4, 1789.  

    The Republican party did not exist until its founding in March 20, 1854 (65 years later).  

    The Democrat party wasn't founded until January 8, 1828 (40 years later). 

    Washington was president from 1789 until 1797 and did not have a political party. 

    It wasn't until the 1798 that the first national political parties appeared: 

    1)   Federalist Party (supporting a strong central government, a central bank, the constitution, and had secessionist tendencies),

    2) "Anti-Federalists" (against the constitution & died away after ratification), and 

    3) Democratic-Republican Party  (championed republicanism, political equality, expansionism & supported the French revolution).

    Many years later the Democratic-Republican Party would split into the Democrat party & the Republican party we know today. 

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    It was developed long before we even had political parties, so no. The Electoral College had to be invented to get the smaller colonies to go along with the idea of a republic. Minus that the massive colony of Virginia would have decided every election. 

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    The majority of the population does not live in those two cities.  Los Angeles has about 1% of the country's population, and New York has between 2% and 3$.  Over 95% of the population lives elsewhere.

    Most of the time that Republicans were elected, the electoral vote was not the opposite of the popular vote.  The Bush-Gore election in 2000 was the first time in over 100 years.  Republicans have won only five Presidential elections without also winning the popular vote.  Every Republican who won from 1900-1996 would have won if it was the popular vote.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    in a word, yes.....................

  • 1 month ago

    Why should only the Republicans have a "fair chance"? Why not the Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, Fascists, Whigs, Federalists, and Know-Nothings? Oh, wait; the last ones are the people who voted for Trump.

    What happened to the principle of "One person, one vote"? Why should someone from East Podunk have his vote count for almost half again as much as a person from a more populous area? States are artificial things; people are real.

  • 1 month ago

    Since the EC was established in the Constitution before there even was a Republican or Democratic Party, your question is rendered moot by inanity.

    The EC was put there so the elections would not always be controlled by the more populous states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Massachusetts.  The smaller states demanded they count as well.  This means that a president enjoys a wider cross-section of national support than just needing the votes of the higher population centers.

    It is also because the powers of the federal government came from 2 groups, which were also represented by the 2 chambers of Congress - the states and the people.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Of course it is. Democratic nominees need to win by like, a 10% margin just to beat the republican candidate, and that's only if the EC actually votes the same way as the people they 'represent'. They are under ZERO obligation to do that, and can vote for who They want, with no repercussions.

    Idk fam. If I wanted to rig an election, I'd pay off the old white people whose votes ACTUALLY matter. Because mine sure as f*ck doesn't.

  • Archer
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    You don't seem to know much about much after all we had Democratic presidents before now didn't we!

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.