Confronti

9 responses so far ↓

• 1 Allyson // Mar 23, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  Many people have a problem with this in the modern day. Originally, I believe it was set up so that only “responsible” people voted for the majority of all. So, for instance, each state has a certain number of electoral votes based on population. Theoretically, each “elector” should vote in the way that most people in that area want him/her to, but that does not always happen. That’s how the popular vote can predict that one candidate will win, when in fact they do not have enough electoral votes. I think originally it was a good idea… a lot of early Americans did not understand the new government system- voting was a very new idea. But now, most Americans understand (at least minimally) the system, so using a popular system only would make a lot of sense. However, we have had the system for hundreds of years, I don’t think it will change very soon.

• 2 Ashley // Mar 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm

  I think the problem is, and this is something a little controversial, yet I believe we consider ourselves a democracy, but we truly run as a republic. In that, it would explain why representatives are more important in choosing our president than the general population.

• 3 Elena // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  The two types of votes are very strange. The truth is that it is a very dated system. As Allyson said it served a “good” purpose hundreds of years ago but doesn’t now. I don’t like the system because it changes the way candidates run in elections, certain states are worth more in the electoral college than others so candidates spend more time campaigning in those states and almost ignore others. I do agree with you and think that it’s not very democratic but unfortunately that’s the way it is. If there was ever a time that the system would have changed it was back in 2000 when Al Gore ran against George Bush. Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral. But I think since the electoral vote wasn’t challenged then that it never will be.

• 4 Martina Urbani // Mar 26, 2008 at 11:40 am

  Also in Italy we have big problems concerning our electoral systems. During the Berlusconi government, Berlusconi (together with his party)decided to change the electoral system. Now. everybody, both the left and right, agrees in saying that that system is ridiculous and politicians call it ‘porcellum’. Quite sad, isn’t it?

• 5 Corina Pehlman // Mar 27, 2008 at 12:36 am

  It is very strange to understand, but I believe that it is a necessary evil. The system as it stands requires that the candidate receive the “electoral” vote. I believe that this is based on the notion that delegates who vote in the electoral college are knowledgeable of the issues and platforms that each candidate runs on. In a nation where every good-citizen has a right to vote, a popular vote victory would be unfair. That could be based on publicity, fame, or blind-voting. This is not fair. The delegates are taking a duty to become knowledgeable of the candidates and vote accordingly. The average citizen may vote blindly, or on who is “famous”, etc. A system that is based on simply a popular vote is not very representative of a proper election. Not every citizen takes the time to actively engage in politics as the delegates do. I support this system, even though I see corruption and some unfairness. It is a necessary evil to say the least!

• 6 Elisa Caramori // Mar 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm

  I totally agree with Martina. In Italy we have big problems concerning our electoral system. Furthermore, I would add that in Italy there are a lot of parties and it is very dufficult to properly follow every political platform. As a result people might get confused and have an unclear idea about their political preference. On the other hand, many parties guarantee a democratic electoral system. Therefore, I would say that it is very difficult to have a flawless electoral system.

• 7 Selena // Mar 30, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  I agree with what Martina and Elisa said about Italian election system. Our current electoral system has always been widely criticized and when in January Prime Minister Prodi resigned after losing a senate confidence vote both left and right parties recognized the need to reform it. The current laws are based on proportional representation and allow parties that are politically similar to form a coalition. The coalition that obtains the most votes wins a majority in the parliament. The problem is that the threshold is very low and so even very small parties can obtain seats and become determining forces in the majority. This way, the majority is characterized by a large fragmentation and instability. Italy should definitely change its election system in order to have stable governments and institutions and better services.

• 8 Sharon // Mar 31, 2008 at 11:40 am

  It is definitely a strange system and probably more complicated than necessary, but it does make sense. If the US elected a president by just the popular vote, each person’s vote would not have much sway over who is getting elected. By using the electoral system, each person’s vote holds more weight and encourages people to vote and become an active member of society because their opinion makes a difference.

• 9 Alberto // Apr 2, 2008 at 5:01 am

  Wouldn’t it be easier just counting the votes in the whole U.S.A. as it was a single huge state?
  However, I do think that your electoral system, based on the opposition of Democratics and Republicans is fantastic. As somebody just said, in Italy there are a lot of parties. This is very democratic, but it makes our country weak.

You must log in to post a comment.