Abolition of the Electoral College There is a need to abolish the Electoral College because it is outdated and problematic. It has caused the candidates with less popular votes to win the presidency. Many people are against the Electoral College for this very reason. In the past the Electoral College has caused controversy because of its problems and there has been a need for reform. The Electoral College was created at the Constitutional Convention.
Maansi Dasari Mr. Morris AP English 3 12 January 2017 The Electoral College: The last remnant of slavery Amidst the chaos of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, emerges a cacophony of voices screaming for Electoral College reform. Many are angered by the results, others are confused: how can one candidate receive nearly three million more votes than the other and still lose the election? The Electoral College has been the United States’ method for electing a president since the Constitution was ratified, and this is far from the first time that it has been criticized. Proponents of the system accuse current skepticisms of being partisan, and the skeptics of being “sore losers”. However, defenders of the Electoral College, such as Guelzo and
However, it does need a major overhaul. As the population of the US changes, the Electoral College should be reviewed to ensure proper representation in each state. It has been proven in a few of the elections that the majority votes were not properly represented with the electoral votes. During President Obama election, he did not win the majority of popular votes in some of the states; however, he won all of the Electoral College for those states. This election is one of about four Presidential elections that have won with Electoral College but not with the majority of popular votes.
Throughout history, there have been around eleven thousand constitutional amendments proposed. Over one thousand of them have had something to do with the Electoral College, mostly being proposals to change it into a popular vote. Yet, well over forty years have passed since congress has seriously considered a constitutional amendment to abolish it (Williams). From the number of proposals and alternatives for electoral reform that have been introduced since the Constitutional Convention, some have been seriously considered and some have been just plain bizarre. For example, Senator James Hillhouse’s proposal in 1808 that would allow retiring senators to choose a president by drawing colored balls from a box (Hardaway).
The 22nd amendment states that, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...” Recent discussions and proposals have been put forth to repeal or modify the amendment. No person should have that opportunity to surrender to the charms of power. Two four year terms should be more than enough time to make a positive change for the nation. Two Presidential terms should be the limit of power, and I am not the only person who believes so. “Term limits… have [been] approved… in 19 states.”(graphics) Past presidents have supported the limiting of terms for presidency; two supporters were George Washington and Harry Truman.
Due to the past election there has been several protests and opposing opinions thrown from both the Democratic and Republican parties. One particular article, “Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College”, suggests the idea that our society should abolish the electoral college, due to it’s “unequal distributed [voting power] across our nation”, and switch to the popular vote, when voting during a presidential election. At first this idea may seem sensible to those who do not understand how the electoral college works, the demand is in fact, senseless and will only lead to unproportioned voting amongst all states. However, it is easy to understand why this article is depicting that the electoral college needs adjustments, and to view the main
For instant, if I was a Republican this would be a great opportunity to lead in an election. Since most of the people voting Democrat, will possibly be turned away because they were unable to provide the required documentation by law. However, if I was Democrat, this could be considered a hindrance for my supports to vote. I really don’t see the equality of how an individual can be allowed to vote by absentee vote if they are not on active military duty. For instance, college students, who are permitted to vote absentee.
But the most interesting thing that i was able to conclude from my day at the polls, was the overwhelming majority that had equally bad things to say about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This majority opinion was highlighted in one quote from one of the voters “They both are flawed candidates, and honestly they cancel out each other so i 'm really just voting on the issues”. These results point to the majority of people voted on the issues, and partisan views rather than the candidates themselves. Martin P. Wattenberg backs up this claim in his article “The Declining Relevance of Candidate Personal Attributes in Presidential Elections””The analysis in this article demonstrates that the personal attributes of the presidential candidates have become less and less relevant to the outcome of presidential elections in recent years. Substantially fewer voters are mentioning the personal characteristics of the candidates when asked what they like and dislike about them.
“A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” - Theodore Roosevelt” Do we need uneducated, random, and altogether unconstitutional forced votes clogging up our ballot? Those rallying for compulsory voting boast better representation of the lower class. If compulsory voting is so grand then please do explain why so many countries (the majority even.) don 't enforce or even avoid their compulsory voting laws in place. The lower class needs to be better represented, the middle class strengthened, more Americans need to vote, but forcing people to is not the answer.
In the presidential election a candidate must receive a majority of Electoral College votes, a very difficult task for a party that is up against two of the most historically rooted and powerful parties in America. Although the third parties may be influential, their impact is very limited because “they rarely receive enough support to capture a state’s Electoral College votes” since “support is concentrated” (Hernnson, 3). This acts as a domino effect; if they cannot elect candidates to represent their party then they lose any type of recognition and political influence, let alone a place for their name on a voting ballot. Getting on the voting ballot itself can be an obstacle for third parties. The two major parties have a great advantage; they don’t have to worry about making it on the ballot in the first place because of their large following.
“Most of the sins of politics are derivative of this larger sin — the need to win.” (Obama, 109) In any political campaign money is a much needed resource. “Money can’t guarantee victory”, however “without money, and the television ads that consume all the money, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose.” (Obama, 109) To gain the money to run a campaign in American many side deals have to be done with sponsors. Not the mention the time and effort put into gain such high amounts of money, it took three months for Obama’s campaign to raise just $250,000 and fall flat of their $500,000 goal. Our government is flawed but it manages to keep our country
Although the popular votes do not determine the elector votes, it almost always happens where the electors vote for whom the popular votes resulted in. This is one of the many reasons why the Electoral College is unfair, past elections have shown that bigger populations have more electoral votes, concluding that smaller states’ votes become insignificant. This leaves people in question, is the Electoral College now based on where you live? Even though the purpose of the electoral college is to ultimately decide who will occupy the position of the president, there was an Electoral Commision of elite representatives, established to determine the 19th President, because of the situation the electoral college caused. The commission included five representatives from the House, another five associates from the Senate and five justices from the Supreme Court.
A candidate must reach a majority of 270 to win the election. There are many arguments for why the Electoral College is still effective - it strengthens the unity of the country by preventing the domination of an area with a higher population over rural areas. It maintains stability of our political environment by encouraging our bipartisan system, as it makes it very difficult for new parties to win enough popular votes to gain any traction in an election. Most importantly, it maintains a balance between state and federal governments, where the states have the power to select their own
If the people were to elect the president directly, certain situations/problems wouldn’t be as analyzed like the Electoral College analyzes it. (McGraw Hill pg.385) If we were to get rid of the electoral college the states with a higher population would dominate the elections, therefore, leaving the small rural states unnoticed or with no voice. That would be very unfair towards rural areas, the present system gives the state’s power more strength and secures our federal system’s strength. (McGraw Hill pg.385) In order to make our voice be heard toward the candidate of our choice we should participate in campaigns as well as voting. The majority of our population doesn’t take the time to get politically involved and vote, making their opinion towards our government overlooked.
One reason that the framers of the constitution included the Electoral College is because they believed people will only vote for people in their own states and basically play favorites. However, in modern democracy it is evident that this system no longer benefits entirely the people of the states’. It must be modified because the restrictions that vary state to state through each election is now unnecessary in today’s society. In a presidential election an electoral vote should count the same as a popular vote no matter the circumstances. The states that remain mutual in a presidential candidacy election, where the populations are evenly divided causes an issue of winning the state