Also I think that if the candidates are looking for the electotal votes; then the states with the most electoral votes gets the most attention. They need to concentrate on the states with the most electoral votes. The smaller states or states with lesser electoral votes gets little to no attention. One good aspect of the Electoral College is that it makes more sense to the smaller states to ensure they still have a voice in the elections. If the President were to be elected by popular demand; they would be from a highly populated state leaving less room for the smaller states to cast their votes.
Popular vote is very direct; one vote for every person. It’s a common belief among political critics that the popular vote is a more fair system and will encourage a higher number of voter turnout. Under the restrictions of the Electoral College, specifically in lower populated states, some voters could feel an overwhelming sense of support for a specific candidate. This would give the voter the feeling that their vote would carry no meaning and in turn could cause a lower voter turnout. Since higher populated states have more electoral votes, many believe that the lower populated areas will be neglected.
Though a small republic can 't resist the mischief of faction, there is a way for a large republic to be able to resist. In small republics the number of people is a low amount, as for large republics the number of people is higher and there is a difference of opinions. The fact that large republics have a more numerous amount of people this means that the factions will be numerous as well and will also be smaller and weaker. Because they have so many different factions it is very easy for the government to just ignore them. It is stated in the handout that Madison is refuting, "the Anti-federalists ' argument that a republic would soon crumble under the pressure of factional divisions."
Democratic-leading independents, for example, are more likely to vote Republican than pure Democrats. Part of the reason why Democrats do not perform as well in federal elections is because there are not enough voters to secure consistent electoral victory for Democrats, as compared to the Republican Party which has a more “pure” following. The Democratic Party is much more racially diverse than the Republican Party. The Democratic
The larger states were in favor for this plan yet the smaller states were not as supportive. The larger states wanted 3 branches the Judicial, Executive, and legislative. Some disadvantages about the plan were that the plan was mainly for the bigger states. Also that they wanted more representatives in congress based on the size of the population. So the plans were biased.
1. In Federalist Paper 10, Madison expressed concerns about factions and his desire to protect the minority (people with land) from the majority (those without). He stated that a large republic should be created so that tiny factions interest groups will have a difficult time uniting and becoming a majority that usurps the minority. Do you think this theory has withstood the test of time? Discuss instances in which it has/has not.
In the case of taxation, the more powerful of the two parties would have the opportunity to impose higher taxes on the minority, thus, saving themselves money. Madison firmly believed that the constitution had the ability to solve the problems created by factions. Madison envisioned a large republic that would make it difficult for corrupt candidates to get elected. Madison expressed this by stating, In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters. Madison believed the solution, or cure, to resolving the problems caused by factions was to allow a larger number of citizens to vote for their representative.
Parties solve the problem of ambition and elective office seeking by managing the political structures and career ladders. In Why Parties, John Aldrich writes, “If elective office is indeed valuable, there will be more aspirants than offices, and the political party and the two-party system are means of regulating that competition and channeling those ambitions.” The somewhat institutionalized paths parties set up helps regulate politicians incentives and decrease the amount of intraparty competition. However, parties have not always been able to solve this problem; a classic example is the 1912 election where Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft split the Republican vote, thus allowing Woodrow Wilson to win. Still, parties have a better ability
If legitimacy is lost, it could lead to chaotic conditions because when people start to doubt the government, uprising and rebellion could be the very results to this. If certain groups vote in greater numbers than other groups, there could be a gap as to the privileged-citizens and the unrepresented most especially in influencing law makers making governmental policies. He also mentions that the biggest advantage of compulsory voting is that if there’s an enhancement in the voter turnout, bias against the less-privileged citizens is removed and that participation is equalized. Much more, vote buying is alleviated if there’s compulsory voting because the electorates are left with no choice but to
Thus. The US general elections are not the great equalizer. The general election designed in a way where voters in less populous states have more per-voter influence on Electoral College than voters in more populous states. (Due to the Apportionment Act of 1911), which limits the House of Representatives size and keeps the House from growing along with the population as Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution outlines. The answer to this problem is a not a more direct voting system based on the popular vote.