Though unlikely to be at the forefront of any 2016 presidential platforms, the Electoral College is a widely contested issue among partisans, many of who believe that a better method exists for selecting the President of the United States. This anti-Electoral College sentiment is also present among Americans nationwide, Republicans and Democrats alike. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 61% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats would vote to do away with the Electoral College. In today’s contentious political atmosphere, in which Republicans and Democrats are constantly at odds with one another, any level of agreement between the parties clearly indicates that a change needs to be made. Changes are already starting to occur at the state level, …show more content…
This often leads to the winner of the popular vote receiving a disproportionate number of electoral votes relative to that candidate’s national popular vote share. For example, in 2012, Barack Obama won 332 of the 538 electoral votes, approximately 61.7% of the electoral votes, while only winning 51.06% of the popular vote. This leads candidates to search for states where a small victory in the popular vote will allow them to gain a large number of electoral votes. If we consider economic theory to be a relevant comparison when analyzing elections, winning electoral votes is a zero-sum game, that is, for a candidate to win a state’s electoral votes it must come directly at the expense of the other candidate who is then prevented from winning those same votes. As a result, candidates target these competitive states and flood them with advertisements and campaign stops in an effort to not only win the electoral votes for himself, but also to prevent his opponent from winning said votes. This scenario is not unique to the Electoral College, and is a relevant factor all the way down to the level of individual selection, since voting for a particular candidate automatically excludes the other candidate from receiving a vote from that same individual. However, this exclusion becomes much more critical at the point at which a candidate can be excluded from receiving dozens of electoral votes rather than just a collection of individual
In its favor, one may argue that it supports smaller states, creates more stability within the election due to the two-party system, and prevents the chances of recounting votes. However, the Electoral College is also believed to be “complicated” by cause of its unique representative system, persuade candidates into giving more attention to the smaller states, and be a magnet for faithless Electors, or Electors who decide to not vote for their party’s candidate (Veracity
The United States government is one of the most admired and complex in the world, On the contrary one of the fundamental components that has an extensive impression on the American People and the Election is the Electoral College. Our founding fathers created The Electoral College over two hundred years ago, and it is still in effect today. They feared that having just the Popular Vote would give too much power to one person. In this paper, we will be discussing what the Electoral College is, the benefits and disadvantages of the Electoral College as well as if the Electoral College should be abolished or reconstructed.
The minimum amount of Electoral Votes a state can have is three; one for each senator, and one for each representative member in the House. This means that a state like Wyoming with a population of around half a million will receive three electoral votes, while a state like Nevada with a population 6 times that of Wyoming's, only has double the electoral votes. The Electoral map on Document A clearly shows the inequality of electoral votes given to small states, as 13 states have four or less votes. This means that the individuals vote in these states and many more, are worth more proportionally. Document D really delves into this idea as well, as it synthesizes data from populations of 12 different states whose total is less that the population of Illinois, but have more than double the electoral votes.
For example, if a presidential candidate wins the popular vote in California by 47 percent, the candidate gets all 55 of California's electoral votes. The other candidate could have 49 percent of the popular vote but lose all 55 electoral votes. However, if the candidate with 51 percent of the popular votes was given 51 percent of the electoral votes (about 28) and the other candidate received 49 percent (27), it would be much more representative of the voters. The same applies for Vermont: If a candidate receives 33 percent of the popular vote and the other receives 66 percent, the second candidate would garner all three of Vermont’s electoral votes and the first candidate would receive none. Even though the first candidate would still be behind, this would be more
During the election, candidates use strategic tactics to produce more votes. Candidates tend to express what the people want to hear their speeches. For everyone else, the Electoral College is a stressful and complicated process.
When you go and vote for president, do you think your vote goes toward the decision of who becomes president? If you do, think again because the system is not as clear cut as it seems. In 1787 during the Constitutional Convention, the delegates discussed a way to vote for president without having the passions of the people and average voters getting in the way. The Electoral College has 538 members total which are divided among states, with each state receiving the amount of electoral votes that corresponds with their population. The outdated system known as the Electoral College, should officially be abolished from the process of the presidential election in the United States.
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.
Advocates of the Electoral College may think that if a popular vote was instated, candidates would just focus on the larger populated areas; however, don’t they
The Electoral College has been widely debated since the Bush and Al Gore election in 2000 and has divided the country. In the 2016 election, the popular vote was nearly split in half, showing that people have very different political views. The founding fathers thought it would be the best way to choose a president, but times have changed. A system where a group of electors from each state has the power to override every vote cast in the America for the next president is absolutely intolerable. The Electoral College is no longer relevant now that a two-party system is in place.
Smaller states, or states with a smaller population are given more electoral votes per voter than larger states. For example, for every 177,556 residents in Wyoming is equivalent to one electoral vote. However, in Texas, 715,499 people are the equal to one vote. In New York, a vote is around four times less than a vote from Wyoming. These two examples show how much “voting power” certain states have.
Our literate population combined with an abundance of modern technology gives the masses the ability to make informed voting decisions making the Electoral College’s original purpose no longer relevant in today’s world. The Electoral College has also given rise to “swing states,” or states that fluctuate from election to election which side of the political spectrum they favor. As a result, presidential candidates have been forced to focus the majority of their time on these few states. This causes politicians to make campaign promises catered to them just to gain political favor which translates into policies once someone is in office that do not impact the majority of the country. For example, candidates in the latest election discussed coal and how to save coal jobs even though there were only about 68,413 US coal miners as of 2015.
Winner Take All System One of the main appeals of the electoral college system is that it avoids the “tyranny of the majority” by creating a way for the less popular candidate to win the presidency. Unfortunately, the system was unsuccessful in
Every four years, the citizens of the United States of America elect a new president. Not everyone knows exactly how the president is elected. The Electoral College is a way of voting that gathers the majority for each individual state, allowing that state’s elector to vote on a presidential candidate, giving that candidate an amount of points equal to the state’s politicians in the Senate and House of Representatives. Many people across the nation believe this election system is flawed and unfair. Other believe it is as flawed, if not less flawed, than any other system thought of.
In Document G, show us a Chart in which depicts that the candidate who wins the popular vote never wins the electoral vote. So, the candidate who receives more votes from the public never wins the presidency. So, why even campaign if the goal is to win less votes than your opponent so you don’t win the popular vote but win the presidency? In Document A, it shows us that any candidate could win the 270 votes by winning only eleven states. These eleven states are; California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (29), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14).
The Electoral College system the founding fathers devised helps to balance out the power of the large, populous states. This system forces candidates to campaign in all states since they all carry some sway in the elections (“Understanding the Presidential Election”). However, other issues present themselves as well, like states with large independent voters that can be swayed and the issue that a candidate can lose the popular vote and win the election. The first issue is that states that are equally divided between democrats and republicans and hold a large number of electoral votes like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are considered swing states. (“Understanding the Presidential Election”)