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.
The electoral college is a system that gives representatives to states to vote in favor of what the people want in that state. Each state is guaranteed one representative out of the 435 there are. The remaining 385 are distributed into the states by population size and how the population of that state increases or decreases. This is seen as unfair because the smaller states have the same power to influence the election outcome as the states with more people. The smaller states have more advantage because their representatives, represent a smaller amount of people, while larger states representatives must represent what a much larger amount of people in that state want.
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.
Cumulative voting is a voting system that has multiple winners to promote proportional representation, opposed to a ‘winner- take- all’ system. Predominantly found in corporate governance, it was used in the late 19th century England, also to elect the Illinois House of Representatives. Another approach to cumulative voting, described as ‘multi-voting’, has been used by group facilitators to prioritize options generated by brainstorming. Cumulative voting can also helps minorities, making them a stronger unit all together to alter the outcome. Say there is a like-minded minority group that make up 20% of a city.
When people go to the voting booth and fill out the ballot with their candidate of choice, many people think they are directly voting for that candidate. However, America uses electoral votes/electoral college that has 538 electors distributed throughout the states, who determine the winner of the presidency. So what are Americans voting for? Why is such a system in place when we have popular vote? In the past, the most efficient way to give citizens around the country an opportunity to vote was the electoral college, or so the founding fathers thought.
Voters rank the presidential candidates from their least to most favorite. If a candidate wins more than half of the first choice votes, then that person wins the election. The process functions similarly when used in the Electoral College; the candidate that wins the majority vote in a state receives the electoral votes of that state. However, if no one wins the popular vote, the candidate with the least number of votes is removed from the ballot, and more than one person can be eliminated in this round (Best). Those that marked the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their votes transferred to their second choice candidate.
Jackson beat the other contestants in the popular vote, but for the electoral votes, nobody won the majority and the House of Representatives were called to make the decision, ultimately choosing John Quincy Adams. Fast forward four years and Andrew Jackson ran again for president, but the outcome was very different; he
In that case, the yellow will have no right to vote. However, If the yellow can redraw the disctrict lines however they want, they can still win with less voter then purple ( 3 yellow and 1 purple). Another example of gerrymandering is the voting in 2012, Pennsylvania Republicans lost the popular vote, but they still won 72% of their seats by redrawing the districts line in a weird looking way but it contain the area have most of the voter and high
The main weakness in Bonneau’s argument was his estimation technique. He used data from all 281 partisan and nonpartisan elections from 1990 to 2000. He used a dataset on 1980-1995 state supreme court elections and supplemented them through 2000. Regardless of his hypotheses, he found that a race for the state high court bench was more expensive if it was for an open seat, if the competition for it was closer, if there were fewer high court seats on the ballot, if
I feel that in any other state, applying the new voter ID law would not have as big an impact as it would in Texas. Since Texas has such a huge population of immigrants trying to get their citizenship it limits many people that make up the majority of the population. According to the Texas voter data for the 2014 November election, out of 14,025,441 registered voters only 4,727,208 were recorded in the turnout amount. So, based off of this information I can assume that applying this law to Texas could significantly affect the voter turnout negatively. Being that Texas has such a low voter turnout rate, I feel that the voter ID law should not be applied mainly because of the issues with the ethnicity background of our population.
Even though Bernie Sanders is behind in the delegate count, the upcoming primaries have a higher delegate’s numbers and he believes the majority of them will favor him instead of Hillary Clinton. Bernie has received 6 representatives from the house for endorsements, while Clinton has 159 representatives, 40 senators and 13 governors for her endorsements. Clinton is way in the lead for endorsement so, I don 't think Sanders will have a chance to catch up. Dr. Cornel West, Ed Schultz and Neil Young are individuals who are contributing to his
In fact, over time more than 700 constitutional amendments to change the Electoral College system have been proposed. The Electoral College system distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy. Electoral votes tends to over-represent people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for each State is consist of the number of members it has in the House of Representative, which overall reflects the state 's population size. It also consist of the number of members it has in the Senate, which is always two regardless of the State 's population.