A lot of people are convinced that their vote doesn 't count. In predominantly republican or democratic states people don’t even bother voting because they know it won 't make a difference. Next, is that small states have more representation than states with a larger population. One person does not mean on
This stability compliments the argument that it simply isn’t worth the effort to make any changes to the Electoral College because of the work involved and how functional it is. The Electoral College may not be the most ideal system, but it performs the functions it was designed to do. As said by Alexander Bickel on the
The system allows for the voices of the people to be heard through the popular vote and have elected officials make educated decisions based on the opinions of the nation’s citizens. However, the way the Electoral college is set up makes it possible for a candidate to be elected president without the majority of the popular vote (U.S. Electoral College). The combination of the controversial nature of the College and the differing opinions of U.S. citizens leads to a question being asked: Is the Electoral College damaging to the democratic system in United States, or is it a pivotal extension of our democracy? While some U.S. citizens feel that the Electoral College should be abolished, there are those who feel the system plays a key role in our Presidential election.
On the other side with the defenders of the Electoral College they believe that the Electoral College system is more fair. " In Defense of the Electoral College" states that it provides a certainty of outcome in that "if the difference of the popular vote is small, then if the winner of the popular vote were deemed winner of the presidential election, candidates would have an insensitive to seek a recount in any state. " They also state that swing states are important because "they are likely to be the most thoughtful voters" "and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the elections" giving their votes importance. They also say that it avoids having no candidate winning a
He believes that a large republic would work out well for the States, because a larger government causes less negative impacts on the people, even though all of the people won’t be known, the government won’t be too centralized and only focused on the
It is also believed that the Electoral College makes potential voters not want to vote at all and they end up not representing their candidates. And most people already have a certainty of the outcome of the election, meaning they already know who will win the election based on the number of votes so far in the popular votes section and the electoral section. The system of electors is also not fair because the people can not control who they are voting for has the electors, and the states number of electors are equal to the number of people on its congressional delegation, which gives big states an advantage over small states. To conclude this letter, I again say that the Electoral College should be changed to election by popular vote because, popular vote is fairer then the Electoral College, the people have no power compared to the electors and the are subject to corruption with in the
This seems deceptive because the people of that state vote for their party, not the opposing side. However, as seen multiple times in history, representatives have voted against their party. Although it seems as if the state representatives have the power to manipulate the majority’s vote, it is noted that the people choose their representatives (so the voters receive what they voted for). Through the establishment of the Electoral College, people are allowed to vote for their representatives, candidates have a better understanding of the nation’s needs, and there is more equal representation. It is with these reasons that I support the Electoral College and do not think that it should be modified nor abolished.
It is giving the smaller states equal power compared to the larger states. If it was based on popular votes, the people around the coasts would dominate and dictate the election. The constitution is big on giving states rights and power, so this helps give all states power. Getting rid of the popular vote would get rid of this idea that the peoples vote does actually impact the election. We get several voters who do really care about the election.
They should not be able to make decisions without peoples say in what their opinion is. Our people should have the same amount of power when they vote for something than the government deciding their own opinion while ignoring the peoples most votes. Most people should be able to decide what they want to be legal and not want to be legal because they are the ones who live in the country and are the ones who work in the country. The government just has a job just like other people and shouldn’t be treatd with more say inb votes, they are just people who run our country. They should not also take a say that they shouldn’t have more power because they will most likely will have more poweer because they are considered the boss.
In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.
The two-party system is an essential part of our national government because if “[reinforces] the constitutional framework within which the voter may without peril exercise his freedom of political choice” (pg. 178). Just as the essay, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System” emphasized the importance of maintain a two-party
If it happened, he or she would have some power but not have control over everything on his fingertips meaning that he could not do anything with the country. Madison was not defending the government but only looking for a way that whoever gets in office is best for this great nation. With one large party and one branch of government, it would be easier for candidate to get into office and later betray the people. It would prove difficult for tyranny leader to get into office with 3 separate branch government and two party system.
Disadvantages: Because people have only two options, voters will have problems choosing the right politician. Two-party systems also promote deadlock and polarization. Every party is looking for political dominance,
However, the legislative branch of the new government proposed in the Constitution is able to control the malignant effects of factions because the representatives are able to pass legislation that affects large portions of the nation instead of individuals. Madison then states that a pure democracy, in which ordinary citizens govern themselves, are not able to control the effects of factions, but a republic, in which citizens elect representatives to govern, is able to. The reason that republics can control the effects of political parties is because the representatives have to consider the good of the whole nation; Madison hopes that their patriotism will override their temporary interests. Furthermore, representatives, given that they are elected into office, should be men of good morals and intelligence; Madison believes these men of this caliber are more fit to govern a country than average citizens. In conclusion, Madison discusses in Federalist 10 what factions are and how they work, and why a republic is the best government to combat the negative effects of
“It contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system and discouraging the proliferation of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many European democracies”(Thirty-Thousand.org 11). Lastly the electoral college helps encourage minority parties. Due to how the Electoral College distributes power, many minority interests have the ability to be represented and even backed by larger parties in order to get Electoral College votes. While a third party may have particular difficulty in securing a presidency, they can at least have enough delegates that their interests have to be taken