I believe that we should not have an electoral college and depend on them. There are numerous reasons why I think this. It does not allow us to have a fair way to vote and it doesnt let everyone be heard. First, voters do not vote for the president they vote for a state of electors. If you have lived in Texas you would have to vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors.
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.
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.
They are similar in the fact that they need money in order to campaign and they need to campaign in order to get electoral support. They are different because judges are not expected to represent the interests of their constituents when compared to legislators. They are prohibited from campaigning on issues that may come before the court. State supreme court elections occur under a variety of institutional arrangements. The main weakness in Bonneau’s argument was his estimation technique.
The incumbency advantage is the tendency for members of Congress to win re-election in overwhelming numbers. The congress in place now has one of the lowest approval rates recorded, but almost all running for re-election were reelected in both the House and Senate. What can be done to with these high incumbent rates? The people have continued to reelect congressmen that they do not approve of. How can those running against the already elected officials win against them?
However, the electoral college does not make candidates care more about small states. Instead, it makes candidates focus on so called, “battleground states”, ignoring the rest of the states. In the 2004 election, almost all of campaign costs were spent in 17 states. “Wisconsin, another “battleground state” received a total of thirty-one candidate visits … ignored states included Texas and Illinois.” (source D) The college is in essence making the nation believe that you can win an election by ignoring the people who count the “least”, including those in small states. If the united states were to adopt the system of popular vote, all states would get an equal amount of attention from candidates and all citizens would get a proper image of their candidate, not one manufactured by social
Introduction In today’s political world, there is a large part of the population who votes in elections marred with electoral fraud and malpractice. These people suffer the consequences of having non-representative governments where the government does not reflect the votes and will of the people. One would think a country devoid of fraud during the electoral process would remove previously cheating and poorly performing incumbents, resulting in better functioning governments, which is untrue. Removing electoral fraud from an election does not guarantee that the previously fraudulent or poor performing incumbents will be removed from office. Why do Fair Elections NOT Result in Better Representatives?
Congressional Digest points out the fact that voters today know more about the candidates than they did 200 years ago (19). “Is it possible that this once-brilliant device has become a constitutional accident waiting to happen” (Congressional Digest 25). “The Electoral College has been said to be ‘archaic,’ ‘too complex,’ and even ‘dangerous,’ but the principle complaint has been that it is ‘undemocratic’” (Klinker, McClellan 1). The Electoral College violates the principle of one-person, one-vote (Congressional Digest 17). Klinker states that Wyoming’s 619,500 residents make up only .18 percent of the U.S. population, yet recieve three three electoral votes which is .56 percent of the electoral votes, while Texas has a population of 20,044,141 residents that make up 7.35 percent of the U.S. population, but Texas’ 32 electoral votes make up slightly less than 6 percent of the electoral votes, giving one voter in Wyoming nearly as much power as four voters in Texas (1).
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.
“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.
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.
We cannot let states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas decide the fate of our entire country simply because of their high population. The Electoral College’s opponents believe that it is an unfair way of doing things because it doesn’t necessarily make every vote count, but they may not realize that it lets every state have a say. The candidate with an absolute majority in each state receives the elector’s votes, therefore it really boils down to a popular election just on a state by state basis, rather than a national one. “The proposals to abolish the Electoral College are proposals to abolish the Federal principle in presidential elections”(Best). The Electoral College has history on it’s side, the system they use really works, it is the best option we have, and it needs to be
Donald Trump, a man who can only truly relate to the other 0.00004 percent of Americans he is in the same wealth percentile as- yes that’s four zeroes!- is currently demolishing the other Republican candidates. So why are the other candidates clinging to the coattails of a custom made jacket that could pay for my college tuition? People aren’t listening to Trump’s mouth, they’re listening to his wallet. Even though Trump stands for everything that would hurt the middle and lower classes- tax benefits for the wealthy, severely cutting funding for public education, etc- he is a whopping 28 percent ahead of his competitors, the closest of which is less than half that. Trump can afford to say whatever crazy statement pops into his head and people will still eat it up because he can buy the
Many people have often wondered how politicians would organize legislative activity if given the chance to start anew and make things the way they want them. The Progressive takeover of governmental activities in California in 1910 presented a unique opportunity to study such a phenomenon in its natural occurring state. The Progressives made it as hard as they could to crush the party system and to keep it from returning. In particular, “they made it nearly impossible for party activists outside government to organize, coordinate actions, keep informed about legislative activities, or, perhaps most importantly, influence party nominations to office.” (Masket 2011, 54) It was under these conditions that Masket says California politicians