Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The Electoral College

Hence, the presidential campaign and election is shaped by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, the presidential election should be the vote of the people, not the Electoral College. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution during the summer of 1787, the first 3 words they wrote were “we the people.” They believed that power should solely come from the people and that we should be able to exercise it effectively. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the people of the United States don’t have much of a say in determining who they want as president, since the Electoral College is the primary institution that selects the president and vice president. For both of these reasons, I feel that the Electoral College should not be a “Winner-Take- All” type of system.

Jacksonian Democrats beliefs are more similar to the Populist party’s beliefs than different in political, economic, and social ways. Their limited differences are based on the time periods and problems they faced respectively. The political beliefs held by Jacksonian Democrats and the Populist Party centered around the limiting of big government in people 's lives. The election of Andrew Jackson limited federal power because the Democratic party used a national convention to nominate him, giving power to people not the caucus of elite men. This limiting of the federal government in the Jacksonian era is very similar to the limiting seen in the Populist Party.

Dear, state senator I think we should change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. I think this because the Electoral College does not seem fair, the president that usually wins in popular vote loses to the vote for presidency, it is considered a non-democratic method for selecting a president, and it is all up to the electors of a candidate. The Electoral College should also be changed to popular vote because it is not the people who are choosing the president, it is the three electors sent from each different state. The Electoral College should be changed to election by popular vote, because it is not fair to the candidates. This is because most presidents that win the popular vote section of the election then end up losing the presidential vote section, an example of this is when candidate Al Gore recieved the most individual votes when running against George W. Bush, but Bush won the electoral section, recieving two hundred and

The Electoral College is a system stated in the Clause 2 of Section 1 in the Article II of the United States Constitution to elect the President of the United States. According to the Constitution, each state needs to appoint electors, who in turn vote to select the President. The number of electors from each state should be the same as the number of Senators and Representatives that the state entitled in the Congress. Citizens from each state choose the electors through elections. The electors then cast the citizens’ votes for the candidate they prefer.

According to, (Grofman & Feld), authors of Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College, "it has been argued that one party may develop a “built-in” advantage in the Electoral College if its strength comes disproportionately from the smaller states" (Grofman, & Feld, 2005). Although, candidates focusing more on the competitive states leave much of the county barely aware that there is even a presidential election going on. Mostly because these states have higher electoral votes. This discourages voter turnout because the individual vote only matters to the context of the state (Constitution,

The Weimar’s military leadership was mostly composed of conservatives who did not support the new Republic. This was already a negative start. How could soldiers who were against the republic swear to protect it? The biggest problem of the army oath was that it let anyone who was President in direct control of the armed forces. This meant that if someone with bad intentions came to power, he had under his control, the whole military.Of course this worse-case scenario came

The Constitution is better than the Articles of Confederation because the Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses. The Articles did not give Congress the power to place tariffs on foreign goods, hurting American businesses that could not compete with cheaper British goods. The U.S. government had no chief executive so there was no one to enforce the laws that were passed. The new Constitution addressed many of the problems created by the Articles by creating a federal system of government with a much more powerful national government. The Constitution made a stronger Federal government that could unite the States, taking many of the powers held by the States: the right to tax, the right to raise armies, the right to regulate trade and

In Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Philip Mazzei, he describes the “Aristocratic Party”, he points out the shift of the people in power. He recounts how the ruling body is now mostly controlled by men who don’t support republican ideals, these are the federalist. They are shifting the away from what the war was trying to achieve and instead looking towards Britain. Only the legislative branch still holds the ideals of the revolution and the need for liberty. While the rest of the ruling party forgot what they were fighting for and many were enticed by the treacherous British.

States represent the people’s voice in the election because popular vote isn’t important in the Electoral College. There have been numerous times where the candidate with the popular vote has lost because of the state’s power. Document 7 has the 2016 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Map and Projection, it had the democrats winning 237 electoral votes. To the 187 republican votes, this gave democrats the upper hand in the prediction. With this prediction it also connected with the popular vote because Clinton had the popular vote won.

We can see how the strategic president is ideal by comparing the presidencies of Carter and Reagan. Both of these president had no experience as a politician in Washington so great persuasion skills were needed in order for them to get legislation passed. President Jimmy Carter did not hire many experience Washington politics as his delegates which hurt his case when he was trying to pass legislation through Congress. Reagan used the strategy of a strategic competent president by hiring very qualified officials in his cabinet, this helped Reagan to get his agenda passed greatly. Here we can clearly see the right mix of minimalist and self-reliance being used in the Reagan administration.

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

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.

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.

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. In my opinion it would make it much easier for Texas to actually have an impact on the polls in the election because our number would be significantly larger than any other state and it is true that voter fraud could still come into play at any given time but since it has yet to happen, voting in Texas should be secure for the time being. Survey

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