For many years, America’s voting system has been criticized, with the main point of interest being the Electoral College. Some say that the Electoral College is necessary to streamline and simplify the voting process, while others say that it is outdated and takes away power from American citizens. After investigating the subject, it is clear that the Electoral College should be abolished due to the three major defects its critics find in the system; its undemocratic nature, its tendency to give small states’ votes too much power, and its disastrous effects on third-party candidates.
Ensuring the vote by drawing the district 's lines, entails that normal constituents of a party will have their right to vote violated. The Voting Right Act while allowing this dilution, does not consider the fact that the votes become so diluted that they are meaningless. Making a vote meaningless does not only throw the concept of voting out, but also the basis of this country, democracy. Democracy is the decision making process exercising the authority to solve public problem, according to the three principles of: Popular Sovereignty, Political Equality, Majority Rule. The principle of political equality is being ignored by making a group’s vote diluted to the point where it means nothing, makes their vote unequal to others. By stripping away the right to vote, people within the state are not correctly
The United States of America has a rich history filled with success, failure, courage, and drive. Millions have come seeking the “American Dream” and to live in the land of the free. The past is what has shaped this nation’s present and future. Yet, as time drifts, the world around us changes. What was once deemed acceptable can now seem outdated in today’s society. The recent 2016 Election was controversial and showcased just how divide our nation has become. The results of the election surprised many who believed there was no possible way Donald Trump would be elected president. This unraveled tension was met with uproar and confusion. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote whereas Donald Trump won the electoral vote, thus making him the President-elect
In my own words some of the pros and cons of the Electoral College are as followed and explained. My pros are that it maintains the federalist system, and allows for minority interests to be represented. It helps maintain the federalist system by keeping all of the branches of government equal. It helps allow for minority interests to be represented by helping the interest and have the ability to be represented and backed up by bigger parties to help get votes. My cons of the Electoral College are that is does not reflect the popular vote, and lowers voter turnout. The way is doesn’t reflect popular vote is because people think that their vote doesn’t matter to the voting of the president. The way it lowers the turnout is because it makes
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) . But recently gerrymandering has become more controversial because people feel that it has taken away their rights as a voter and it swings the votes to one side by a big percentage. Current cases are before the courts to decide if gerrymandering is legal. Some states have been discussing whether it should still be allowed during elections. “Many efforts are underway to remedy this political
We often assume that the reason behind the low voter turnout in the U.S. is due to institutional challenges (i.e. voter ID laws, registration, costs). Therefore, reformers most often focus on offering and improving various forms of convenience voting to increase turnout. Skeptics such as Graeme Orr argue that “voting whenever, from wherever, is a ‘lifestyle’ option.” Another skeptic, Adam J. Breinsky, argues that convenience voting has “perverse consequences on election reform” and that encouraging political engagement is more valuable than pursuing institutional changes. Although convenience voting offers flexibility and comfort, it is imperative not to overlook what Election Day is supposed to be: a communal event. Therefore, we must work towards a hybrid system where voting on Election Day is made more convenient.
The Electoral College is a flawed system in which we choose our commander and chief of this country. The job of the electoral college is to determine the president and vice president. Each state has electors equal to the number of senators and representatives given to them specifically. There are 538 electors that are currently in the United States. Electors are appointed by state legislature and must be committed to a party. Electors can not be people who have previously held or are holding office, but they may be any eligible voter. After being chosen as an elector, electors meet in the state capital in December after the general election to cast their ballots. Electors may vote for whoever they would like. Every state except for Maine and Nebraska are based on a Winner-Take-All system. This means that all electoral votes in the state are given to the candidate with the majority of the votes within the state. While this system seemed to work while our government was first formed, it is now seen as unjust. While the System is flawed, it is not beyond change. Split state votes is the solution for the electoral college to develop the mindset of Americans that their vote does matter, and so minority and 3rd parties have more of a say and chance in an election than they currently do.
Over time our Constitution of the United States has given us more voting privileges. We’ve allowed most of our population to be able to vote now in 2017. The only people who can’t are people under the age of 18, aren’t registered, or not a citizen.
America is a Republic (Representative Democracy), not a Democracy in the full sense of the word. Our nation is a system of government that gives citizens a chance to elect the top Government officials. Citizens elect Government officials, however they cannot vote on legislation. Through Electoral College 538 electors can cast votes to vote for who they want the president and vice president of the United States to be. Including, in order to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts. While concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in few districts as possible, election districts must be divided this is called gerrymandering. When voters go to the polls, they choose which candidate receives their state’s
The topic that I have chosen explains why gerrymandering should be illegal. Gerrymandering is the process of a state having the ability to redraw the voting district. In turn, this can give the party in control of that state an advantage over the other party by redrawing the district in their favor. I picked this topic, because I find it ridiculous that many states have the ability to move where your vote counts for their own agenda, and this makes it difficult for minorities in voting districts to be properly represented and allows for the party to maintain control of the house.
Supreme Court, Section 4 was declared unconstitutional because the discrimination and constraints in voting rights is not the same today that it was fifty years ago. This case represents an argument in favor of the Elections Clause to become the standard for voting rights as it gives legislative authority of this nature to Congress. Through this Clause, there is also an argument in favor of national proportional voting to fight the continued issue of gerrymandering. Beginning with the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to redefine the protections and sources of authority defined under voting rights legislation under the new
The Electoral College is composed of 538 people who will then choose the President and the Vice-President of the United States according to the votes of people in each state. When people vote for a president, they don’t vote for him or her directly. Voters will “be choosing which candidate receives their state’s electors” (Soni). Every state has a specific number of candidates depending on the population of the state. “The electors are appointed by the political parties in each state, so if you vote for Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, and Mr. Trump ends up winning the popular vote in your state, then electors that the Republican Party has chosen will cast votes for him in their state capitals in December” (Bromwich). Many people might think that they are voting for the president but they are not, they are voting for the electors who will then choose the President. A candidate wins the presidency when he or she get more than 270 electoral votes. This means that in order for one candidate to win a state, the need to win the electoral votes for that particular state.
3. Discuss the issue regarding the victims ' rights to notification regarding important proceeding, decisions, and actions related to their case.
Hello Erik, I really like how you explain gerrymandering. I also agree with you that racial gerrymandering is worse than partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering altogether is bad and create a lot of problem and it mess with the result of the election. I really like it when you said “Racial gerrymandering is aimed towards a specific racial group and leads to the unfair and unequal treatment based upon race while partisan gerrymandering is not based upon race.” That pretty much sum it up and i totally agree with that. In the end partisan and racial gerrymandering is equally as bad and is very unfair toward any group.