First of all, with the Electoral College system in play, small states are highly over-represented. “No matter how big or how small, each and every state in the US is allocated at a minimum, three electoral votes; two senators and one representative or more depending on the population of that particular state.” (Document A) In order to make this possible, bigger states must give away some of their electoral votes to the smaller states, making smaller states highly represented and bigger states not so highly represented. For further example, here is an excerpt taken from “The Indefensible Electoral College” written by Bradford Plumer, “Because each state casts only one
One reason the Electoral College should be abolished is that one of the candidates could win the popular vote and still end up losing the election. On November 8th, 2016 Donald Trump was elected president because the Electoral College voted for him. Approximately thirty out of the fifty states’ electoral colleges voted for Donald Trump, he ended with 290 Electoral College votes. He had lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by about one million people because the vote of the citizens in the US has no value. The Electoral College votes are the only ones with value.
The main argument of those who favor using the Electoral College is that the system was established by the founding fathers in order to safeguard against uninformed voters by putting the final decision in the hands of electors (The Electoral College). By giving electors the final say, many feel as though the final decision is being made by those
Since a state’s number of electoral votes is representative of its house members and senate members, the way electoral votes are awarded should be changed. The popular vote within a congressional district should determine one electoral vote for the state; therefore, all of the congressional districts within a state would account for all but two of the state’s electoral votes. The two other electoral votes—the votes determined as a result of the number of senators (always two)—should be awarded based on popular vote
The 2016 presidential election well demonstrated the possibility that the electoral college could generate a different outcome with the one of popular votes. It also brought back the controversy about whether or not we should continue to use this method to elect our president. The Electoral College system, as an indirect election measure, has various drawbacks and should be abolished and changed to a more widely-accepted method to encourage people to cast their votes that truly represent their interests, given the fact that we have reached a point that the technology is mature enough to help us to do
The Electoral College has been around for many years and has proven to be a useful tool in voting for a president. However, as useful as it is, we must ask if it is still the most optimal option when voting for president now that we have electronic communication and can spread information like wildfire. The Electoral College is flawed and should be changed.
The creation of the Electoral College was the result of one of the many compromises of our Founding Fathers. The intentions of such a system were developed to create fairness for smaller states and to prevent an unsuitable candidate from acquiring the office. Although it has been rare, the possibility that the Electoral College and not the popular vote would decide a presidential election was intended in its creation. The pros and cons of such a system have changed over time and are heavily debated in our current circumstances. Due to advancements in technology not envisioned by the founders, alternatives have been suggested to resolve the conflicts of what some feel is an outdated system.
The citizens in the 12 states and the District of Columbia have a louder voice in the election process than the citizens in Illinois. The 12 states and the District of Columbia have less population combined than Illinois but they have more electoral votes than Illinois. (Doc D) Citizens in Illinois or other large states have less say proportionally in the presidential election than citizens in small states, meaning their votes are not equal. The Electoral College depends only on states where voters vote for presidents, which is politically inequal. (Doc D)
First, the amount of Electoral College votes would become proportionate to the number of citizens within a state in a 1:1 ratio to reflect the outcome of the popular vote. This can be done by using the Congressional District Method used in Nebraska and Maine, (http://news.psu.edu/) where the states follow the popular vote within their districts, as opposed to a statewide popular vote. Then, the districts tally their votes to properly give a number of Electoral votes, in turn separating each electoral vote by candidate and changing the system so it does not reflect that of a winner-take-all scenario, but that of a split Electoral College
The Electoral College is an outdated system and should be abolished before it turns the tables of an election for the bad. This system of voting was developed in 1787 and has had a strong impact on American citizens for 230 years. The Electoral College was created to take power from over populated states and distribute it to the less populated states. It also serves a higher authority than the popular vote, which can alter the results of many elections. In the 230 years of this system being in action, 4 elections have been modified to set the victor as someone who the population did not want.
This mechanism is usually considered to be controversial because of its impact on the presidential elections. Even though the Electoral College is a very frequent target of criticism, there are many people who still support it. The fact that the arguments presented by both sides are from different perspectives and contradictory makes it very difficult to reach any form of an acceptable consensus. One of the main arguments used by the supporters to prove the importance of the Electoral College is stressing its long tradition in connection with its role in the federal system.
According to Source D, All states are guaranteed at least 3 votes in the Electoral College, regardless of size, and only after this is populace considered. This disproportionate distribution radically skews the power in the favor of small states. Low population states like Wyoming for example, have one congressional representative for every 200,000 people, while states with high populations, such as Texas, have only one congressional member for every 670,000 people. Furthermore, consider the case of the all-or-nothing allocation issue. In this method of election, a state gives all of its votes to the candidate who garners the largest plurality of the popular vote in that state, regardless of the proximity of the difference in popular vote.
America's founding fathers were obviously incredibly intelligent. In addition to composing the masterful works of writing that sculpted The United States, they also planned and arranged a system to elect the president unlike any other on Earth. Wary of human nature, the Fathers avoided implementing a simple majority election, and instead developed the electoral college. This system of voting for the president has seen its share of disputes and critics, yet it remains relatively unchanged since its first uses. Those that oppose the electoral college do so because it represents the states unfairly, it has a negative effect on voter turnout, and it occasionally fails to elect a president that represents the majority.
Along with that, why would a voter feel their vote matters when candidates barely campaign in their state? Presidential candidates tend to ignore states they know they either have no chance of winning or are guaranteed to win in. Another argument against the electoral college is that small states are overrepresented. For example, a voter in Wyoming has almost quadruple voting power than a voter in California. California has 1 electoral vote per 712,000 people while Wyoming has 1 electoral vote per 195,000 people.
Regardless of the states’ population, small states such as Vermont and Wyoming are automatically guaranteed to have two electoral votes . Even Though they have a smaller population, but individual votes in those states weigh more than those in large states like Florida. In addition to that, small states also have representatives. Some argue that the Electoral College will prevent reckless votes by giving the option to choose educated electors who are more likely to vote intelligently. Although it’s true that the people can be not well-informed about the matter and they can make bad decisions sometimes, but that should not take away their voice in electing the president.