Should the Electoral College be Abolished? Who really votes for the President, population or state? When the Constitutional Convention, they agreed on the fact that the leader must be chosen by a system using an Electoral College because they did not believe that voters had enough information on the candidates to make a good decision. An Electoral College is a system in which the president and vice president are chosen indirectly. Each state and the District of Columbia get one electoral vote for each of their senators and representatives. A method is used, winner-take-all, where whichever candidate wins the most votes in the state wins all of the state’s electoral votes. For a candidate to be elected president he must receive a majority, …show more content…
Sometimes candidates win the popular vote but not the electoral vote. This has happened four times in American History, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. (Doc G). In 1876 Hayes was elected president by electoral votes, even though Tilden won in popular vote. (Doc G) This is undemocratic because Tilden won the popular vote with 245,448 more votes but Hayes won the electoral vote with 1 more vote. The people were more in favor of Tilden but Hayes won the electoral vote, therefore making him president even though the people did not choose him. The popular vote does not really matter because a candidate can win the popular vote and not the electoral, which is not fair, for the people and the candidate. Voting is more dependent on states than than what the people want. People argue that the Electoral College gives states an important role in choosing the president which supports democracy. (Doc C) But if a person lost by a couple of popular votes in California, which has 55 electoral votes, then they will receive no electoral votes to show for their efforts. (Doc A) Just because a candidate lost by a couple popular votes does not mean they should lose all of the electoral votes; people voted for the candidate so that should be taken into account. This shows that individuals do not really have a say in the …show more content…
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) Also if there were to be a tie in electoral votes, it would go to the House of Representatives, so all states would have one vote, which would further violate political equality. (Doc F) This shows that voting power is not
The way it’s set up makes the people think they’re choosing the president yet in reality it’s the slate of electors who are choosing who they want in office. They basically give the people that look up to the higher ups false hope by leading them on. “For example Hayes lost with popularity, yet won the election (popular vote-4, 036,572 and electoral vote- 185). How?
Based on the pie charts, the reader is shown that presidents that did win the popular vote, did not win by that large of a margin the Independent candidate and other major-party candidate split the votes. The Electoral College only shows a larger win ratio. Abolishing the electoral college would “...encourage single-issue ideologues and eccentric millionaires to just into presidential contests” (Document E). Although these people tend to run anyways, the electoral college is a way to ensure that the people with no political background or people that do not qualify as president will not win. The Electoral College was originally built for a world that did not have mass media and a way for people among the U.S. to communicate, but presently, the Electoral College serves as a way to ensure
Do the American citizens actually have a voice to choose the next president or is it illusion of freedom? Are the president ready been selected and, consequently, the government convinced the citizens that their vote counts and that they still have some influence over the political process? Is the election fair for everyone or is it nothing but a Hollywood production? Since the beginning of the American political history, our founding fathers established a system in the constitution called the electoral college that choose the next president instead of the citizens because they believe that the citizens were not educated enough to know what is best for the United States. Throughout history, the electoral college created an argument on whether
Still, no. The Electoral College doesn’t actually level the playing field for all the states, since the electoral votes of a state directly correlate with population size. For instance, the state of Illinois has a population of 12,830,632, and 20 electoral votes, while Wyoming has a population of 563,626 and only 3 electoral votes (Doc D). Even if Wyoming was 100% red, with no outliers, they’re still only going to have 3 electoral votes. The even greater inequality, however, is that the smaller states are overrepresented, while 3 electoral votes to a population of 563,626 may seem accurate, Wyoming is not the only state in this situation. If you were to add Alaska, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming
The distribution of electoral votes acts as though less people live where they do, and more people live where they don’t, meaning that in the vast majority of states citizens are either over- or underrepresented (Document A). By beginning to distribute electoral votes based on Congressional representatives, the Electoral College gives an unfair advantage in voting power to citizens of smaller states, and reduces the voting power held by larger states. In short, the Electoral College essentially deems that some residents are worth more than others. The elections of 1980 and 1992 must once again be taken into consideration as, between them, 25,463,258 votes, cast by citizens of the United States, were completely dismissed by the Electoral College (Document B). While neither of the candidates would have won, the fact that the votes of citizens can be so blatantly ignored is troubling.
Throughout American history, there were five cases where the electoral college votes did correspond with the popular vote during the elections of: Jackson, Tilden, Cleveland, Gore, and Clinton (Doc. G). When the founders gathered together in 1787 to write the Constitution, they were worried about many topics and did not want the Constitution to fail just as the Articles of Confederation. They considered many topics and thoroughly wrote a remarkable Constitution, excluding the slavery of African Americans, they did not want the government to be too strong and also did not want the people to have too much input. They greatly questioned: Who will choose the President? Therefore, they created the electoral college that is merely based on population
In contrast, according to the Huffington Post, “In Nebraska and Maine… the top vote-getter in those states wins two electoral votes… while the remaining electoral votes are allocated congressional district by congressional district.” (“What is the Electoral College?”). In turn, Nebraska and Maine allow for candidates from both parties to receive Electoral College votes through proportional representation. On the other hand, with the winner-takes-all system, presidential candidates are more likely to spend their time trying to win over states like California and New York because of their massive population and number of Electoral votes. California has the most Electoral votes in the country with 55, so it is important for candidates to win over Californians.
Small states are extremely over represented. The Electoral
So your vote counts as a fraction to the real amounts of votes in that state. If you’d vote for a candidate and the rest of your state votes for another candidate your vote is almost as if it doesn’t exist. These reasons show why the electoral college should be
The battle for the Electoral College vote is usually a tough one and it reflects upon a supposed popular majority. The reason it’s difficult is because often times less populated states are over-represented in the winner-take-all type of situation, when they win the Electoral College the chances of them winning the election for President skyrockets. However, if there is a tie the House of Representatives will chose who is best based upon the top three candidates.
Each state’s electoral number is equal to its congressional delegation (Mov. 2), which is the number of members of Congress plus two for the senators. The addition of the two senators in electoral value causes the votes of a common person in different states to be unequal. In a state that has a large population, the senatorial value makes a minor difference, but in a small state such as South Dakota, this addition causes its electoral value to be tripled, as cited in Document 2, a description of the Electoral College system during the 2000 election by a Duke professor. Thus, a common vote in a smaller state is worth more electoral value—proportionally—than a common vote in a large state. Even as a supporter of the Electoral College, Document 3, an excerpt from a conservative magazine, admits this imbalance between states, citing that small states are the main advocates for the process.
First, with the specifications of the electoral college there only needs to be 270 electoral votes to a person for them to win. With this rule only 12 states need to be won CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, and NJ(DOC A) and this is only a part of the overall population of America. While
The electoral college also helps the small states have an opinion that actually is heard in the presidential election. In class, it was discussed that Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota together, though their combined population is less than that of Oklahoma, each of those states has three electoral votes, whereas Oklahoma just has seven votes. Going by electoral votes, a candidate would have a better chance at winning the election if they won over Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota versus Oklahoma. With the electoral college, a candidate could win over all thirty-nine small states and win the entire election. Though the candidate could be supported by less than a quarter of the population,
In Document D, we are shown an example in which we can visually see how one citizens vote weighs more heavily than others depending on the state. While Illinois has a larger population than all twelve states and D.C. depicted
The Electoral College system the founding fathers devised helps to balance out the power of the large, populous states. This system forces candidates to campaign in all states since they all carry some sway in the elections (“Understanding the Presidential Election”). However, other issues present themselves as well, like states with large independent voters that can be swayed and the issue that a candidate can lose the popular vote and win the election. The first issue is that states that are equally divided between democrats and republicans and hold a large number of electoral votes like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are considered swing states. (“Understanding the Presidential Election”)