The candidate would only have to convince the fifty biggest cities in order to win the election. I agree with the first article in the sense that we should keep the electoral college, but get rid of the popular vote. The popular vote does very little when it comes to the presidential election, though the electors chosen by the popular vote are supposed to vote for their party's candidates, they do not always do so. I also agree that the electors should be those who reside in each state and chosen at random. That way, the president is more so chosen by the people instead of those who "represent the people".
I heard of the Electoral College and Popular votes before but never really understand what it entailed. Voting is a process not just a checkmark to a name on a ballot. The United States Consitution specially states legislators decide how electors are chosen in their states. They electors then pledge their support to the candidate that we have chosen. It's crazy to think that my vote for the person I think is best for the job isn't actually counted.
Perhaps the most common argument supporters of the College make is that it protects the smaller states. Because of the two electors each state receives regardless of population, electors in Wyoming represent fewer people than electors in California. Without the Electoral College, supporters claim, a candidate could run solely in the most heavily populated states and win, while ignoring rural states. This is the main reason why, even though there have been calls to abolish the Electoral College, it is unlikely to happen. The less populated states have too much power in amending the Constitution.
Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? 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.
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?
Congressmen aren’t elected through a slate of people voted by citizens to vote for citizens, so why is the president? If the government is truly to be by the people, why can this happen? If the answer is, it isn’t, that’s not the way the founders intended it, then we shouldn’t use a hastily created system made by people who came from a time when the common man was illiterate. It was a system created because the founders believed that the average person couldn’t truly be trusted electing the leader, so they created a system to separate their decisions from how the president is picked. Whether or not the founders were
Apart from this uneven distribution the system of “winner takes all” also discourages people from going out to vote. For example, some Republican lives in a Democratic state that always goes Democratic when it comes to elections, they tend to not go out and vote because they know their vote won’t make a difference because of this “winner takes all” system. In the past 4 elections there has been an average voter outcome which is all around the same, but there is still a chunk of people who don’t go out and vote. Another reason people may not go out to vote is the unfairness of elections. For example, in this past election the two candidates were Donald Trump (Republican) and Hillary
Whether it helps us or not it still puts a huge amount of stress on us as the school year goes on and we get more homework. Many teens already have enough on their plate with getting good grades, working if they have a job, and extracurricular activities. Kirkwood High had noticed more students were seeking counselors for emotional and social help towards the end of the school year, so they started to give no homework on weekends to relieve students and teachers of stress. The students seeking the counselors for emotional
Out of the 241 million Americans eligible to vote in the 2012 election, a mere 67% actually participated (Rose). By providing political labels, they create unity in values and makes politicians accountable for their legislations. Assuming that Republicans remain a conservative party and the Democrats remain a liberal party, Americans are more likely to support an individual party. Individualists have the opportunity to run as president, but have difficulty doing so because it is difficult to gain support. Political parties are not prescribed by the Constitution but are critical to success of America.
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.
To me this makes voting it senseless to me since the candidate that the American people have voted for will not get elected because of the Electoral College. The American voting system needs to be change to whoever wins the popular vote should win the election because that is who the American voters have
For instant, if I was a Republican this would be a great opportunity to lead in an election. Since most of the people voting Democrat, will possibly be turned away because they were unable to provide the required documentation by law. However, if I was Democrat, this could be considered a hindrance for my supports to vote. I really don’t see the equality of how an individual can be allowed to vote by absentee vote if they are not on active military duty. For instance, college students, who are permitted to vote absentee.
If you have lived in Texas you would have to vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors. Anyone can be elected as the electors that are going to be voting for you. Voters can sometimes get confused about who to vote for and vote for the wrong candidate. Electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system candidates don 't spend time in states they don 't have a chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states.
In Feinberg’s book, she provides evidence of, “In about one-third of the state 's, laws require electors to cast their votes, known as electoral votes, for the candidate who won the vote of the people on Election Day” (43). Most states have laws that make them vote for the popular vote. In other states, it is just expected for them to vote for the most popular, although they may not.