To What Extent Should the United States Restructure its Electoral College System? : States With the 2016 election in the books, the United States has elected a candidate that lost the popular vote by over two million votes. This is the second time in the twenty first century that this has occurred. In such a democratic nation, the ability to win the important office of the presidency without popular consent raises a few concerns about the two hundred and forty year old system. In a democracy, the voices of the states and their respective populations must be heard. With that in mind, the Electoral College has allowed the minority to rule the majority. As a result, the fairness and the legitimacy of this system is being examined. THE ELECTORAL …show more content…
Benjamin Bolinger, the author of, “Point: Abolishing the Electoral College,” believes that America was founded on the idea of majority rule. He asserts that the Electoral College defies these ideals through the winner-take-all system, which has allowed candidates to lose the popular vote but still earn a ticket to the white house. The author believes that the President should be chosen the same way as every other elected official, by a popular vote. In a popular vote, the majority would rule and every person’s voice would matter (179). In addition, the author points out that America was also founded on the phrase, “no taxation without representation,” and yet four million United States citizens are excluded entirely from voting in the election. Citizens in United States territories, such as Puerto Rico, have a profound interest in presidential elections because they determine the fate of their nation. However, the United States’ territories are not allowed to vote; they have no representation. The author concludes that a popular vote would better represent every United States citizen. This system would also encourage third parties due to the decreased importance of a state’s party alignment (180). At the end of his paper, Bolinger acknowledges that this solution might not fix all of the problems but will at least get America’s …show more content…
Vincy Fon author of, “Electoral College Alternatives and U.S. Presidential Elections,” presents two possible allocation systems. The first system, called the perfect proportional allocation system, would convert the state’s popular votes into the corresponding percentage of electoral votes. This system would require the use of decimals and the exact number of popular votes cast. The system would have to be highly efficient and closely monitored. Due to the preciseness, the presidential race would be hard to cover because of the large number of decimal places (45). The second system applies the same principles as the first but instead utilizes whole numbers and rounding to get an easier and more definable score. Both of these systems focus more on the will of the people and closely reflect the popular vote (45-46). This article is helpful because it has very specific and distinct plans to revise the Electoral College rather than just abolishing it. The author’s language seems to be unbiased and statistically driven. Fon’s purpose is to illustrate some alternatives to the Electoral College to make it a more fair
Though unlikely to be at the forefront of any 2016 presidential platforms, the Electoral College is a widely contested issue among partisans, many of who believe that a better method exists for selecting the President of the United States. This anti-Electoral College sentiment is also present among Americans nationwide, Republicans and Democrats alike. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 61% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats would vote to do away with the Electoral College. In today’s contentious political atmosphere, in which Republicans and Democrats are constantly at odds with one another, any level of agreement between the parties clearly indicates that a change needs to be made. Changes are already starting to occur at the state level,
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.
While there are valid arguments against the Electoral College, it remains a vital component of the American political system. One significant criticism of the Electoral College is that it increases the likelihood of a political candidate securing the presidency without receiving a large majority of the vote. Given this, people must remember why the founding fathers proposed the Electoral College. It was a way to ensure that all states, not just the ones with the most people, have a say in the election (Kirch). Without the Electoral College, candidates will be slightly more motivated to run for office in less populated states because such states' challenges and needs will likely go unmet.
The recent presidential election has had a controversy on the abolishment of the Electoral College. With many citizens not understanding whether or not their vote is actually being counted during the election, more debates have risen on if popular vote should be the deciding factor of presidential determinations instead. Popular vote is an actual count of individual votes from all states in America while the Electoral College is a measure of the House of Representatives and Senators choosing directly who the president should be (Kimberling, 1992). The reasoning behind why the Electoral College was the determining factor for president was declared by the founding fathers decades ago to ensure equality (Pavia, 2011). Recently, critics have expressed that this system is not as equal as predetermined.
Moreover, the proportional plan would remove the advantage currently given to small states, which are guaranteed at least three electors regardless of their population size. This could make small states less relevant in presidential elections, as candidates would focus on winning votes in larger states with more electoral votes. This could lead to smaller states feeling disenfranchised and marginalized in the political process. Additionally, the proportional plan could increase the likelihood of close elections and disputes over the validity of votes. With the current system, disputes in a single state are generally limited in scope and can be resolved by that state's authorities or the Supreme Court.
If America has been on the basis of “we the people” from when the preamble was written in the Constitution, how has it become just to use a political system that denies citizens their right to a vote that actually matters? This system is the electoral college. It is a method of indirect popular election of the President of the United States. That word “indirect” is a prime notion of why the electoral college has been the subject of persistent criticism and frequent proposals for reform. It has been seen in great times when the electoral college made an unjust decision in electing the president when their decision diverged from the nation's popular vote.
So, rather than basing the number of the electoral votes in each state according to its number of representatives and senators, the electoral votes would be based on the percentage of the “popular vote won”. Although the proponents of this plan argue that it retains the Electoral College vigor, “the results would be closer to the national popular vote outcome” (Ross, 2004). They also argue that, “the voices of minority voting groups would be reflected in the final election tally because even ballots cast for third-party candidates could be reflected in the national results” (Ross, 2004). Thus, it is also likely to happen that a presidential candidate can win the election without winning the popular but Ross claims that, it will happen less likely than the system that we have in present
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
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
From September 1st to September 17th, I asked 17 random students from the University of Texas at San Antonio if we should abolish the Electoral College. Out of my findings, I discovered that the majority of students were for the abolishment of the Electoral College. The results were relatively close with 58.82% of the respondents for abolishing the Electoral College and 41.18% for preserving it. However, there was a margin of error of 23.76%, and a 95% confidence interval of 35.06% to 82.58%.
As an encouragement to vote most of us have probably been told, “every vote counts” at some point in our lives. In reality, this is not true in presidential elections due to the Electoral College and what it does. The Electoral College has flaws in it that can prohibit the outcome of the election from accurately reflecting whom a majority the people of the country cast their vote for. Not only will he abolishment of the electoral college change the outcome of elections, it can change the whole campaign process and the way some people in less represented states feel about voting increasing voter turnout.
Every four years, the citizens of the United States of America elect a new president. Not everyone knows exactly how the president is elected. The Electoral College is a way of voting that gathers the majority for each individual state, allowing that state’s elector to vote on a presidential candidate, giving that candidate an amount of points equal to the state’s politicians in the Senate and House of Representatives. Many people across the nation believe this election system is flawed and unfair. Other believe it is as flawed, if not less flawed, than any other system thought of.
Despite the waning support for amending the constitution to alter the way American’s cast their ballots, throughout each election cycle media outlets discuss the fear surrounding the minority candidate, in terms of the popular vote, becoming the President. In an interesting article published by Forbes magazine just before the 2012 elections Taylor Broderick discusses the fifteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-sixth amendments and explains how these create a precedent for altering the U.S. voting system through amending the Constitution (Brodarick, 2012). He also argues that the Electoral College incites voter apathy in states which are not saturated with campaign efforts. In other words, people are more likely to participate in an election if they live in swing-states where candidates are actively campaigning. For these reasons, along with American’s historical opposition, Broderick believes politicians should gain public support for Congressional action, as Bayh did in the late 1960s, to throw out the current voting procedure.
In 1787, years after the founding of the United States, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself. The delegates understood that the need for a leader was necessary but still bitterly remembered how Britain abused of its power. The delegates agreed that the President and Vice President should be chosen informally and not based on the direct popular vote, thus gave birth to the Electoral College. The Electoral College is defined as “a body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president.” Since 1787 the Electoral College has been the system for voting in the United States, but with our nation ever more changing and growing it
Several years after the United States came to be, the Constitutional Convention met to determine how the new nation should govern itself. The delegates saw that it was crucial to have a president and vice president, but the delegates did not want these offices to reflect how the colonies were treated under the British rule. The delegates believed that the president’s power should be limited, and that he should be chosen through the system known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the electing of the president and vice president. Many citizens feel that the Electoral College goes against our nation’s principle of representative democracy, while others