If we look at most of our opinion when it comes to voting comes from the band wagon affect these days. Media often sways people’s perception on the candidate. I believe that voting doesn’t do us any good when it comes to electing the President of the United States of America or anyone elected to State Represenitive, Governor, or state local official. No matter who get the most popular vote or majority of the votes, the Electoral College always wins. 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.
In the past, the most efficient way to give citizens around the country an opportunity to vote was the electoral college, or so the founding fathers thought. Nonetheless, the electoral college should be abolished because citizens’ votes should all count equally all states should get the same attention from presidential candidates, and everyone’s voice should be heard. The electoral college system ultimately fails the citizens of bigger states because their votes don’t count as much as those in smaller states. How? Well, as previously mentioned, there’s 538 electors who are distributes
Also the best argument against the electoral college is the disaster factor. The state legislatures are responsible for picking electors, and those electors could defy the will of people. In some cases “faithless” electors deciding to vote for whoever they want,not what everyone agreed on. Just like in Hawaii. What if a state sends two electors to congress to
“A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” - Theodore Roosevelt” Do we need uneducated, random, and altogether unconstitutional forced votes clogging up our ballot? Those rallying for compulsory voting boast better representation of the lower class. If compulsory voting is so grand then please do explain why so many countries (the majority even.) don 't enforce or even avoid their compulsory voting laws in place. The lower class needs to be better represented, the middle class strengthened, more Americans need to vote, but forcing people to is not the answer.
The Process of Becoming President of The United States Are you a US citizen and are tired of seeing how The United States is run and want to change it yourself? If so then you might consider running for office of The President of The United States (POTUS). Some people might shy away from the idea of running for The President of The United States since it is a arguably the most important job in the whole nation. The first step into being a possible POTUS is to know the requirements. Technically there are only three requirements to be POTUS.
In the presidential election a candidate must receive a majority of Electoral College votes, a very difficult task for a party that is up against two of the most historically rooted and powerful parties in America. Although the third parties may be influential, their impact is very limited because “they rarely receive enough support to capture a state’s Electoral College votes” since “support is concentrated” (Hernnson, 3). This acts as a domino effect; if they cannot elect candidates to represent their party then they lose any type of recognition and political influence, let alone a place for their name on a voting ballot. Getting on the voting ballot itself can be an obstacle for third parties. The two major parties have a great advantage; they don’t have to worry about making it on the ballot in the first place because of their large following.
The election of 1796, John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson. The former won by only 3 single electoral college votes. In a highly competitive, controversial race filled with fake smiles and harsh glares, those votes made all the difference in the world to these two men and their running mates. Because George Washington refused a second term, political parties took root when election time came around. No one knew that this election in the early stages of Americas development would define the future of the United States of America.
The Electoral College determines the President and Vice-President of the United States. The Electoral College system also distinguishes the United States from other systems where the highest vote-getter automatically wins. This so-called "indirect election" process has been the subject of criticism and attempted reform, though proponents of it maintain that it ensures the rights of smaller states and stands as an important piece of American federalist
However, Kimberling points out in his article “The Electoral College” that if one is elected with a substantial lead in popular vote, they are insured to the have more electoral votes. If one has barely a lead in popular vote count, both candidates would have the support to effectively lead the nation. (Kimberling) Counting and recounting all of the votes would be an unnecessary waste of time when two nominees have nearly the same backing from the people. The article also predicts that “if we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the senate which represents states regardless of population?”(Kimberly) Therefore, the only way a person should be picked for the presidency is the Electoral College. Today, Americans throw away their constitution and founders who made the United States what it is today.
Tactical voting means an act of voting for a political party or a person that you would not usually support in order to prevent another party or person from winning. Next, STV provides a sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. The constituencies should have more sensible reflective towards the community’s feeling instead of being more incentive to campaign and
The main criticism that “the current two-party system gives too much power to the extremists in each party” (Wheelan, 2013, para. 2). When people are chosen by the party to run, in many cases they represent the extremist views held and become the mascot for the party. The current system is skewed so moderates, the people some say are essential to politics, are not chosen because they do not represent the party strongly enough. These extremist candidates help to discourage education of the intricacies of individual issues because voters are forced into accepting how the party views the issue, due to either voting due to the candidate 's party affiliation, or being forced into choosing the extremist that comes closest to their own personal beliefs.
We cannot let states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas decide the fate of our entire country simply because of their high population. The Electoral College’s opponents believe that it is an unfair way of doing things because it doesn’t necessarily make every vote count, but they may not realize that it lets every state have a say. The candidate with an absolute majority in each state receives the elector’s votes, therefore it really boils down to a popular election just on a state by state basis, rather than a national one. “The proposals to abolish the Electoral College are proposals to abolish the Federal principle in presidential elections”(Best). The Electoral College has history on it’s side, the system they use really works, it is the best option we have, and it needs to be
The people of each state vote for the electors who then cast their votes on the people’s behalf. “As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president” (Miller, J., 2008, February 11), yet that is less a result of the Electoral College and more a result of the way states allocate balloters. In every state except Maine and Nebraska, voters are honored on a champ take-all premise. So if a competitor wins a state by even a restricted edge, he or she wins the majority of the state 's discretionary votes. The winner take-all framework is not governmentally commanded; states are allowed to dispense their constituent votes as they wish (Miller, J., 2008, February 11).