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
In fact, over time more than 700 constitutional amendments to change the Electoral College system have been proposed. The Electoral College system distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy. Electoral votes tends to over-represent people in rural States. This is because the number of Electors for each State is consist of the number of members it has in the House of Representative, which overall reflects the state 's population size. It also consist of the number of members it has in the Senate, which is always two regardless of the State 's population.
The electoral college is a system that gives representatives to states to vote in favor of what the people want in that state. Each state is guaranteed one representative out of the 435 there are. The remaining 385 are distributed into the states by population size and how the population of that state increases or decreases. This is seen as unfair because the smaller states have the same power to influence the election outcome as the states with more people. The smaller states have more advantage because their representatives, represent a smaller amount of people, while larger states representatives must represent what a much larger amount of people in that state want.
These standards make it feasible for both contender to get discretionary votes from Nebraska and Maine, dissimilar to the victor take-all framework in the other 48 states. In the event that nobody gets a dominant part of appointive votes, the decision is tossed to the U.S. Place of Representatives. The main three contenders go head to head with every state making one choice. Whoever wins a larger part of states wins the race. The procedure is the same for the Vice Presidency, aside from that the U.S. Senate makes that choice.
By the same token, President Obama won the following election, 2012, and collected all the swing states. Keeping in mind the one exception to the rule swing states have a history of making a difference which makes them extremely important along with seeming inability for them to be
2008 election was the first in which black voter turnout exceeded that of whites. The size of the gap in black and white voter participation has fluctuated since the mid-1960s, with black participation ranging from 79% to 87% of white participation between 1964 and 1996. In 2000, the black participation rate was 92% that of the white rate. The gap narrowed dramatically to 99% in 2008, the year Barack Obama ran for president as the first black major-party nominee(pew). In the 2012 election, black turnout exceeded white turnout by 67% to 64%.United State finally have the first ever black president in 2008.
Although the popular votes do not determine the elector votes, it almost always happens where the electors vote for whom the popular votes resulted in. This is one of the many reasons why the Electoral College is unfair, past elections have shown that bigger populations have more electoral votes, concluding that smaller states’ votes become insignificant. This leaves people in question, is the Electoral College now based on where you live? Even though the purpose of the electoral college is to ultimately decide who will occupy the position of the president, there was an Electoral Commision of elite representatives, established to determine the 19th President, because of the situation the electoral college caused. The commission included five representatives from the House, another five associates from the Senate and five justices from the Supreme Court.
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
Thus, a “top two” primary ballot can potentially have a dozen candidates from several different parties listed on it. After voters participate, all the votes are counted and only the top two candidates, regardless of their party, can proceed to the general election. In short, “top two” primaries allow every eligible voter to participate, but only permits the two most popular candidates to proceed to a general election. While no reform is perfect, “top two” nonpartisan primaries successfully minimizes, and even eliminates, many of the major problems associated with a closed primary party system. Arguably, the biggest problem with the primary system many states currently possess is that they result in the nomination of ideologically extreme candidates, who are not politically aligned with the majority of their electorate.
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?
A candidate must reach a majority of 270 to win the election. There are many arguments for why the Electoral College is still effective - it strengthens the unity of the country by preventing the domination of an area with a higher population over rural areas. It maintains stability of our political environment by encouraging our bipartisan system, as it makes it very difficult for new parties to win enough popular votes to gain any traction in an election. Most importantly, it maintains a balance between state and federal governments, where the states have the power to select their own
If the people were to elect the president directly, certain situations/problems wouldn’t be as analyzed like the Electoral College analyzes it. (McGraw Hill pg.385) If we were to get rid of the electoral college the states with a higher population would dominate the elections, therefore, leaving the small rural states unnoticed or with no voice. That would be very unfair towards rural areas, the present system gives the state’s power more strength and secures our federal system’s strength. (McGraw Hill pg.385) In order to make our voice be heard toward the candidate of our choice we should participate in campaigns as well as voting. The majority of our population doesn’t take the time to get politically involved and vote, making their opinion towards our government overlooked.
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).
The Electoral College is a crucial component of how the President of The United States is elected. The votes cast by the Electoral College can outweigh the popular vote of the American public, so it would be consequential for the American public to be aware of the Electoral College and have at least a basic understanding of how it works. This, however, is sadly not the case. Even some of today’s elected officials are not up to date on how the government works. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute ran a poll of twenty-five hundred randomly selected Americans, out of the members of that poll that were elected officials only fifty-three percent of them answered correctly when asked if they knew what the Electoral College’s function was.
One reason that the framers of the constitution included the Electoral College is because they believed people will only vote for people in their own states and basically play favorites. However, in modern democracy it is evident that this system no longer benefits entirely the people of the states’. It must be modified because the restrictions that vary state to state through each election is now unnecessary in today’s society. In a presidential election an electoral vote should count the same as a popular vote no matter the circumstances. The states that remain mutual in a presidential candidacy election, where the populations are evenly divided causes an issue of winning the state