Granted a candidate would almost never win all eleven states because the majority of these states tend to be predominantly democrat or republic, the fact that only eleven states alone can determine who 's the president puts to question the value of the remaining 39 states. Document B, explains the winner-take-all method and how unfair the method is to third party candidates. The chart shows how even though both third party candidates won about 7% and 19% of the popular vote but won 0% of the electoral vote. In Document E, Will states “the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation tends to produce a winning margin that looks like national decisiveness” There are over 300 million people in the United States, but just 538 people get to decide
Electoral systems are one of the most solid democratic foundations and its stability demonstrates that they are intrinsically conservative. Historically, there have only been very minor adjustments made to the rules and regulations surrounding the administration of elections such as amendments to the laws governing election broadcasts, constituency redistricting and financial disclosure (Norris, 1997). However, fundamental reform on the basic electoral system (or in other words the way votes are translated into seats) has been very recent and rare. In fact, only in the last two decades has electoral reform been discussed due to a rising concern over government legitimacy. The United Kingdom is a prime example, as many of their parties and
A democracy is where citizens elect representatives of their choice. With the 22nd Amendment in place, citizens have limitations on who they are allowed to elect. All presidents after Roosevelt were taken off of the ballot after serving their second term. “If the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?" (Jonathan Zimmerman).
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.
Another silly thing all the founding fathers missed in the Articles is that the continental congress couldn’t enforce any laws. Which in so many words meant that congress could make all the laws they wanted but none of the states had to follow it due to the state government having much more power than the federal government. All the flaws in the Articles in confederation had made many things happen such as Shay’s rebellion and of course the adaptation of our new government which took ten months for the first nine states to ratify the rest of course came one by
In 2012, it was possible to win the chosen school by winning the common vote in as few as 10 states. Designated votes change considering masses, then again, so this number wavers from race to race. In the authentic background of the presidential choices, there have been an unobtrusive bundle races in which the contender who won the representative vote did not win the well known vote. John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, Bill Clinton and George W. Greenery won their specific races despite a minority of the renowned vote. Discretionary College has a tendency to make clear victors.
Each elector must cast one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to win the electoral college, and be nominated as President of the United States, the candidate must gain 270 of the 538 electoral votes. In an instance where no candidate receives the 270 votes needed, the House of Representatives
After the fifteenth Amendment was passed, a number of states adopted grandfather clause which allowed only adult males to vote whose grandfather is eligible to vote. African American women also struggled from exercising the franchise to voting. Because of poll tax, less wealthy citizens were discouraged from registering.
Jackson was previously known as a national hero, someone who did what they could to ensure the security of the nation’s people. He was also an experienced politician especially in the West. By running for president in 1824 for the first time, the voting process changed as more and more people started to get involved. According to “Methods of Electing Presidential Electors: 1816 to 1836”, 4 years before Jackson’s first run for office Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maine were the only states that used the people to vote for the president. When Jackson entered campaigning, he relied on the opinion of the people which in turn people voted to make their voice known.
The Amendments that led up to the 24th were just as significant, but brought no real change. This was huge for the equal rights movement and gave African-Americans a real opportunity to vote and have a voice in politics to one day change the lives of them and their children to come. Poll taxes were a capital tax that applied equally to adults. They were a decent form of revenue for some governments until the mid-1800s. Poll taxes are often closely associated with voting rights in the United States.
Neither the Constitution nor Federal decision laws force balloters to vote in favor of their gathering 's applicant. All things considered, twenty-seven states have laws on the books that oblige balloters to vote in favor of their gathering 's applicant if that hopeful gets a dominant part of the state 's prevalent vote. In 24 expresses, no such laws apply, however regular practice is for balloters to vote in favor of their gathering 's candidate. an applicant could lose the prominent vote and win the constituent school vote. This happened to George W. Shrubbery in 2000, who lost the prevalent vote to Al Gore by .51% yet won the discretionary school
Swing States and There Influence “A Democrat who lives in Kansas will never cast a meaningful vote in a presidential election in his or her life,” according reporter Ed Grabianowski. With this extreme statement Grabianowski is relaying the idea that in a democratic majority, like Kansas, one single persons vote isn’t significant. However, in contrast, states with where there is no definite majority each individual vote is central to which party the state will fall. These “important” states are called swing states.
However, the electoral college does not make candidates care more about small states. Instead, it makes candidates focus on so called, “battleground states”, ignoring the rest of the states. In the 2004 election, almost all of campaign costs were spent in 17 states. “Wisconsin, another “battleground state” received a total of thirty-one candidate visits … ignored states included Texas and Illinois.” (source D)
Being that states get a select number of electoral votes, in most cases, the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular vote. Electors have the power to vote for whomever they want even though ultimately they are supposed to represent the popular vote. Another problem with the Electoral College is it gives voters no incentive to vote. Being that the Electoral College votes elects the president, it discourages voters in states to not vote in
Even today, the Electoral College ensures that “the preferences of minority voters count for almost nothing” (Hoffman). The popular “winner take all” system of distributing electoral votes at the state level fundamentally disenfranchises the conflicting opinions of minority votes (Hoffman). In alternative systems of distributing electors proportionally or using the national popular vote, the ballots cast by minority voters across the country would significantly add to one candidate’s total. In this manner, the effects of the Electoral College with regard to suppressing minority votes is appallingly similar to the types of political gerrymandering banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Kelkar)