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 …show more content…
In Document C, Samples provides a federalist argument for supporting the electoral college by stating that it gives states an important role in choosing the president and thus supporting a fundamental principle of our democracy. The problem with Sample’s argument is that the electoral college is in essence undemocratic. We know that the electoral college is undemocratic because not only are small states over represented but a citizens vote can be weighted more or less depending on the state in which they reside in. In Document F, we are told what happens in case of a tie or no one winning the electoral vote. In case of this situation occurring then the House of Representatives will decide on who becomes president where state representatives will all get an equal vote. At first glance this doesn’t seem like a bad thing, everyone gets an equal say, right? Wrong! This means that Wyoming which has a population of about 500,000 voters will have an the exact same say in presidency as California which has a population of 35 million voters. Essentially, highly populated states will find that their individual votes count proportionality less. In Document D, we are shown an example in which we can visually see how one citizens vote weighs more heavily than others depending on the state. While Illinois has a larger population than all twelve states and D.C. depicted …show more content…
In Document G, show us a Chart in which depicts that the candidate who wins the popular vote never wins the electoral vote. So, the candidate who receives more votes from the public never wins the presidency. So, why even campaign if the goal is to win less votes than your opponent so you don’t win the popular vote but win the presidency? In Document A, it shows us that any candidate could win the 270 votes by winning only eleven states. These eleven states are; California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (29), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14). 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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Consequently, by having an Electoral College, this is not the case. “Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president.” (Document F). This means, that if the Electoral College was to tie, the House of Representatives would choose our President, making our votes somewhat meaningless and our opinions tossed to the side.
For many years, America’s voting system has been criticized, with the main point of interest being the Electoral College. Some say that the Electoral College is necessary to streamline and simplify the voting process, while others say that it is outdated and takes away power from American citizens. After investigating the subject, it is clear that the Electoral College should be abolished due to the three major defects its critics find in the system; its undemocratic nature, its tendency to give small states’ votes too much power, and its disastrous effects on third-party candidates. The first, and possibly largest, defect in the Electoral College is its undemocratic nature. A professor of political science once said that “the Electoral College violates political equality” (Edwards 453).
Walter E. Williams discuss how Hillary Clinton blamed the electoral college for her losing the presidential election. Williams stated that many individuals believed that the electoral college is dangerous when it comes to American politics. Individuals also claims that there are three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people in the state of Wyoming which was another factor that weight in the presidential election. In California, one electoral vote equals 715,000 people. Williams also stated that there a lot of individual who complain about using the electoral college since they believe that it’s undemocratic.
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.
According to Document C, it protects the rights of states with smaller populations. Many states, like Montana and Wyoming, would never have had enough representation to have any power, but with the Electoral College, they have a say in the election of the president. This follows the same idea as the reason to divide Congress into two houses. The Electoral College also prevents unqualified people from becoming president. As described by Document E, using the winner-take-all method doesn’t give any votes to candidates who are not given the majority of votes, the ones most likely to be candidates for splinter parties.
On document C, the text says, “It is designed to promote good government and legislation that forwards the common good of a large and diverse nation” (Document C), “It has formed our political parties, moderated our more extreme elements and forged the presidential campaigns that have given direction to our ship of state” (Document C). This here explains that the Electoral College is designed to promote good government and legislation to progress from our distinct nation. This comes to the closure of that the Founding Fathers created this for the common good of our nation and it promotes many elements that shape America as we see it
It has thus organised a political system which allows States to be quite independent, having many rights and powers, including the making of their own Constitution... The Federal system impacts the way American citizens vote ; the Electoral College results in it. However, according to some people, the Electoral College is an obstacle to freedom of choice and liberty of expression for the electors. Then, in what extend the Electoral College could act as a brake on democracy? On the one hand, the pros Electoral College, as William Kimberling (Deputy Director FEC office of Election Administration), point to that « important political powers are reserved to States » since they are represented « according the size of their population ».
They would ignore the less populated areas in between. They also argue that it would be dangerous and unnecessary to replace a system that has functioned for over 200 years. Proponents of the Electoral College system defend it because they believe that the Electoral College contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be President, enhances the status of minority interests, contributes to the political stability of the nation, and maintains a federal system of government. Proponents say that the voters of even small miniorties in a State may make the difference between winning all of the State’s electoral votes or none of the State’s electoral votes. They argue that the original design of the federal system was thought out and wisely debated.
The Electoral College system, in our government today, is made up of a winner-take-all system. The winner take all system demonstrates that whichever candidate that receives the most votes wins all of the electoral points and the other candidate receives nothing. The Electoral College system enacts the candidates of both parties to only visit the larger states, in which they know they will most likely receive the most electoral points. This is not technically fair because each state is not getting proper representation. When states disagree, with one candidate’s views on a particular issue, they can swing and vote for the other candidate causing the other candidate to alter their approach to win back the state.
America was molded by a group of individuals who felt that their voice was being drowned out by a tyrannical monarchy. After the revolution, this was resolved by creating a system that attempted to allow all people to have a say in the country’s government. The Electoral College was established as a representative way for the citizens of America to elect a leader; however, many are not satisfied with the results.
Contrary to popular belief, when it comes to voting for president, the United States runs on an indirect democracy. This means that we do not directly choose our president; the electoral college is rather an example of federalism, both the Feds and the States are involved in the process. It is a collection of 538 votes that determine who the President will be: 100 senators, 2 per state, and 438 representatives, distributed by the population. These 538 votes in the Electoral College are divided among the states. Each state, no matter how populous or not, starts off with three votes.
The Electoral College system the founding fathers devised helps to balance out the power of the large, populous states. This system forces candidates to campaign in all states since they all carry some sway in the elections (“Understanding the Presidential Election”). However, other issues present themselves as well, like states with large independent voters that can be swayed and the issue that a candidate can lose the popular vote and win the election. The first issue is that states that are equally divided between democrats and republicans and hold a large number of electoral votes like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are considered swing states. (“Understanding the Presidential Election”)
Being a person of politics yourself, you of all people should know that many compromises have been made over the course of the establishment of the United States. However, some of the compromises, like the electoral college, were made because of factors in the past and are now not needed in today’s modern democracy. While the electoral college once worked as a compromise in the past, it is an archaic system that unfairly represents the votes of citizens all across the nation. A popular vote should instead be utilized to fairly choose the people of power in this country and would better represent voters’ opinions. In implementing the electoral college, most states’ votes either go to one candidate or the other, leading to candidates to only campaign in swing states (Bradford Plumer 13).
The electoral college is a process the founding fathers established in the constitution with the intent to create a safeguard between the population and the selection of a president, and to give extra power to smaller states. However, based on the information presented in the articles the electoral college should be abolished as it violates our right of political equality, and fails to represent a third, independent, party in any election. Although there are many reasons to abolish the electoral college, the principal reason to take action would be the result of an obvious violation of our right to be politically equal. As shown in the chart provided (Doc D) 12 of the lowest populated states and the District of Columbia have almost the
(Black, 2012) So, while it is clear that the Electoral College was set up to ensure all states have a voice, it now seems to have the ability to take away the voice of the people. It is necessary to look at our voting process and make the necessary changes needed to ensure the process of electing our President represents the voice of the people. By switching to a majority vote we ensure that the voice of all people are not only heard, but are represented equally, which is how it should be under the one-person, one-vote