The Pros And Cons Of Electoral College

In my own words some of the pros and cons of the Electoral College are as followed and explained. My pros are that it maintains the federalist system, and allows for minority interests to be represented. It helps maintain the federalist system by keeping all of the branches of government equal. It helps allow for minority interests to be represented by helping the interest and have the ability to be represented and backed up by bigger parties to help get votes. My cons of the Electoral College are that is does not reflect the popular vote, and lowers voter turnout.

Quiz #3 The Electoral College is a complicated and confusing system. It was created by the Constitution and is extremely outdated. The Founders wanted the the president to be selected by the elite of the nation instead of by the people.

The Electoral College was made because the first leaders did not want a government where only the majority of its people ruled. They thought that it would be unfair. They believed that a pure democracy would destroy the country. There are two parts in the voting process. The first part is democratic.

This week’s lesson gave me more clarity on the-the Electoral College. It was confusing at first to hear that the popular vote does not win an election. Bush lost the popular votes, but won the electoral vote in 2000, cleared by the Supreme Court (POLS201). I think it is better for the candidate to worry about the crucial electoral votes than the popular votes.

People are not necessary informative of the voting system right now, the truth is that we, as voters, are not getting our votes counted like they should be. Even if we vote, if our choice of candidacy's number of votes are more than the opposed candiddate's number of votes, clearly, the state's vote is for the candidate with a lot of votes. Now let's say we have 47% and the opposed candidate has 53%. That 47% means nothing because the 53% has outnumbered our choice of candidacy which mean a big lost for us. Which clearly is unjust for the American voters.

The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. Trans-regional appeal is when a presidential candidate tries to appeal to all or more than one region. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. For example, “So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his popularity in states that he knows he will.” The Electoral College makes it so that presidential candidates have to campaign in more than one region to get more support.

Should the President be Elected by Popular Vote? It is the year 1824, the two main candidates for president are John Quincy Adams against Andrew Jackson. Jackson has raked in 153,544 popular votes and 99 electoral votes. Adams has received 108,740 popular votes and 84 electoral votes.

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.

Whether or not the electoral college should remain in the voting process is an often debated topic. It’s debated that the popular vote should determine who the president is and I believe that this is the fairest thing to do. If the electoral college is replaced by just going by the popular vote, it will more accurately represents American citizen’s verdict on who the next president will be. Presently, in most states, the candidate to get the most votes gets all of the electoral votes that the state can give.

Federal Amendment: Article II Presidency The 2000 election between Bush and Gore adopted the nickname of the stolen election of 2000 due to the outcome that led to Bush’s win without having the popular vote. The possibility of the loser of the popular vote to potentially still win the electoral vote and overall the presidential candidacy is an issue. The framers of the constitution included the Electoral College in order to serve as a common ground between the states. However, this system is flawed in terms of the regulation of one person equal one vote.

“The right to vote gives every eligible American a voice in our electoral politics. There's too much at stake to stay silent as this right is eroded. ”(Martin O'Malley).Voting is supposed to be a guaranteed right to all but in reality, this is not the case. It is to be expected that the political parties running for office enjoy the process behind the Electoral College. The political parties influence the American citizens to vote for their candidate as the next President in order to benefit from the candidate's power.