That is a wait and see question, but the American voters have spoken loudly that they have no confidence in the current career politicians. And yet instead of listening to the American voters, the Republican Party desperately attempted to discredit the desires of the American voters, whom the career politicians were elected to represent and substitute their own desires. Is that anymore corrupt or dishonest than the numerous scandals effecting the country in the past eight years? How anything can be more disingenuous and in-american than engaging in activities, such as we have seen once Donald Trump received the necessary votes to be the candidate, than disregarding the wishes and votes of the American
The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other. With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) . But recently gerrymandering has become more controversial because people feel that it has taken away their rights as a voter and it swings the votes to one side by a big percentage.
The electors then cast the citizens’ votes for the candidate they prefer. For one to be elected as the President, the candidate needs to get the greatest number of votes. In order to evaluate whether this system is effective or not in the current situation of United States, we need to understand the goals of the setting up of the Electoral College to see if the system has served its purposes. In my opinion, I believe the Electoral College is not a good idea for the United States at the moment. The reasons will be discussed in the following passages.
Since the inception of our constitution in 1787, there has only been 4 elections where the Electoral College has allowed the future president-elect candidate to win the election, despite losing the popular vote. 4/57 elections is probably something that political scientists don’t lose sleep over, but it is a topic that is worth mentioning and discussing, especially after the controversial presidential election in 2000. From my point of view, I believe that the method we use in selecting our presidents is flawed and ineffective for a couple of reasons. First, the Electoral College has far fewer votes than the American people, yet their vote has a lot more meaning. With 538 delegates representing the Electoral College, it is unfair and inequitable to the millions of people who devote their time and energy to stand in long
Because democracy is not based on quality, but on quantity. The majority party has the authority in power. In addition, people who do not have the intelligence, vision and corrupt could have been elected to state officials. That mean the country government by incompetent persons, democracy can only be run by people who are not competent. Because in a parliamentary, every citizen is allowed to take part, while not everyone is suited to that role.
According to, (Grofman & Feld), authors of Thinking About the Political Impacts of the Electoral College, "it has been argued that one party may develop a “built-in” advantage in the Electoral College if its strength comes disproportionately from the smaller states" (Grofman, & Feld, 2005). Although, candidates focusing more on the competitive states leave much of the county barely aware that there is even a presidential election going on. Mostly because these states have higher electoral votes. This discourages voter turnout because the individual vote only matters to the context of the state (Constitution,
Politics and Debating There are 7,463,973,000 people,237 countries, and 237 national leaders in the world. Since not all countries elect their leaders in a democratic way, there are much fewer presidents in the world. These chosen, special leaders of the nations must have great abilities that can lead to the nation’s wealth and world peace, and presidential candidates often show these abilities to the voters through presidential debates. However, some people argue that having great debating ability doesn’t prove the person’s aptitude as a president. This is not true, and the ability to debate well is highly needed.
“The Electoral College is a process, not a place (What is the).” The Electoral College has been around since the Constitution, but the reason for its existence is strange. When the Constitution was being created the Founding Fathers believed that the new found American citizens would be too stupid to govern themselves, and thus, The Electoral College was born. The Electoral College functions by giving each state a select number of votes based on population (What is the). Once each state gets their Electoral votes they must choose Electors; this is a two part process. First, Political Parties from the state chose potential electors, and then the people of the state vote on which electors they see fit (Electoral College Fast).
Without the influence of money in our elections and the donations from corporations and sponsors, then our political campaign system would be chaotic, full of illegal funding, and secrecy. According to The Atlantic, if restrictions were put on the amount of campaign money spent then wealthy donors, corporations, and unions would be able to spend unlimited amounts of money and may do it in secrecy. Secret donations would make the government and politicians seem less trustworthy because it would be harder to track who and where the money is coming from. Along with spending money in secret, there is the possibility of super pacs coming together outside of a candidate's campaign and spending unlimited amounts of money. According to Opensecrets, super pacs are independent expenditure-only committees that raise money from donors outside of a campaign in order to advocate for or against any specific political candidate.
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
However, it does need a major overhaul. As the population of the US changes, the Electoral College should be reviewed to ensure proper representation in each state. It has been proven in a few of the elections that the majority votes were not properly represented with the electoral votes. During President Obama election, he did not win the majority of popular votes in some of the states; however, he won all of the Electoral College for those states. This election is one of about four Presidential elections that have won with Electoral College but not with the majority of popular votes.
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.
Pinckney said, “How far do you intend to go in reducing the power of the states?” (Page 69). This shows that there was a balance that had to be found. Some of the topics they debated on where topics such as the president 's salary and how to prevent against sectional favoritism. The largest topic, however, was on how the president should be elected. One of the first struggles the men encountered was on who should elect the president.
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.