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”)
This compromise helped give each state equal say in the government. As John Samples said to the Cato Institute in In Defense of the Electoral College, “ … the Electoral College makes sure that the states count in presidential elections… an important part of our federalist system - a system worth preserving… federalism is central to our grand constitutional effort to restrain power.” (Doc C). Since this nation is founded on federalism (the sharing of power between national and state governments), it only makes sense that each individual state would want equal say in the nation’s government. Samples knew that to keep the government running smoothly, each state needed equal representation in the government, thus the Electoral College.
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
For both of these reasons, I feel that the Electoral College should not be a “Winner-Take- All” type of system. If we want to have equal representation in all 50 states, we should assign an equal amount of delegates to each state(30, perhaps) , no matter what their population
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.
“Is it possible that this once-brilliant device has become a constitutional accident waiting to happen” (Congressional Digest 25). “The Electoral College has been said to be ‘archaic,’ ‘too complex,’ and even ‘dangerous,’ but the principle complaint has been that it is ‘undemocratic’” (Klinker, McClellan 1). The Electoral College violates the principle of one-person, one-vote (Congressional Digest 17). Klinker states that Wyoming’s 619,500 residents make up only .18 percent of the U.S. population, yet recieve three three electoral votes which is .56 percent of the electoral votes, while Texas has a population of 20,044,141 residents that make up 7.35 percent of the U.S. population, but Texas’ 32 electoral votes make up slightly less than 6 percent of the electoral votes, giving one voter in Wyoming nearly as much power as four voters in Texas (1).
Voters rank the presidential candidates from their least to most favorite. If a candidate wins more than half of the first choice votes, then that person wins the election. The process functions similarly when used in the Electoral College; the candidate that wins the majority vote in a state receives the electoral votes of that state. However, if no one wins the popular vote, the candidate with the least number of votes is removed from the ballot, and more than one person can be eliminated in this round (Best). Those that marked the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their votes transferred to their second choice candidate.
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
(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
The electoral college also helps the small states have an opinion that actually is heard in the presidential election. In class, it was discussed that Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota together, though their combined population is less than that of Oklahoma, each of those states has three electoral votes, whereas Oklahoma just has seven votes. Going by electoral votes, a candidate would have a better chance at winning the election if they won over Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota versus Oklahoma. With the electoral college, a candidate could win over all thirty-nine small states and win the entire election. Though the candidate could be supported by less than a quarter of the population,
In 1787 there was a constitutional convention which composed a new structure for our American government. (Study.com 2003) During the convention the delegates weren’t able to decide whether the people or congress should elect the president, thus creating the Electoral College. (Study.com 2003) The Electoral College is an arrangement between the majority vote of Congress and qualified citizens for the election of the president.
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
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. The Supreme Court Justices in the Electoral Commission were David Dias
A growing number of Americans would rather have a direct popular vote than the Electoral College. This disparity comes from believing that the current system is not democratic and prevents each vote from being viewed equally. The Electoral College needs to be changed because it misrepresents the opinions of the people, dismisses
This also is one of the reasons why a candidate may win the popular vote but not the Electoral College. The votes add up in the popular vote but only the party that wins the majority, wins the Electoral College. A complicated explanation for a complex