If America has been on the basis of “we the people” from when the preamble was written in the Constitution, how has it become just to use a political system that denies citizens their right to a vote that actually matters? This system is the electoral college. It is a method of indirect popular election of the President of the United States. That word “indirect” is a prime notion of why the electoral college has been the subject of persistent criticism and frequent proposals for reform. It has been seen in great times when the electoral college made an unjust decision in electing the president when their decision diverged from the nation's popular vote. Direct popular election could be a clear-cut answer to it all. The nation votes, their votes …show more content…
Essentially, the small states feared that they would be overridden by the power of larger states. Overtime, the electoral college system has done its job 54 out of 59 times in electing the president in a fair voting system. However, those five times when the system did not do its job are the reasons why “more than 700 constitutional amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College” (textbook, pg. 210). This would make it subject to more attempted reforms than any other reforms in history. So why has it not been done yet? Back in 1969 there was a case to abolish the electoral college system which won the support of the House but was blocked by a Senate filibuster led by southern senators who opposed civil rights legislation (textbook, pg. 210). A definition for the term “filibuster” can be described as someone engaging in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country or as the political system likes to put it: an action designed to prolong debate and delay. Either way, this should not be a part of American democracy and affect the way American citizens get to have their right to a fair, direct …show more content…
211). If the issue of reforming or abolishing the electoral college is one that opposes the United States Constitution, then we have to look at how many times that has been amended. The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times over the course of history for better or for worse. This amendment of the electoral college could play a vital role in the future of American democracy. If the electoral college was abolished and direct popular vote was put into place it would eliminate the influence of “unconstitutional” voting results. Unconstitutional means going against what the Constitution says. The Constitution preaches on how America is free and for the people, but the electoral college strays away from that point. If the citizens’ votes are not going directly to the candidate they voted for in the race, what makes it easy to say that they will keep voting. Significantly, direct popular voting would be a simple, yet effective way to reform and radicalize the electoral voting system that we have
The Electoral College does not accurately align with the ways of a Democratic society. The idea of ‘Democracy’ was different when the Constitution was created and as an ever-changing country, we must establish laws that fit our time period and put an end to the ones that don’t. Presidents being elected despite losing the popular vote goes against the definition of democracy according to Oxford Languages, “Control
The United States has benefited from the Electoral College for hundreds of years. This essay will discuss the presidential voting process and the merits of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a more effective method of choosing the president than the general election. This is due to the fact that it greatly improves efficiency and ensures the integrity of the election. There would be a huge number of candidates to pick from if the Electoral College did not exist and we had a public vote instead.
The framers of the United States Constitution had a difficult task deciding how this country should be governed. Many challenges to their thoughts, fears, and decisions proliferate even after more than two centuries. Many disagree, for instance, with the way in which our nation's President and Vice President are elected. In essence, The Electoral College is a compromise between the choice of President and Vice President being made by a vote in Congress and being made by a popular vote of the people.
For better or worse, the United States is a global superpower; while it has only been around for about 200 years, its influence on the world and its citizens is relatively overbearing. To guide a nation, strong leaders must step up and protect the citizens’ inalienable rights. In the United States, the president is chosen by the Electoral College, which is made up of votes from dozens of states. But as decades fly by and the world advances and improves, how is it possible that a system made hundreds of years ago can still serve its citizens equally? Is it possible that regardless of the intention and thought put into the system, that the Electoral College causes more harm to the ones it is supposed to protect?
According to the National Archives, the Electoral College is, “...a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.'' The Electoral College was created in the late 1700’s, and was used as a buffer between the voting population and the official selection of the president. For the founding fathers, this solved a wide array of problems: the possible risk of leaving the power of choosing who the leader of the country to ill -informed voters, unequal representation and distribution of votes between the North and South of the U.S., and supported the idea of separation between powers in the government. In this country, it has been believed that the government has been built off of popular sovereignty, the theory that the government is created by and is subject to the will of its citizens. But how is this concept valid when the people of the United States don’t directly vote and decide who will govern them?
The first words in the Constitution are “We the people”, yet the Electoral College takes away power from the people to directly elect a President. To better understand the Electoral College, we will delve into the basics of the Electoral College and presidential elections, the pros and cons of the Electoral College in modern times, and a specific instance in which the Electoral College majorly affected the outcome of an election. The government should abolish the Electoral College, so United States citizens can directly elect whom they feel should head the Executive Branch. To begin, the Electoral College is a process, not an educational institution.
The Electoral College When the Founding Fathers congregated and drafted the government of the newly-formed America, they wanted a system that would not produce a tyrant, but could also produce a strong executive that would lead and consider the people. They created a system in which power could be checked and with hope, incorruptible. Distributing political power into the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches, and an elaborate process to elect leaders in each, the American Constitution was a document revolutionary in its conception. There are irrefutable strengths of the Constitution, just as there are undeniable weaknesses, however both are huge influences on the shaping of our modern political arena. As discussed in this paper,
The original system for U.S. elections was changed by the 12th Amendment, to the highly controversial method which uses “a number of electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the congress” (5). This electoral college, at the suggestion of their state’s vote count, then casts their votes on behalf of their citizens. In the 2016 election, we witnessed what some would consider a failure of the electoral college, where the popular vote was won by Hillary Clinton, while the electoral college elected Donald Trump. This was a situation that the forefathers did not intend when they created this system in order to prevent a monarchy in America, but it does pose a question on whether we should reconsider our election process. Article III establishes the judicial branch and its’ power, which extends to “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States” (7).
If we somehow happened to be a capable vote, then we ought to have the capacity to really pick who might be president. The Electoral College removes that from us. The Electoral College is not by any stretch of the imagination reasonable for our rights and our opportunity. It, for the most part, takes away the ability to vote the president. The Electoral College was made in a period when votes were harder to gather and number.
Why change a perfectly good system that took so long to create just to use another system that the Founding Fathers ruled out so quickly? “In the first presidential election in 1789, the Electoral College had 81 members. As the nation expanded, this number grew. Today, the Electoral College has 538 members, equal to the nation’s total number of senators (100) and representatives (435),” (The Electoral College Explained). The system that they came up with has had little issues throughout past elections, and it maintains a fair way of voting leaving bad personal bias aside.
The United States hinges on the statues of a democracy, right? At least that is what the founding fathers envisioned. However, the Electoral College, the United States presidential voting system, has made various notable figures and scholars question its use in modern day society. I strongly contend that the Electoral College is not a legitimate and effective vehicle for electing presidents. Although the Electoral College is a foundational aspect of the US government, it needs to be reexamined, amended, or replaced with, perhaps, a direct voting system, in spite of those that argue that a direct voting system would allow too much large power to the states (Limbaugh, 2000).
The controversial debate of the need for the Electoral College is something commonly argued in debates throughout the history of the United States. The electoral college debate has been constantly pushed by the people against the electoral college to be amended and defended by those who are for the electoral college ever since the 1800s, where it was pushed to be nullified by replacing it with a popular vote. Political Ideology is a concept that is often used in the Electoral College debate in order to gain a deeper understanding of each side’s arguments. This debate is talked about even more today compared to the times in the late 1800’s, where the popular vote also happened to differ from the electoral college. Political ideology, when seen
Williams suggests that the founders thought that the Electoral College was a sensible plan, but things don’t always work out how they should (28). It is a relic of America’s predemocratic past when leaders were scared of having too much power over the people (Klinker, McClellan 1). Congressional Digest suggests that we are stuck in a time warp (31). We still rely on a horse-and-buggy election system in the age of the internet (Congressional Digest 31). Congressional Digest points out the fact that voters today know more about the candidates than they did 200 years ago (19).
The debate of whether the Electoral College should be abolished or not has
Several years after the United States came to be, the Constitutional Convention met to determine how the new nation should govern itself. The delegates saw that it was crucial to have a president and vice president, but the delegates did not want these offices to reflect how the colonies were treated under the British rule. The delegates believed that the president’s power should be limited, and that he should be chosen through the system known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the electing of the president and vice president. Many citizens feel that the Electoral College goes against our nation’s principle of representative democracy, while others