The existence of the Electoral College has remained a source of debate for the population of the United States for centuries. Despite the evident discontent surrounding it, the United States is largely unaware of the disconnect between citizens’ voices and the Presidency. It can be said that popular sovereignty, no matter how pleasant a concept, has become little more than an illusion the people cling to. In short, the Electoral College is an institution that must be abolished, because it violates political equality, is unfair to third party candidates, and is not an accurate representation of the people’s votes. The Electoral College blatantly violates political equality within the United States. The distribution of electoral votes favors …show more content…
By relying on this method of distribution, and capping the number of electors allowed, the Electoral College causes inaccurate representation. States that require more representatives to represent the votes of their larger populations cannot receive them due to smaller states taking up the minimum requirement of three votes, no matter how small their populations may be. Not only this, but a combinations of thirteen states and regions, whose combined population is only 12,500,722, receives 44 electoral votes, while a state like Illinois with a population of 12,830,632 receives only 20 (Document D). Thus the Electoral College gives more power to smaller states and less to larger states due to its requirements. This means that some citizens are favored over others in the electoral vote, based solely upon the population of the state in which they live. The “failsafe” put into place in the case of a tie …show more content…
The distribution of electoral votes acts as though less people live where they do, and more people live where they don’t, meaning that in the vast majority of states citizens are either over- or underrepresented (Document A). By beginning to distribute electoral votes based on Congressional representatives, the Electoral College gives an unfair advantage in voting power to citizens of smaller states, and reduces the voting power held by larger states. In short, the Electoral College essentially deems that some residents are worth more than others. The elections of 1980 and 1992 must once again be taken into consideration as, between them, 25,463,258 votes, cast by citizens of the United States, were completely dismissed by the Electoral College (Document B). While neither of the candidates would have won, the fact that the votes of citizens can be so blatantly ignored is troubling. Obviously, if votes are not cast directly, they are not accurate representations of the wishes of the people. Once again, it must be seen that a group of thirteen states and regions with a combined population some 300,000 less than that of Illinois still receives more than twice the number of votes than that of the larger state (Document D). Therefore, in this example, the votes of people in Illinois count for much less than the
Thus, the Electoral College inhibits democracy by preventing the candidates who the American people want to win an election from actually winning said election. IV. The Electoral College undermines democracy by creating a system in which not all votes are equal. a. Under the Electoral College system, votes in small states are worth more than votes in large states. For example, the state with the largest number of electors, California, has 1 elector for every 680,000 people while the smallest state, Wyoming, has 1 elector for every 190,000 people.
“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.
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.
How is it fair that in the 2000 election George W. Bush was elected president even though Al Gore won the popular vote. The reason why Al Gore didn’t win the election is because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the process of electing a president where representatives from each state vote for a president. Each state has a specific number of representatives based on their population, for example North Carolina has 15. Therefore, should the electoral college be abolished or changed?
“The Electoral College was created by the Founders because they did not trust people enough to allow them to directly elect the president.” Since the majority of the American people had limited education and communication, the founders felt the “average voter lacked the information to be an informed, unbiased judge of candidates for presidency.” Therefore when voters cast their ballot, the college reviews the peoples’ choices and then decides which of their preferences are best. (Lenz and Holman, 87) Many people feel that this system is undemocratic because they are not able to directly vote for their candidate and because the winner of the popular vote can lose the electoral vote.
Should the Electoral College be Abolished? After the 2000 presidential election, and more recently the 2016 election, many have suggested that America abolish the electoral college, as it has elected the candidate with the lower popular vote on multiple occasions. Although a direct democratic approach to presidential elections (where the election is decided by popular vote) appears to many as an appropriate solution, this approach would grant too much power to large metropolitan areas, make rural votes practically irrelevant, and take away power from states. In order to prevent a situation like such, the electoral college should not be abolished—it must remain, but slight alterations should be made so that America is more equally represented.
Time-out for the Electoral College Write thesis here. Write Background here. Write prompt/question here. The Electoral College is unfair and should be abolished because third party candidates are given no chance to win the election, voting isn’t distributed equally, and it is undemocratic and flawed. One reason why the Electoral College should be abolished is that it’s almost impossible for third party candidates to win.
Being that states get a select number of electoral votes, in most cases, the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular vote. Electors have the power to vote for whomever they want even though ultimately they are supposed to represent the popular vote. Another problem with the Electoral College is it gives voters no incentive to vote. Being that the Electoral College votes elects the president, it discourages voters in states to not vote in
I believe that we should not have an electoral college and depend on them. There are numerous reasons why I think this. It does not allow us to have a fair way to vote and it doesnt let everyone be heard. First, voters do not vote for the president they vote for a state of electors.
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).
This disparity between the popular and electoral votes is yet another moment showing how archaic and ineffective the electoral college is as it stands
In an attempt to change the Articles of Confederation, the Convention created the executive branch to unite the country with a single leader. Even though the delegates wanted to consider the wishes of the citizens, they did not trust that they would make an educated decision. As a result, they formed the Electoral College. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors who indirectly elect the president and vice president. Each states’ entitlement of electors is equal to the sum number of their senators and representatives.
The 2000 presidential elections demonstrated an incredible loophole in the race for the Presidency, found in the Electoral College. In the results of the elections, George W. Bush had lost the popular vote 545,000 votes, but won the Presidency by swinging a lead of 5 votes in the Electoral College. This discrepancy outraged citizens and politicians across the United States. This is not the only instance of the majority candidate not winning the race, for it has happened three times throughout American history (Longley, Pierce 28-29). The Electoral College poses the challenge of evaluating a process that is both highly disputed in how legislators believe it should be run and so incredibly vital to the function of the United States Government.
On balance, direct popular vote should replace the Electoral College when electing the President and Vice President of the United States. My team and I negates this resolution. In my following statement, I will outline three main contentions from my group’s research to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of the Electoral College. One, the electoral college can show changing opinion towards a candidate. Two, the reliability of the Electoral College it only ever questioned around an election.
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