What Are The Pros And Cons Of The Electoral College

Walter E. Williams discuss how Hillary Clinton blamed the electoral college for her losing the presidential election. Williams stated that many individuals believed that the electoral college is dangerous when it comes to American politics. Individuals also claims that there are three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people in the state of Wyoming which was another factor that weight in the presidential election. In California, one electoral vote equals 715,000 people. Williams also stated that there a lot of individual who complain about using the electoral college since they believe that it’s undemocratic.

In its favor, one may argue that it supports smaller states, creates more stability within the election due to the two-party system, and prevents the chances of recounting votes. However, the Electoral College is also believed to be “complicated” by cause of its unique representative system, persuade candidates into giving more attention to the smaller states, and be a magnet for faithless Electors, or Electors who decide to not vote for their party’s candidate (Veracity

Did you know that the Electoral College was created as a compromise between those Founding fathers who wanted the president elected by Congress and those who wanted direct election by the people? Presidents are elected by a group of 538 electors, acting on behalf of the states and not by the citizens. This arrangement is called the Electoral College. Every four years, millions of United States citizens vote for a president and a vice president of the United States.

The textbook definition of the Electoral College is “a unique American institution, created by the constitution, providing for the selection of the president by electors chosen by the states parties. Although the Electoral College vote usually reflects a popular majority, less populated states are overrepresented and the winner-take-all rule concentrates campaigns on close states” (Edwards and Wattenberg 643). In the definition itself it notes disproportionate representation which is one of the many flaws within this system. The National Popular Vote Plan is an alternative system that would still use electors to cast their votes but instead it would give each state’s votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. This plan has

Document B’s chart shows that during the 1992 Presidential Election, Bill Clinton did win the majority of the popular vote, but the win ratio was not large. The electoral votes showed a larger win ratio, causing Bill Clinton to be the definite President of the United States (Document B). In some cases, presidents that do not win the popular vote win the Electoral College. Although in some cases that is true, a majority of presidents have not been voted in that way. Document B demonstrates that by showing the percentage of votes for the popular and electorate votes for the 1980 and 1992 Presidential Elections.

Specifically, there have been four elections where a candidate who won the popular vote, did not win the presidency. This is controversial because the people who supported the losing candidate believe that candidate should have won because the greater population voted for him or her. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden. Rutherford B Hayes was named president elect and served for one presidential term. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency.

I. The Electoral College is an unnecessary institution that undermines democracy by not ensuring the victory of the presidential candidate who wins the plurality of the popular vote, by creating a system in which not all votes are equal, and by incentivizing politicians to focus on the needs of specific states while ignoring others. II. A. The Electoral College is a body of people that represent each state within the United States and formally cast votes for their state in the election of the president.

The Electoral College Emily Ballou Contrary to popular belief, America’s presidents are not elected by direct democratic vote of the people. Rather, the United States Constitution declares that they are to be elected by what is called the Electoral College. Established in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention, our Founding Fathers formed the Electoral College as a compromise between majority rule and congressional representative appointment. The Founders created the Electoral College for protection.

Many people might think that they are voting for the president but they are not, they are voting for the electors who will then choose the President. A candidate wins the presidency when he or she get more than 270 electoral votes. This means that in order for one candidate to win a state, the need to win the electoral votes for that particular state. Electors are selected usually at state conventions. “The electors are usually state-elected officials, party leaders, or people with a strong affiliation with the Presidential candidates” (Soni).

In 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency against his competitors--but not because the citizenry chose him. The Electoral College did. He received 543, 895 less votes than his competitor Albert Arnold Gore Jr (Doc G). However, he got more electoral votes, so he was the one sitting in the

In Wyoming, each vote is worth 187,875 people.(Doc 2). Each vote in North Carolina is worth three times more than that of Wyoming’s. This is not fair. An election that chooses the next leader of the free world should be a fair election. If the United States were to keep the electoral college system they should make every electoral vote count for the same amount of people.

Perhaps the most common argument supporters of the College make is that it protects the smaller states. Because of the two electors each state receives regardless of population, electors in Wyoming represent fewer people than electors in California. Without the Electoral College, supporters claim, a candidate could run solely in the most heavily populated states and win, while ignoring rural states. This is the main reason why, even though there have been calls to abolish the Electoral College, it is unlikely to happen. The less populated states have too much power in amending the Constitution.

Some people in America are voting and do not know who they are voting for and why. The electoral system has a winner-take-all system. This means that whatever party has the most votes in that state wins the state’s electoral votes. There are more educated voters than uneducated voters which means that the educated voters will rule the state. This causes the uneducated votes to be lost in the mix of the educated

In Document C, Samples provides a federalist argument for supporting the electoral college by stating that it gives states an important role in choosing the president and thus supporting a fundamental principle of our democracy. The problem with Sample’s argument is that the electoral college is in essence undemocratic. We know that the electoral college is undemocratic because not only are small states over represented but a citizens vote can be weighted more or less depending on the state in which they reside in. In Document F, we are told what happens in case of a tie or no one winning the electoral vote. In case of this situation occurring then the House of Representatives will decide on who becomes president where state representatives will all get an equal vote.

“Pros and cons of the Electoral College it said this about what supporters think about the electoral college “Naturally, supporters of keeping the current system have their own statements. They claim that the Electoral College forces candidates to focus on states rather than simply cities with the most population. They say the Electoral College forces candidates to build a nationwide coalition in order to win. There are also claims that, had the Electoral College been abolished, Bush still would have won the 2000 election. They reason that, knowing the election was to be focused on popular vote, Bush would have allocated his resources differently and still managed a victory.”