The current process of electing the President of the United States through the Electoral College system should not be changed because the Electoral College system is superior in comparison to other comprehensive voting systems. Systems like direct popular vote or the national popular vote may work in democracies; however the United States is a federal republic. While allowing large metropolises and large states to be represented in a manner consistent with their size, the Electoral College has the exceptional attribute of allowing small states and rural areas to still maintain influence in the government. Allowing the entire nation to decide the direction of our government ensures candidates appeal to the majority of the nation, not just a handful of populous centers. This leads to more moderate policies and a protection of minority rights. Problems in elections such as fraud and recounts, are very disruptive in systems such as popular vote, but are minimized in the Electoral College system because these problems are limited to individual states allowing for a national review of such localized problems. Finally, the Electoral College incentivizes policy makers and parties to continually try to win in states that have opposed them in recent elections, ensuring long term policy that addresses needs of the populous quickly. Overall, the Electoral College’s benefits make it the superior system to elect the President, and for that reason it should not be changed.
Smaller and particularly rural states are protected by the Electoral College. The number of votes a state is allocated in the Electoral College is determined by adding the number of United States Representatives and Senators a state sends to congress. This means each state ...
... middle of paper ...
...ure, and prosperous nation in the world. Large states and cities are represented with consideration for their size, smaller and rural states given a base minimum representation to protect their intrinsic interests. Moderate and nationally inclusive policies are incentivized, and minority coalitions that foster compromise are encouraged. Fraud and recounts are minimized in relation to other voting systems, and mechanisms to deal with such issues promptly exist in the Electoral College. Finally, all states that need concrete policy change and attention receive it with the Electoral College. When asked what kind of government the United States had, Dr. Benjamin Franklin said “A republic, if you can keep it.” The Founding Father’s understood the benefits of the Electoral College which have since been validated; therefore the Electoral College should remain in place.
The United States is a privileged country with freedoms and opportunities many countries strive to achieve. People come into the United States in hopes to obtain these rights and make a better life for themselves; they strive to achieve “The American Dream.” Citizens are given the chance to vote, speak their mind, and live according to their desires without prejudice. However, the same government that promises hope has flaws that frustrate the American people; the Electoral College is one topic of debate. Many feel this system is a safe way to regulate who leads the country, while others feel that issues should be left to popular vote.
For the most part, the connection between the Presidential election process of 1788 and the present Presidential election procedure are both determined through the Electoral College process. The Electoral College process made sure people played a crucial role in the selection of the President of the United States. As was previously stated, I have expounded on the process of how the President is elected; the vital role that people played in the election, and the responsibility of the House of Representatives in response to the
The fact that the popular vote holds no power to whom becomes president shows that only some of the people have the power. This seems like a sign that our own government doesn’t have faith in the population to make an educated decision on who should become president. The way smaller states votes are more important than bigger states, shows that states are still not equal in power. The way to win the presidency is more of a strategy than having the ideas to be elected. An example of this is how the electoral college elected George Bush when Al Gore won the popular vote. George Bush is said to be one of the United States worst presidents and was elected through a thought to be flawed system. I also feel as though corruption plays a role in the electoral college compared to the popular vote being authentic. I think this should be replaced with a system of electronic voting that could accurately and clearly show who the majority of the population voted for. But I also think that some sort of requirements to vote should be enacted. Education plays a big role in politics and I feel as though there are people who just vote to be voting with no kind of background knowledge. As bad as it sounds I feel like it could narrow a better decision being made than smaller, less developed states being “mind controlled” into voting for
The Electoral College has been the favored method by the United States to elect the president for many years. When the College was first created in 1787 it was seen as an efficient and reliable way to vote the president into office. It has been more than 2 centuries since this method of electing was chosen, and many things have changed in U.S. society. The Electoral College is failing to keep up with these advancements in society and a new method must be chosen soon. Throughout the almost 2 and a half centuries since the beginning of the Electoral College there has been a large change in population.
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. This ensures that whoever gets elected has policies that do not just appeal to one or two major population centers, but rather to the country as a whole. America is conglomeration of fifty states all joined together. The size of America makes it a very diverse country. Farmers living in rural towns in the midwest have very different concerns and beliefs, than someone living in a liberal city like New York or the suburbs of New Jersey. The electoral college requited the president to be everyone president, while also allocating more votes to areas with a larger
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the majority of popular votes. Additionally, the unequal representation created by the number of electors each state has leads to a differential worth depending upon a voter’s state of residency. Moreover, the winner-take-all rule of the results in votes which are essentially rendered worthless if they are contrary the state majority. Finally, the system places much of the focus and power to effect elections in the hands of so called swing states that are not historically aligned with only one party. (Dahl, 80-83) These aspects of the U.S. political system are utterly counterintuitive and stand in stark contrast to many of the cardinal ideals of
Instead of a direct democracy, the United States has what is called a representative democracy, which means that when you vote, you are voting for a representative who in turn will vote for the president. This system may seem fair but it gives more power to people in a less populated states than those who live a highly populated state. If the 538 total votes in the Electoral College were divided evenly, then there would be one vote for every 574,000 people. However, the rules of the Electoral College say that each state gets at least three votes, regardless of population. Then the rest of the votes are given out based on population. This happens because the Electoral College gives the votes to the state rather than the people. California has about 37,000,000 people and has fifty-five compared to the 560,000 people in Wyoming, which gets represented by three votes. So Wyoming gets one electoral vote or one for every 187,000 people. However California gets 55 electoral votes, or one for every 677,000 people. This means Wyomingites have three and a half times the power of Californians in the Electoral
What determines the amount of votes each state receives for the electoral college? How does the census affect the number of electoral votes. The number of senators and house representatives determines the amount of votes each state receives for the electoral college. While every state only has two senators, the amount of house representatives can vary since its delegation is determined by the population of the state. The census is the official count of population. This can affect the number of electoral votes since the census is proportional to the number of electoral votes.
The electors in each state are equal to the number of representatives that state has in Congress resulting in at least three electors per state regardless of population (McKenzie 285). Each state has two votes to correspond to the senators representing that state in Congress, and then each state has one vote to correspond to the House representative that represents that state in Congress. Smaller states comprise a higher percentage of the total electoral votes than would a popular vote for the president in those states (Muller 1257). The Founders intended the Electoral College to protect overshadowing the small states’ interests of the larger populous states by allowing at least three representative votes rather than none at all, and the smaller states were not willing to give control of the election process to the larger states, which was similar to their fight for representation in Congress (Muller 1250). However, it ignores the people who voted against the winner, since once the result is determined at the state level; the losing voters no longer have any significance nationally (Wagner 579). Wagner also points to the fact that the winner-take-all system can lead to selecting the minority candidate over the majority vote, as in the George
The American Society grants every citizen of legal age to vote in elections. The Electoral College System provides electoral votes to candidates despite losing popular votes. The Electoral College System is unfair as candidates who do not win popular vote can still win a presidential election. This system is unfair as it grants 538 electors to become the voice of 319 million people.
When the Framers were drafting the presidential selection procedure of the Constitution in 1787, they presented an artful compromise to the issue of direct election. With the new country spanning thousands of miles along the Atlantic coast and barely connected by transportation or communication, it was impractical if not impossible to distribute information widely enough for every citizen to make an informed choice (Kimberling). In a direct election, this lack of knowledge about candidates living in other states would inevitably result in citizens voting for the candidate they knew the most about. Because the larger states have considerable more voters, presidents would be elected not for their political beliefs, but for their place of residence. Given the inability to spread information extensively, the Framers compromised by adopting the idea of representation. The people up and down the country would vote for local delegates with whom they were familiar with. These electors would then elect a president “pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Hamilton 333). By devising the Electoral College, the Framers ensured th...
Although, it is remotely possible in a very close election that there will not be one candidate receiving 270 electoral votes, in which case the House of Representatives chooses the President. In this scenario, each state has merely one vote each to decide the presidency out of the top three contenders for the office. The Senate chooses the vice president out of the top two contenders. Many people feel that this system is outdated, unfair and/or biased; that it should be replaced with the popular voting system. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as stating what “has to be done”....
Lastly, I don’t think that the Electoral College is a very good idea because each person in this country matters. If they chose a president, even if by popular vote, it was their choice and they will be the ones who have to live with whatever promises that president chooses to make or break to them. If they made a mistake on which president to choose it will be their own fault and they won’t have anyone else to blame but themselves.
As the United States of America gets older, so does the presidential election voting system. The argument to change this method of voting has been becoming more and more popular as the years go on. It has been said that the Framers of the Constitution came up with this method because of the bad transportation, communication, and they feared the public’s intelligence was not suitable for choosing the President of the United States. Others say that the Framers made this method because they feared that the public did not receive sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to make such a decision based on direct popular vote. My research on this controversial issue of politics will look into the factors into why the Electoral College exists and if it is possibly outdated for today’s society. It will look into the pros and cons of this voting system, and it will explore the alternative methods of voting such as the Direct Popular vote. Many scholarly authors have gathered research to prove that this voting system is outdated and it does not accurately represent the national popular will. Many U.S. citizens value their vote because they only get one to cast towards the candidate of their choice in the presidential election. Based on the Electoral College system their vote may possibly not be represented. Because of today’s society in the U.S. the Electoral College should be abolished because it is not necessary to use a middle-man to choose our president for us. It is a vote by the people, all of us having one voice, one vote.