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.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 gave birth to the Electoral College system. The Electoral College system can be briefly described as a system where voters are able to vote for candidates(electors) on election day. Electors then cast their vote for a candidate in their respective party. Our Founding Fathers described the electoral college system in Article
…show more content…
This is unfair because this suggests that voting power changes with your geography. Election of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 reveals that sometimes a candidate with fewer popular votes can still win a majority of the electoral votes. This is a disadvantage because the state’s popular opinion is being neglected. Another thing to consider is the winner take all system, a system in which the “winner of their statewide popular vote gets all of their allotted votes in the Electoral College System which poses another disadvantage. The winner take all system is also known as the “Congressional District Method”; all states follow this except Maine and Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska tend to divide the votes proportionally. The winner take all system is however inequitable because in a state there is a vast amount of opinions, and this system prevents the minority from being discerned. This system “ does nothing to provide representation to any group making up less than half of the population in a given voting district.” Winner take all is a discriminatory rule as it tends to under represent minority. Winner take all is also a binary system, so if you are a Democrat living in Alabama (which is primarily a Republican state) your opinion is less likely to her
Voting is at the center of every democratic system. In america, it is the system in which a president is elected into office, and people express their opinion. Many people walk into the voting booth with the thought that every vote counts, and that their vote might be the one that matters above all else. But in reality, America’s voting system is old and flawed in many ways. Electoral College is a commonly used term on the topic of elections but few people actually know how it works.
The Electoral College is a system where the President is directly elected. This process has been used in many past elections as well as the current 2016 election. This process also helps narrow down the large numbers that were made by the popular votes, into a smaller number that is easier to work with for electing the President. Some states use a system called “winner-takes-all”, which is another system that is connected with the Electoral College. This allows a candidate with the most electoral votes, to get the rest of the votes that the state provides. This has made it very unfair to many people, because the Electoral College has the most advantage for candidates. The Electoral College is a very unfair system that causes any candidate to win easily if he or she has the highest votes, and makes the number of voters
Since Electoral system can change outcome of the election, it often misrepresent the will of citizens. In electoral system, candidate with most popular votes in states wins electoral votes regardless of difference in popular votes. That means, people living in urban areas support one candidate, they could easily mislead the result of popular votes. Smaller area with more population often drag result on one side than larger part with less population. Either it is a presidential election of 1888 or 2000 election, candidates with higher electoral votes happen to win against people’s popular votes. Candidate of election of 1888, Benjamin Harrison won seat in white house even if he lost popular votes because he carried electoral votes on his side. Furthermore, margin between electoral votes was less than one percent, but still Harrison became president despite of 100,000 popular votes difference! Election of 2000 came up with same scenario. Gore won people’s support but lost electors’; therefore he had to accept G.W.Bush as President. After all this, what we can believe is indeed, the Electoral College is such an unreliable representative of the...
The Electoral College is an outdated and unrealistic arrangement that caters to eighteenth century federalist America in a way that is detrimental to modern democracy. The electoral college gives too much power to the government, overlooks equal representation, and creates loopholes that do not serve to help America thrive.
The United States of America is a democracy country that is characterized by the equality of rights and privileges. The Electoral College is considered undemocratic because it gives a higher percentage of the voting power to states with low population. Thus, the popular vote should be counted and not the electoral votes. In Document D of the Electoral College DBQ, there’s a chart that shows the comparison of population and electoral votes in 2010. In the chart, it has the twelve states that are less populated plus DC with the total population of 12,500,722 and total electoral vote of 44. In addition, Illinois has the total population of 12,830,632 and the total electoral vote of 20. This shows that Illinois would have less electoral vote than the 12 states plus DC which has 44. It is unfair to the larger states and it shows the unequal electoral votes to the states. In Document F, Bradford Plumer wrote, “the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where the state
Most of those who are against the Electoral College are prone to argue that the idea of the Electoral College is a bit undemocratic. The less populated states are granted a greater representation rather than the larger populated states. For example, a less populated state such as Wyoming is granted “three electoral college votes for a small population of 532,668 citizens” according to the 2008 Census Bureau nevertheless a greater populated state such as Texas is granted “thirty –two electoral college votes for an outsized population of twenty-five million”. If the Electoral College votes are viewed in perceptive of the population, the smaller states are privileged enough to have one elector per a smaller group of citizens. This disproportional misrepresentation allows the citizens of the less populated states to have a greater voice than those of the greater populated states. Another issue would be concerning “Faithless Electors”. The Electors were chosen as a way to disregard any uneducated votes made by the citizens but also keeping in mind which particular candidate the majority of the population of a state wishes to vote for. Although the national vote from the citizens is supposed to give the Electors a view on which way the majority of the state wished to vote, the Elector doesn’t necessarily have to vote for the particular candidate that they pledge
This process of electing a president is unjust and is not based off of the people’s views. In Document D the chart provided illustrates how some of the electoral votes favor some states over others; for example the twelve states listed and the district of Columbia seem to have a bigger say in the presidential election process than the citizens of Illinois. This itself is unfair because Illinois deserves to have an accurate representation of their votes, the same as other states do. This shows that the Electoral College undercuts the principle of one person, one vote, and therefore violates political equality. “It is not a neutral counting device... it favors some citizens over others, depending solely upon the state in which voters cast their votes for president” (Document D). Political equality means all citizens are equal and it also allows citizens to partake in state affairs, including the right to vote and the right to challenge elections. However the Electoral College violates the principle of this for the fact that it weighs some citizens’ votes more heavily than others (video). Generally it makes no sense for the people to vote if they’re not even counted, and either way it violates their rights.
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.
First, the Electoral College system is not the optimum election system for the country of America because of the fact that it allows for a candidate with a minority of the popular vote to win the presidency. On several occasions, such as in 2000, a president has been elected with less popular votes than the major opposing candidate. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “I...
In Document D we see how there are states such as New Hampshire with a population of 1,316,470 citizens and we see states like North Dakota with a population of 672,591. Although there is a huge population difference New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes and North dakota has 3. This provides equality because if the bigger states controlled the majority of votes then all the running candidates would go to the “big” places in order to win. This would make the other states feel left out and maybe even feel as if their votes don't matter and eventually feel disenfranchised. “ Therefore, the changing population affects not only representation but also how many electoral votes a state has. A state can never have fewer than three elector.” (Doc A). As we see population still has a lot to do with electoral votes but yet no matter how small of a population it has. It still is provided with a “voice”. Thus the electoral college should not be abolished because it provides the states with a equality and no matter how “small” it is it is never left
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.
The Electoral College was a compromise between those at the Constitutional Convention who wanted the US president elected by popular vote and those who wanted congress to select the president. They believed that having it where each state would get a certain number of votes based on population would keep a manipulative and charming person out of office. They thought it would prevent bribery and corruption along with secret dealings. I don’t think that this is the case and it one of the reason I feel that the Electoral College should be abolished.
The Electoral College is a confusing topic to most people, and its effect on how votes are represented in presidential elections. Essentially people vote and electors, people assigned to vote on the people 's behalf, and the candidate that wins the popular election in that state 's gets the the Electoral College votes for that state. The amount of votes is based on the population and the first candidate to win two hundred and seventy Electoral College votes wins. This system is debated on whether it benefits or hinders the election process, and how it does this is also debated by political experts.
To begin with, fairness is supposed to embody the Electoral College. Well that is wrong. The College is so unfair that by most people it's is overlooked. Since a electoral vote of 270 wins the majority. One region can literally decide the future of the United states presidency, the north east. Since the north east can dominate the whole voting idea. The electoral college idea of fairness is untrue. States like texas and California are less that that one region. Also the idea of allowing the House Of Representative to decide the president is bias.This is biased since the House is either controlled by the Democratic or Republican thus leading the decision to be unfair. Finally two men by the name of Perot and Anderson won't win the election.Perot and Anderson are both third party candidates. Even though some people
Imagine if there was a group of people that all brought in money to buy pizza, but only the person that brought in the most money got to eat the pizza. This is sort of how our electoral college works. Everybody votes but only the votes that get the majority actually count and mean something while the votes for the other person running are basically thrown away. The electoral college should be abolished because it takes away the basic rule of our country that majority vote wins and it makes people feel like their votes mean less because the candidates are only focused on a very minimal amount of states that they need to get to win and finally it gives big cities all of the power.The electoral college was formed in 1788. It was made to give the smaller states equal power. Multiple canidates that have run for president have lost because of this system.