Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
advantages of electoral college
essay on the significance of the electoral college
essay on the significance of the electoral college
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: advantages of electoral college
Electoral College Worth It Or Not?
In 2000 the election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was a heated election, where it came down to the wire. As history tells, George Bush won the election simply because he received more electoral votes, but he did not end up winning everything. Al Gore actually won the popular vote meaning more individual people voted for Gore than Bush, but Bush won because of the Electoral College. If the whole entire purpose of the Electoral College is to help candidates get the “winner takes all strategy.” How is it possible for one candidate to win the popular but lose the Electoral College? Maybe the Electoral College is not accomplishing what it was originally organized to do. Others believe that it is another
…show more content…
The Electoral College works as follows, electoral points vary state to state from 3 points all the way to 55. In order for one candidate to become President, they have to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes out of the 538 that are possible. Originally this system was established because the government was trying to find a way to make the smaller states more active and important in the elections. So they formulated a system where it would take power away from the bigger states and transfer them to the smaller states. Seems fair, right? Wrong! In today’s day and age, the Electoral College does not follow American values. In fact it goes against these values, with the idea of majority rules: a candidate is able to win an election while not winning the popular vote in some states. A big majority of citizens are left out of elections because their vote doesn’t count towards anything. Thus, the Electoral College should be done away …show more content…
“In 2012, more than 99% of general election ad spending was targeted at voters in only ten states”(Richie). What this means is that candidates are not even concentrated on pleasing all the american people. They select the important few that live in important states. Many are not even paid attention to, their votes essentially do not matter to the candidates. But if it were popular vote than presidential candidates would then have to make sure that all of America was pleased with their campaign instead of a select few. Secondly instead of winning the entire state, why wouldn 't it be better for the candidates to only win a fraction of the state? Such as breaking up the electoral votes. The winner takes all strategy is no longer working as we can see candidates do not spend time in states such as Idaho or Utah. If they were to break up the vote they would finally be able to say that their voting method provides equal representation. Finally swing states make the elections intense, but it leaves out all the other states. “Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and their running mates held a combined total of 149 campaign events in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia during the fall campaign, but none in New York, California, Texas, and 35 other states”(Richie). This easy shows that they do not pay attention to any other states that
The Electoral College vs. Popular Vote The United States is a privileged country with freedoms and opportunities many countries strive to achieve. People come into the United States in hopes of obtaining these rights and 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.
Electoral College is Wrong The Electoral College is the name given to a group of electors who are nominated by political activists and party members within the states. The electoral college really isn't necessary and should be abolished. There are numerous reasons why this is so important. With the Electoral College in effect, third parties don't have a chance to become the president, which isn't fair.
Politicians as different as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon backed a constitutional amendment to have all the states go to a proportional system. Obviously, nothing came of the proposals. It's probably because the political party that would be favored in a winner-take-all state is usually the party that runs the state. The party with the power to change the system has no incentive for doing so. It is not the sole fact that votes get wasted that bothers me. There is much more to it. Bush hardly campaigned at all in New York--and for the same reason that Gore neglected Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska: His opponent had the states locked up, along with 100 percent of their electoral votes. Indeed, Bush was criticized by some GOP strategists for wasting time and resources campaigning in California.
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
Through these almost 2 and a half centuries since the beginning of the Electoral College there has been a large change in population. Since then, the U.S. has grown from a mere 4 million to a looming number of around 300 million people. It is because of this population increase that the Electoral College has become obsolete and is beginning to fail at its duties. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist and a supporter of the Electoral College who was quoted as saying “It was also desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder/ promise an effectual security against this mischief” (Document #1). The College would have prevented tumult and disorder for
It pushes the two-party system and disregards states. Majority of the presidential campaigning is between the major parties in American: Republican and Democrats. So campaigning is spent on swaying the people to cast their votes for either candidate. Presidential campaigns have clear tendency to concentrated their resources on state both candidates have certainty pull while ignoring the states that favors one candidate or the other. With the winner-take-all system, a candidate that already is well ahead in a particular state doesn’t spend any more time trying to campaign in the state nor either does the losing candidate try to win over the state. So, candidates will tend not to bother with states where they are either ahead or behind. For example, Massachusetts’ residents said that during the 2000 general election, they rarely saw campaign advertising from either major-party candidate (Gregg, 2003). By fact that Massachusetts was counted to be in favor of Gore. And by contrast, residents of Illinois complained about having been overwhelmed by presidential campaign ads. Illinois was swamped with campaign ads because according to the polls, it was characterized as a “battleground state (Gregg, 2003). Another example is the 1960 election between Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Ricard Nixon. In Stanley Kelley’s study, it found out that both Kennedy and Nixon spent seventy-four percent of their total campaign
The Electoral College system should be scrapped and be replaced with popular vote because it is unfair. By abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with popular vote, it would represent citizens equally, it would allow citizens to elect their president just as they elect their governors and senators, and it would motivate and encourage citizens to participate in voting.
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
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
In fact, the Constitution contains provisions for direct and indirect election of the different parts of the legislature and the executive, based on overlapping but distinct electorates (Muller 1251). In addition, many people believe that, the Electoral College process of electing the president necessitates replacement with a direct popular vote to honor our democratic form of government in the United States. Moreover, in a democratic form of government, the authority rests with the people rather than in one or a few as in a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government. People believe a direct election supports the 14th Amendment principle of “one person, one vote” (Wagner 577). Therefore, the winner-take-all system inaccurately represents the will of the American citizens since not all candidates garner any electoral votes. On the other hand, a popular vote for the president could lead to many runoffs if neither candidate reaches a majority, creating a bigger opportunity for voter fraud and manipulation of the vote, which would not truly represent the will of the people, states, or country. The Electoral College sometimes fails to represent the national popular vote because states use the winner-take-all approach and not some proportional method for the representation of its voters. However, the Founding Fathers were not too keen on
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
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished Many years after the United States was founded, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself; they later came to settle on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a system in which the president and vice president are chosen indirectly. In general, the delegates did not believe that a direct popular vote was acceptable, however that it should be decided by the US senators and representatives instead. The way in which it works: a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes to be officially declared president. If no candidate obtains a majority, the US Representatives selects the president from the top three contenders; this means each state receives
The Electoral College today is a very complex system of voting and campaigning. When it was first created, the Framers thought the average citizen of their day was not intelligent enough to know who should be leading their country. So they created the Electoral College which was run by people who knew what they were doing. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent each state and they determine the president. The real question is: Has the Electoral College gotten too far out of hand where it needs to go? The answer is yes. The reasons are because any third party candidate running in the election has no chance of winning any electoral votes. Also, it gives too much power to the big states in electoral votes. Finally, it creates problems on majority electoral votes and equality of smaller states is diminished.
...lity of the votes (Shugart 632). Each states would be important under such a system, as candidates would be forced to address as many voters as possible, not just "voting blocs" that could swing a plurality in the state and, therefore, the entire state. More people would participate in elections because they would know that every vote did indeed count.
In a chart from Document G, there are 4 past elections listed that compare the popular votes to the electoral votes. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won by 271 electoral votes, while Gore won by 266 electoral votes. This may seem reasonable for Bush to be the president, but when it comes to the popular vote, Gore had the highest amount of popular votes than Bush did. So why did Bush win instead? This is one of the main reasons why the Electoral College should be abolished.