Persuasive Essay on Electoral Colleges
In the United States we are all guaranteed one vote per person. Everyone has an equal voice in electing the people that serve in the government. Every four years during the month of November citizens of America go to the polls to vote for a president and vice-president of the United States. Am I right? Not really. They actually vote for electors that then vote for our president. It makes me wonder, "Are we a democracy?" Having the Electoral College defeats its purpose. I oppose the electoral college for these three reasons, in election 2000 the president that lost the popular vote actually won, everyone's vote doesn't really count, plus the electoral college has disrupted elections fifteen times!
First of all I would like to bring to your attention that many votes don't even get counted if you call the United States a democracy. The way the whole Electoral College thing works is that each state is allowed a certain number of "electors" (the state's number of Representatives plus its Senators), who then vote for the president. The elector's vote based on the state's popular vote. After the state verifies the votes, the candidate that receives the most votes get all of that state's elector's votes. Because the state's constitution awards electoral votes that way, the innumerable individual votes become meaningless. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me.
Secondly, do you agree with election 2000? I surely don't, I mean the wrong president won the election. Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush. But who won the election, Bush. All because of a policy called the Electoral College. It is a very controversial issue. I know that many people are unhappy about this election. I thought we were a democracy! And we choose are president, not electors.
Finally, these consequences go far beyond simple "fairness" issues. Too many times in American history the Electoral College has single-handedly defeated the purpose of democracy in our country. Since the first presidential election, there have been more than a dozen instances in which somebody has been elected president without a majority of the votes. The following are examples from how the electoral college has disrupted an election: Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and now George Bush.
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 feel pointless. This has always been a big thing for the United States, as it’s people are bringing in a new person who would eventually lead their country into a good path. When it comes to actually doing the rough work, like voting for a new President, that would be an entirely different story.
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.
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
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.
Due to the discrepancy between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the electoral college in the most recent election, there has been a lot of talk about eliminating the electoral college and moving to a direct popular vote. While many people argue for this shift, usually with little knowledge of what a popular vote election would look like, there are also many citizens who are opposed to the idea. In our polarized political climate, this fact is not surprising. Those who support the electoral college defend it by claiming that it is not only constitutional, but it also represents the whole county, and makes for a more certain, legitimate election process.
The Electoral College was created by the framers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They believe that it wasn’t a good idea for the people to elect the president directly because they did not trust that voters would have enough information to make a good choice. The Electoral College basically chooses who the next president will be since it takes away our freedom to vote. The Electoral College should be abolished because it’s undemocratic, the small states are overrepresented, and it hurts third parties. The United States of America is a democratic country that is characterized by the equality of rights and privileges.
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
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
In America, voting for the President is a privilege and a lie. Many Americans think when they go to the polls in November, they are voting for the President of the United States; but really, they are voting for a group of electors who have pledged to support a nominee for the President. The Founding Fathers were concerned that presidents would always come from a populous state and wondered whether the public would have the knowledge of various candidates necessary to make a wise selection. They did not have access to technology like the internet or smart phones as we do. In most states, as the result of the election, the state awards all its electors to the winning candidate (Belenky 1308). A Presidential a candidate must win 270 Electoral
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.
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 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.
The Founders built certain protections for individual rights into this country's founding documents. The United States Constitution was one such document. In particular, such protections guard Americans who hold minority viewpoints from those who side with the majority. For example, the First Amendment protects the right of free speech to ensure that people who hold unpopular views have just as much freedom to express those views as do people who tend to agree with the majority. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. However, today, the Electoral College does not represent the vibrant democracy into which the United States has grown.
The Electoral College is a system that has been setup to elect the President of the United States. Over 200 years ago, a committee was formed to determine the best way to elect the President. The three main methods debated for electing the president were by congress, the people, or electors. It was decided that in an effort to keep the checks and balances of our government in order, congress could not elect the president. Although majority felt that the citizens of the United States should elect the president, they felt that the citizens would easily be misinformed and not familiar enough with the candidates to choose the right person. Due to this, it was decided that a group of electors would decide on the President. Each state casts a number of electoral votes equal to the number of senators and representatives they have. Small states are given at least three votes and the largest state, California, has fifty-four votes. The District of Columbia is also included in the College Electoral process and has three votes, as well. The electors are supposed to cast their votes based on the popular vote in state, but this does not always happen. If a candidate wins a number of big states, even if it is by close margins, and loses other states by wide margins, the candidate could lose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote. Three United States Presidents have already won based upon this scenario. In 1876, President Rutherford B. Hayes received and won the presidency by one more electoral vote than his opponent. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison defeated President Grover Cleveland with one electoral vote, although President Cleveland won the popular vote. It has once again happened, as George Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 election. Al Gore won the popular vote and George Bush walked away with the electoral vote and the Presidency. Is it no wonder that the actual people who vote in the presidential elections is so low? We constantly hear your vote could be the one that counts. How is that possible in a system that does not always take in a count the popular vote? It is doubtful that we will actually change the constitution to a vote by popular demand, although it is in my opinion that today citizens of the United States have a better understanding and ability to vote for the President themselves without having to rely on electors to get the job done.
Voters do not actually vote for their president? This information is not hidden, yet most Americans are ignorant of it when they write a name on a ballot every four years. For those individuals who do know the truth of how our system functions, the Electoral College has become a highly debated issue. Our founding fathers created it to be the democratic process that elected the new president for the United States each four years, yet this is the exact problem many people have with it - its lack of democracy. Additionally, many people find it confusing and outdated. I entered this debate undecided on my support of the College, so I was eager to learn what each side of the argument’s rationale was. So the