The Electoral College is one of the only things that don’t follow this rule and it needs to change. It needs to change because it does not necessarily mean that the more popular president will get the job. For example Al Gore got the popular vote, but George Bush won the election. If it was majority rules then Al Gore would have become president and the country may be a lot different than it is today. Al Gore deserved to win but since Bush won the more meaningful states he got the job even though America wanted Gore.
The electoral colleges also cause the individual vote to become pointless by using a “winner-takes-all” system in many states (Citizens for True Democracy). In these systems, all of a state’s electoral votes go to the candidate who gathered a majority vote. In many elections, candidates who didn’t receive the highest percentage of the popular vote were still elected president because they received enough votes from the Electoral College. For example, in the presidential election of 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president with 108,740 popular votes, even though Andrew Jackson received 153,544 votes (Bailey, Kennedy, and Cohen A28). Such a system does not accurately reflect the wishes of the citizens in this “democratic” nation.
The Democratic Party was strong, led by a democratic President Bill Clinton, and a democratic Vice President Al Gore. Clinton had served his two terms in office, therefore unable to run for a third term. Vice President Gore was favored to run election and to also receive the democratic nomination. Gore had the strong economy of the 90s to support his run for office, which could be attributed to the Clinton administration in some ways. According to H. W. Brands in his book American Dreams, “the first rule of American politics is that voters reward incumbents for prosperity”1 which is exactly what Clinton and Gore gave the people.
Soon after the Revolutionary War in America, a new government was started when the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up a democratic government that gave the States the power to make their own laws and to enforce them. However, the Articles were ineffective and failed to provide a strong government. During this critical period in the history of the United States, pandemonium and anarchy were growing due to: controlled public, nothing in the Articles that gave Congress the power to enforce laws, no solid monetary system, and also the country lacked unity and strength The Articles were ineffective because Congress only had the power to recommend actions to the States. It could not enforce its recommendations or laws.
It is not uncommon for the President to adapt his/her policy agenda to meet their personal time frame. Additionally, to remove a President from office requires a lengthy process. A successor will likely political legitimacy and may have their own agenda causing further discontinuity. On the other hand, Linz describes the fixed term for parliamentary leaders as stable because they can be removed from office easily and replaced seamlessly. Linze writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for.
How I feel, is that you shouldn’t win presidency because you’re popular and everybody likes you. In conclusion, should get the job of a president because you can help solve America’s problems and lead the country the way it’s supposed to be led. The second reason I want to keep the Electoral College is because I don’t want anything more than a two-party system when it comes to voting. And the thing is, the third party might have good ideas, but, ... ... middle of paper ... ... be overwhelmed by a national popular majority. My conclusion is that the Electoral College has done its job for over 200 year.
The power between majorities and the minorities caused each state to become jealous of one another 's rights and powers. So, The Founding Fathers became afraid that, “A Tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.” Therefore, they came up with many different ideas for The Electoral College. The first idea, was to have congress choose the president. The idea was rejected though, because it was too indecisive and would leave too many hard feelings in congress. The second idea proposed the state legislature to choose the president, but was later rejected because they thought the president could persuade the state legislature and he/she would violate federal authority.
The third idea was to elect the president by popular vote; however, the framers of the constitution had limited trust in the capability of the public to make intelligent and informed decisions. At an impasse, the “Committee of Eleven” was formed and proposed a system of choosing the president through a College of Electors. This College of Electors was intended to be comprised of the most knowledgeable, informed, and capable individuals who could choose a president based solely on merit (Kimberling, 1992). This system was adopted by the founding fathers and is found within Article II of the Constitution. From its inception, the Electoral College has been embroiled in vehement contention between those who find the value in the system and those who see it as an antiquated means to repress democracy.
Another drawback is that it is possible for the loser of the popular vote could win the electoral vote hence becoming president (Black). So the people’s choice is not always the winner. Many feel the people should choose the president rather than having the unpopular lead the country. Lastly, it makes voters feel that their votes do not matter since the most states vote the same way for most elections (Josephson). Voter turnout is usually low in the nation and without the Electoral College the incentive to vote may increase since people will feel that their vote actually counts since a direct election makes people vote for the president.
It could have also led to a bad balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Another idea was to have state legislatures select the president, but was also rejected due to the fact that it could erode federal ... ... middle of paper ... ...ng in the smaller states. Even if the states only have two votes that was still what Bush needed to get him over the top. I feel that the system is perfect the way it is. The Founding Fathers did great research in examining every process proposed and picked the perfect one that will keep the country unified.