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.
In many states Bush only won by 2% but all of the electoral votes went to him, despite the fact that 50% of voters chose a different candidate. I understand that this is the way it has been and it has worked in the past. But more than ever there is an uprising against the Electoral College. For instance Colorado attempted to pass an amendment that would change the way the electoral votes are counted within the state. Within this outdated system a candidate could win the majority of the popular votes but still not win the election.
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.
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 Many people feel that this system is outdated, unfair and/or biased; that it should be replaced with the popular voting system.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... ... middle of paper ... ...ates would be wary of passing any amendment that would be disadvantageous to their respective states. However, this is a hurdle that we must cross in order to maintain legitimacy in our political system.
There have been some cases where the popular vote of America was contradicted by the electoral vote winner. Every person in America is equal and should have the same authority in their voting. The Electoral College should be abolished not only due to its obvious flaws, but because all Americans should have the equal right to vote. No one governmental entity should have the right to decide the American people’s choice. One serious flaw in the Electoral College system is that the popular vote winner does not always win Presidency.
That is just not the way a democracy is supposed to work. I believe that it is time for the United States Government to start realizing that the campaign process is getting out of control. The majority of presidential candidates only want to win a state's electoral votes. They do not concentrate on the smaller states.
These are the principal findings of a September 1-12, 1999, Pew Research Center nationwide telephone poll of 1,205 adults... ... middle of paper ... ...t polarizing issue involves marital infidelity. Fully 57% of Republicans say that if a candidate is having an affair during the campaign, news organizations should almost always report on this. Only 30% of Democrats share this view. Republicans are also tougher than Democrats on lying. Seven-in-ten GOP backers (71%) think the media should always report if a candidate has exaggerated his or her military or academic record.
Honestly, 99 percent of the time there would be a majority winner, so it really isn't even a factor in why the Electoral College should be kept. The Electoral College was a bad idea from the start. If the country had been run off of a majority or 2/3s decision the US may have been a lot different today. It is much more fair to let the people decide than let the boundaries of states decide who will be in the power of the country for the next four or eight years. Majority rules would make sure that the person who got into office is the president that the people wanted and voted for.
In practice, nearly every state has passed a law that the electors will all vote for the popular vote winner in their state, but as the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, the people of the United States do not have a constitutional right to pick the president. A state could, if it felt like it, select the electors
All of these votes go to the candidate who receives the majority in that particular state (Federal Election Committee). Whichever candidate receives the most electoral votes nationally wins (Federal Election Committee). So, it is not truly the people who decide who will lead them. In the United States, a supposed democracy, the Electoral College renders individual voting meaningless. One reason that the Electoral College has contributed to the apathy of American voters is that it does not allow citizens a real say in presidential elections.