According to Rourke, “The Electoral College is an indirect process for selecting the U.S. president.” (Rourke, pg. 142) There has been a debate as to if the United States should adopt the National Popular Vote or preserve the Electoral College. In You Decide, we hear from the National Popular Vote (NPV), an advocacy group, and John Samples, who wants to keep the Electoral College. NPV begins their argument by stating what exactly the National Popular Vote bill would do, they state it “would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.” (Rourke, pg. 144) They begin to establish their argument by stating that there has been “four wrong winner elections” in the United States. (Rourke, pg. 145) They also point out that presidential candidates will have to campaign in all 50 states instead of the ones with a majority of Electoral College votes. However, this weakens their argument because as discussed in Debate 8, money is everything is these campaigns. There is no possible way to campaign in all 50 states without running out of funding at some point in time. This would hinder the candidates who do not have the means to travel to all the states and this would likely affect their numbers in the polls. …show more content…
They strengthen this argument by stating that the winner-take-all “bill has passed 27 legislative chambers in 17 states.” (Rourke, pg. 144) This is because “the winner-take-all rule exist only in state law [and they] have the power to change these state laws at any time.” (Rourke, pg. 145) This demonstrates a sense of hope in the United States that one day the NPV system will be adopted in all 50 states, however, until a majority of the states change their laws, the Electoral College will remain the way to elect a
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.
Having only two candidates running for the leader of our country restricts our choices for president. If a third part wins the majority of the popular vote, that doesn't necessarily mean they will be the president because it's all up to the electors. If the candidate doesn't win the electors' votes then they will not h...
Report on Winner-Take-All "Winner-take-all” is a term used to describe single member district and at large election systems that award seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for minority groups. In the United States, these are typically single-member district schemes or at-large, block-voting systems. Under winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation. There's something else troubling about the way we elect presidents--something beyond the personal attacks, the derelict voters and the influence of big money. It is the fact that so many of those who do vote don't have their votes counted.
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.
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
Virginia, being a large state proposes that representation should be based on the state’s population. This means that the more citizens that populate a state can send more delegates to represent in congress. This would put larger states at an advantage because larger states naturally have a larger population. Therefore by having a larger population, they can send more representatives and consequently have a “larger” voice in the legislature. Ultimately, the smaller states would not accept or agree to Virginia’s plan because they would be at a disadvantage since they have fewer citizens. Within its plan, they believe in a bicameral legislature where there are two separate chambers in congress where the people elect the lower house and the lower house would vote to elect the upper house. The members of each chamber are determined proportionally. In addition, there will be three branches of government legislatures such as legislatives, executive, and lastly
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 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 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
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 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 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 should be abolished because the United States today is much more populous and very different than when the founders wrote the Constitution more than two centuries ago (Raasch 1)...
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