The Electoral College was established at the roots of the American electoral process. This system is deemed archaic and many argue that its function is no longer beneficial in today’s politics. In the modern era, we have seen a shift in approval ratings of the system. The system is generally disliked and many agree that because the government is “progressive” and the system is essentially “regressive”, the United States lacks room for improvement and is ultimately stifled by the system. Although there are many benefits to the system, it is important to note that issues arise with time. The government has changed throughout the years but this system has held steadfast. Many reforms have been proposed and many steps have been taken to implement …show more content…
The direct election with instant runoff voting (IRV) is one of the more recent proposals to the reform. The IRV does not call for the total abolishment of the Electoral College. In fact , “Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections with or without the Electoral College” (“The Electoral College Reform Options”). This gives voters the opportunity to directly vote for their candidate by ranking their top preferences. With modern day technology, these votes would be counted in a timely manner and if no single candidate won by a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes would be removed from the ballot and the race would begin again. This process would be repeated and recalculated until one candidate receives the majority. This system has the potential to eradicate many of the issues our nation currently has with voting. Each time the winner of this system would be the nationwide majority winner. If applied by all states, this system would produce a leader who is nationally approved by the majority of the nation. I believe this system, in addition to the complete eradication of the Electoral College, would be the most beneficial for the presidential election …show more content…
“There are many different variations of this system and it varies throughout the United States. Most recently this system has been introduced in Colorado” (“The Electoral College Reform Options”). This system would take each state’s electoral votes and split them based on the percentage of the popular vote they receive. This would keep the candidates constantly on their feet. The second place winner in a state wouldn’t necessarily be knocked out completely, rather they would still be able to get a percentage of the electoral votes from that state instead of none at all. This would generate a renewed sense of purpose among voters in states where they feel as though their votes do not count. Also with this system, “though the majority, as always, would come out on top in each state, the minority's supporters would not be effectively contributing to their candidate's defeat when the whole of their state's electoral votes go a candidate they do not support” (“The Electoral College Reform Options”). The candidates would also be forced to appeal to voters in all states and not just in swing states. I believe this system, if properly enacted, could fix many of the current issues but I do see room for error. In order for this system to work properly, all states must take on the system and electors would have to be elected
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.
That's the unavoidable consequence of the winner-take-all system that prevails in all the states. At the end, of course, any contest for a single office is a winner-take-all affair. But why should it be that way in the states? Why should more than a million-and-a-half California supporters of George W. Bush see all 54 of the state's electoral votes go to Al Gore? In short, what is wrong with apportioning each state's electoral votes in accordance with the way the state's electorate voted? A better question, no doubt, is why not ditch the electoral college system altogether and go to direct elections?
Upon this defectiveness of Electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population. This system is being used to choose our president for a long time and it is hard to find a replacement for it, but little effective change in the system is possible. If that is done, that change may bring huge breakthrough to the way we Americans see election.
over the past two centuries, the electoral college needs to be abolished and the election process needs to be changed. Keeping elections away from physical situations and making them into efficient, easy at home polling will make the election process smoother. Making the popular vote be the determining vote for president will keep more electors happier and will give them less reasons to lash out against the results. The recent elections have evolved from just electing the president, to being strong emotional situations that can possibly endanger many people when they end the wrong way. I think that if we can implement these two new ideas into the election process that it will keep electors safer, make them happier with the outcome, and will prevent elections from turning into bad
Every four years, the citizens of America migrate to their respective polling locations and cast their vote. On this important day, the second Tuesday of November, the next President of the United States is elected. The election race for United States presidential candidates undergo a political marathon, negotiating primaries, party conventions and an electoral college system along the way. The electoral college is one of the main aspect of a presidential election. The Electoral College is made up of electors in each state, who represent the states popular vote. Each presidential party or candidate designates a group of electors in each state, equal to the States electoral votes, who are considered to be loyal to that candidate, to each State’s
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.
Some people believe the Electoral College system weakens the fundamental principle of a representative government- that one person should have one vote. If we switch to a popular vote, people will have a greater amount of saying than before. The candidates will have a better chance to get
Voting is at the center of every democratic system. In america, it is the system in which a president is elected into office, and people express their opinion. Many people walk into the voting booth with the thought that every vote counts, and that their vote might be the one that matters above all else. But in reality, America’s voting system is old and flawed in many ways. Electoral College is a commonly used term on the topic of elections but few people actually know how it works.
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 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.
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.
By dismembering the Electoral College and replacing it with a popular vote, some Americans believe this would eradicate any further issues on who is placed in office, while others want a system to do the dirty work and select their future leader. But by eliminating the very system created to keep the states at peace, the Electoral College has, in fact, caused turmoil and confusion among the people in regards to American politics; many people have a sense of displacement and lack of care for politics due to the mindset that someone else is in charge and their voice does not matter. Allowing the American people to cast their choice for who takes care of their future and eliminating the middle man ideals of the Electoral College, government can give back to its people in ways they might not have thought about before. They give the people a voice, choice, and a sense of personal expression and freedom.
...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.