Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the effectivness of the electoral college
Electoral college essays
Essay on the effectivness of the electoral college
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on the effectivness of the electoral college
Electoral College Essay
America is not a country that could easily crumble. From the complex process of turning a bill into a law to the seemingly endless line of presidential succession, America has structured itself in a way that no evil can quickly enter into or demolish its structure. The Electoral College, the process in which citizens vote for the President, is no exception. Under this process, whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a state wins that state’s electoral votes, which equal the number of state representatives in Congress. Whoever receives the most electoral votes becomes President. While the Electoral College is already capable of giving small states some representation and never allows one political party to continuously
…show more content…
If a citizen is an outlier in a state heavily leaning towards one party, their vote is as good as dead. On the other end of the spectrum, if two candidates each have almost half the votes, whoever has the most votes, even by a miniscule amount, gets all of the electoral votes. In the 2016 Presidential election, Donald Trump received 47.6% of Michigan’s votes, while Hilary Clinton received 47.3% of Michigan’s votes (2016 Presidential Election Results, 2016). Even though the difference in votes was barely more than 10,000, Donald Trump still won all 16 of Michigan’s votes. This is not fair because almost half of all votes become nullified just because another candidate earned a few more votes. This inequality of voters’ representation causes vote trading. Vote trading is the event in which two people trade votes so that their votes will be more influential. Vote trading may not be new, but with the internet, it is much easier to find others willing to trade their votes. “Trump Traders” is the name of one of these websites, and has matched 40,000 individuals to another interested in vote trading (Ax, 2016). While that may be more beneficial to the people trading, vote trading causes every state’s votes not to illustrate realistically the preferences from each citizen. Changing America’s entire voting system to what Nebraska and Maine use will give more importance to the individual voter and minimize the effectiveness of vote trading. Since each congressional district holds about 710,000 people and not millions statewide, each person’s vote automatically becomes more important. While vote trading may never cease, the idea of one Electoral vote per district will make it harder for vote traders to decide which district to trade votes with. Even if many people from the same district trade votes, their reward will not be tens of Electoral (If
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
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.
Florida is a good example of what I'm talking about--not because that state turned out to make the decisive difference in this week's election, but because more than 2 million voters--nearly as many as will go to the winning candidate--had no say in the outcome. All of Florida's 25 electoral votes will go to the other guy.
...on of 2008, in Montana half of million people voted, on the other hand in Wyoming nearly two hundred thousand popular votes were recorded. Even though there was a difference of quarter million popular votes, same numbers of votes were provided. Thus, this system discriminates people who live in states with high turnout. Rather than having statewide electoral vote distribution, vote distribution in congressional district could be little more effective in way to represent people’s will.
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
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 United States of America is a democracy country that is characterized by the equality of rights and privileges. The Electoral College is considered undemocratic because it gives a higher percentage of the voting power to states with low population. Thus, the popular vote should be counted and not the electoral votes. In Document D of the Electoral College DBQ, there’s a chart that shows the comparison of population and electoral votes in 2010. In the chart, it has the twelve states that are less populated plus DC with the total population of 12,500,722 and total electoral vote of 44. In addition, Illinois has the total population of 12,830,632 and the total electoral vote of 20. This shows that Illinois would have less electoral vote than the 12 states plus DC which has 44. It is unfair to the larger states and it shows the unequal electoral votes to the states. In Document F, Bradford Plumer wrote, “the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where the state
The electors in each state are equal to the number of representatives that state has in Congress resulting in at least three electors per state regardless of population (McKenzie 285). Each state has two votes to correspond to the senators representing that state in Congress, and then each state has one vote to correspond to the House representative that represents that state in Congress. Smaller states comprise a higher percentage of the total electoral votes than would a popular vote for the president in those states (Muller 1257). The Founders intended the Electoral College to protect overshadowing the small states’ interests of the larger populous states by allowing at least three representative votes rather than none at all, and the smaller states were not willing to give control of the election process to the larger states, which was similar to their fight for representation in Congress (Muller 1250). However, it ignores the people who voted against the winner, since once the result is determined at the state level; the losing voters no longer have any significance nationally (Wagner 579). Wagner also points to the fact that the winner-take-all system can lead to selecting the minority candidate over the majority vote, as in the George
This is unfair because this suggests that voting power changes with your geography. Election of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 reveals that sometimes a candidate with fewer popular votes can still win a majority of the electoral votes. This is a disadvantage because the state’s popular opinion is being neglected. Another thing to consider is the winner take all system, a system in which the “winner of their statewide popular vote gets all of their allotted votes in the Electoral College System which poses another disadvantage. The winner take all system is also known as the “Congressional District Method”; all states follow this except Maine and Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska tend to divide the votes proportionally. The winner take all system is however inequitable because in a state there is a vast amount of opinions, and this system prevents the minority from being discerned. This system “ does nothing to provide representation to any group making up less than half of the population in a given voting district.” Winner take all is a discriminatory rule as it tends to under represent minority. Winner take all is also a binary system, so if you are a Democrat living in Alabama (which is primarily a Republican state) your opinion is less likely to her
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 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.
Originating in 1787, the Electoral College was created as the official body within American politics that elects the president and vice president. The decision of who will win is based off the vote totals in each state, and “the founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.” (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “What is the Electoral College?”). During this time, the job of the Electoral College was to make peace between differing states and federal interest groups, provide popular participation in elections, give a vote to less populated states, and keep the president’s powers separate from Congress.
The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
...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.
The Electoral College plays a critical role in the election of the President of the United States of America. First introduced in 1787, the founding fathers implemented this system as a way to ensure a more efficient voting process (Soros). During this time the Electoral College did serve a noble purpose and in fact, was the most efficient way of voting in a time when mass transportation and technology did not exist. By participating in this process, townships were able to send a representative to cast a collective vote for that area. The modern Electoral College still operates in a similar fashion and yet, fails to serve a modern-day purpose. It challenges the democratic principles which the United States was founded on and may even operate illegally. Today, “forty-eight of the fifty states appoint (their) electors through a "winner take all" method of election” which is “not simply undemocratic, but potentially illegal...