In the previous 2016 election Donald J. Trump won the electoral vote over Hilary Clinton, whereas she won the popular vote. Hilary won against Donald trump with 65,853,625 to 62,985,106 popular votes. However, Donald Trump won against Hilary overall with 306 to 232 electoral votes. He won the presidential election because of this reason. The system of voting we have now is unfair; electoral vote is only a minor representation of our nation’s states, it weighs heavier than the popular vote, which is not right. The popular vote is the louder voice of those in state, it's all those that aren't involved in government that is the majority; therefor the people have the right to have a louder voice in elections. There are many reasons and proofs as to why the current system isn't working now. It all goes together with why it was originally constructed, why it worked then and not now and what the people felt about it. …show more content…
It was a compromise between two different ways of voting. Those ways were a presidential election vote by congress and a presidential popular vote of the citizens. In general, the electoral college consists of 538 electors in which a majority win of 270 is decided to win presidency. The number of electoral votes per state relates to members in the House of Representatives and the states Senate. States get one for every member in the House of Representatives and two for the Senate. This is why some states have bigger electoral standings as they have more Representatives and such. California is a state with a total of 55 electoral votes, whereas Delaware only has 3, so candidates would soon prioritize higher standing states for bigger chances at winning. A common misconception still is that the electoral college is a place, but it's a process as a whole. Anyways this is the origin of the electoral college, all the way back in 1787 until
This has has always been a big thing for the United States, has it’s people are bringing in a new person who would eventually lead their country into a good path. When it comes to actually doing the rough work like voting for a new President, that would be an entirely different story. In a chart from Document G, there are 4 past elections listed that compares the popular votes to the electoral votes. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won by 271 electoral votes, while Gore won by 266 electoral votes. This may seem reasonable for Bush to be the president, but when it comes to the popular vote, although, Gore had highest amount of popular votes than Bush did. So why did Bush win instead? This is one of the main reasons why the Electoral College should be abolished. If the Electoral College stays then the people will not be able to choose the right person for the right job. So this shows how it can cause so many people to be frustrated with the Electoral College, which does not really help the country at all, in terms of the choosing a new
The Electoral College started in 1789, even then controversy arose. Key factors supporting the Electoral College are representation in states with a small population, prioritizes the organization of campaigns, and provides equality throughout the United States. Candidates would campaign in the major populous regions, overlooking rural area. Virtually placing emphasis in the major cities, neglecting small towns leaving them obsolete. Keep America a two-party system intact in important, how could a candidate win the majority with four or five parties. The South would vote their candidate, California their candidate, East Coast their candidate, causing an enormous problem, avoiding a recount, saving time and
Since Electoral system can change outcome of the election, it often misrepresent the will of citizens. In electoral system, candidate with most popular votes in states wins electoral votes regardless of difference in popular votes. That means, people living in urban areas support one candidate, they could easily mislead the result of popular votes. Smaller area with more population often drag result on one side than larger part with less population. Either it is a presidential election of 1888 or 2000 election, candidates with higher electoral votes happen to win against people’s popular votes. Candidate of election of 1888, Benjamin Harrison won seat in white house even if he lost popular votes because he carried electoral votes on his side. Furthermore, margin between electoral votes was less than one percent, but still Harrison became president despite of 100,000 popular votes difference! Election of 2000 came up with same scenario. Gore won people’s support but lost electors’; therefore he had to accept G.W.Bush as President. After all this, what we can believe is indeed, the Electoral College is such an unreliable representative of the...
The fact that the popular vote holds no power to whom becomes president shows that only some of the people have the power. This seems like a sign that our own government doesn’t have faith in the population to make an educated decision on who should become president. The way smaller states votes are more important than bigger states, shows that states are still not equal in power. The way to win the presidency is more of a strategy than having the ideas to be elected. An example of this is how the electoral college elected George Bush when Al Gore won the popular vote. George Bush is said to be one of the United States worst presidents and was elected through a thought to be flawed system. I also feel as though corruption plays a role in the electoral college compared to the popular vote being authentic. I think this should be replaced with a system of electronic voting that could accurately and clearly show who the majority of the population voted for. But I also think that some sort of requirements to vote should be enacted. Education plays a big role in politics and I feel as though there are people who just vote to be voting with no kind of background knowledge. As bad as it sounds I feel like it could narrow a better decision being made than smaller, less developed states being “mind controlled” into voting for
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.
The Electoral College can be a bit confusing to understand. It was created by the founding fathers and according to the History, Art & Archives, U.S House of Representatives, “…established in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College is the formal body which elects the President and Vice President of the United States.
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.
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 away. The Electoral College should be abolished because it’s undemocratic, the small states are overrepresented, and it hurts third parties.
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
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.
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 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 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.
Although, it is remotely possible in a very close election that there will not be one candidate receiving 270 electoral votes, in which case the House of Representatives chooses the President. 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 stating what “has to be done”....
The Electoral College is not important in choosing the president of the United States. I agree with this because it should matter what the voters say, this is a democracy and it should be the people’s final choice, and if the Electoral College changes the voters’ choice then they will be the ones to blame if our country goes haywire.