Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Electoral college vs national popular vote
Analysis on the electoral college
Electoral college importance essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Electoral college vs national popular vote
Believe it or not, the President of the United States is not selected the day after Election Day. In fact, there are multiple steps involved after the popular vote. After the votes are counted, a winner for each state is declared (except for Nebraska and Maine, who split their votes). Then, electors (or people from the winning party selected to represent the party) meet to cast their votes. Since the electors for the winning party almost always vote for their party, all the electoral votes from a given state get counted towards the candidate. On January 6th the following year, the electoral votes are officially counted in Congress. The presidential candidate that received 270 electoral votes or more wins the election. Since the number …show more content…
In Document B, Ross Perot clearly received a large number of votes, even enough to challenge George H. W. Bush, but he didn’t get any electoral votes because he didn’t have enough widespread recognition. If Ross Perot had been affiliated with one of the two major parties, he probably would have received much more recognition and therefore had a better chance. Thanks to the Electoral college, though, candidates are forced to campaign throughout the country - even if they can win the popular vote using only a fraction of it - in order to get enough electoral votes from the less populous states. Document G shows another example of an Independent Candidate (Nader) receiving lots of votes but being shunned in the Electoral College because he didn’t win a majority in any …show more content…
could still lose in the Electoral College. Common sense shows that this practice is unfair towards the popular candidate who eventually lost the election, such as Jackson in 1824, Tilden in 1876, Cleveland in 1888, and Gore in 2000 (Document G). As mentioned above, the Electoral College does distort the weight of one vote based on state population, but for a candidate, even if they win enough large states to clinch the popular vote, their opposing candidate could take all the remaining less populous states and, thus, win the election, even though they were not as popular nationwide. Document F shows how the same thing would happen if a tie were to occur: each state would get one vote, giving the candidate with the less populous states backing him or her a huge advantage. Document A reaffirms all this, showing that with the Electoral College, states with low populations matter so much more that the larger the state, the less attention per capita it gets. This translates to campaigns in all the wrong places, trying to win over a select few who live in less populous states. If a candidate fails to win over enough less-populous states, the candidate will not succeed even if he or she would win in a simple popular vote. This is unfair to those
Abolishing the Electoral College is the best option for our democracy because keeping it slim the chances for independent candidates to win and unfair voting distribution to exist. In Document B, the 1992 presidential election shows Ross Perot with 19,743,821 votes but 0 electoral votes. Independent candidates like Ross Perot don’t get any electoral votes but millions of popular votes. This proves my claim to be true because major party candidates are receiving all electoral votes and are not allowing independent candidates to have a fair election. In Document F it states, “Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative in Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California,
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.
Should America have compulsory voting? In my opinion, compulsory voting is a good way to increase the voting turnout. People currently don't like to vote because they don't have the time, or are just too lazy. If the government gives them an incentive then they will be happy to take time off to vote. Also, a reason to fear not to vote should be installed, like an annoying fine. When only a few people vote, the voter satisfaction is low. But when everyone puts their idea in, the satisfaction rises because the actual majority will win.
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 election took place on Nov 7, 2000. Under our electoral college system each state votes for our new president separately, a winner is then declared in each state and is awarded “electoral votes” that is equal to the states number of representatives in the House and Senate. Gore led Bush 266-246 and 270 votes are required for victory. Florida with 25 electoral votes did not have an official winner because the result was inside of the margin of error for machine counting.
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 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
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.
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.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
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.
Originating in 1787, the Electoral College was created as the official body within American politics that elect 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
Americans do not vote for their presidential or vice-presidential candidate. Instead, they indicate their preference of candidate. Whichever candidate gets a plurality of the vote in a state gets all the Electors for that state. Each state's number of Electors is based on the number of Representatives and Senators it has in Congress. Once a candidate gets a plurality, the Electors vote in the "Electoral College" (a sort of caucus in their state six weeks after the election) for that candidate. So a candidate who gets just one more vote than the other in a given state wins all the votes from that state. Notably, although it is called a College, the Electoral College is a process administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). It is not a particular place (NARA 1).