2000 Electoral Case Study

One of the reason why the Electoral College should not be destroyed, is that it helps the candidates who may struggle with the popular vote. In 1980, for Presidential Election, candidate Ronald Reagan barely won the popular vote (50.7%). With the help of the Electoral Vote, Reagan took 91% of it, which then made him the winner (Doc B). Also in 1992, Candidate Bill Clinton, did not even have half the country on his side (43%). With the help of the Electoral Vote, Clinton

If the majority of Americans are voting for one president to take the power in the presidential office, than it does not make sense that the other candidate would win the election. However, the Bush versus Gore election was not the only time that a candidate with the minority of the votes to win. A similar election occurred in 1876 between Samuel J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes. The Gale Encyclopedia of American Law states that “when the election returns came in on November 7, 1876, Tilden had clearly received the majority of the popular votes. However… with fewer than 48 hours before Tilden’s scheduled inauguration, the commission announced that Hayes had won the necessary electoral votes” (Gale Encyclopedia of American Law). The fact that Hayes won the presidential election with a minority of the popular votes is purely illogical and preposterous, because it does not accurately portray the opinions of the people. Because of the ability of a candidate to obtain the presidential office without the majority of the votes, the Electoral College should be abolished in America.

The 2000 President Election isn’t considered to be the typical election that occurs every four years in our society. I am opening up the discussion of this important topic in American presidential history by first sharing a fact that not many people may know: there have been three previous presidential elections in which one candidate won the popular vote but not the electoral vote and lost the election. The 2000 Presidential Election was considered to be one of the most highly contested elections in presidential election history (Summary). The election was between Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN). On Election Day night, news stations across the country were all giving an early win of Florida to Gore and

First of all, the Electoral College ignores what most citizens want and undervalues their votes. Because people in each state are voting for electors that are assigned to each party rather than the actual candidates, the decision for president is really up to 538 electors instead of the population of more than 300 million Americans (The Electoral College: Top 3 Pros and Cons). 48 states use a winner-take-all system, where the dominant candidate in each state gains control of all the electors. The only states that don’t use this system are Maine and Nebraska ( ). This system the election about winning states in order to gain electors, and not about each citizen's individual vote. It’s so focused on winning overall states that it completely neglects the popular vote. It is mathematically possible under the Electoral College system that a candidate can win only 21.8% of the popular vote and still win the presidency.. This is due to the fact that the 39 smaller states have too many electoral votes for their population, and because of the winner-take-all system in every state except Nebraska and Maine, all a candidate needs to do is win 50.01% of the popular votes in those states, and he/she can clinch the election (Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College). Events similar to this have happened in history where the candidate who received more popular votes didn’t win the election. For example, in 1876

The problem that has brought the Electoral College to the spotlight in the past few years is the fact that the Electoral College winner does not always reflect the winner of the popular vote. This has already occurred three times in history: Rutherford B. Hays vs. Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, Benjamin Harrison vs. Grover Cleveland in 1888 and most recently, the 2000 election between Gore and Bush (Cornwell). Although half a million more Americans voted for Al Gore than did for George Bush, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, granting him the presidency (Abolish the Electoral College). It doesn't make much sense that the candidate in which received a majority of the votes overall would lose.

It is hard to believe that it will be a year since the Bush vs. Gore campaign was in it’s

In the Albert Gorse versus George Bush election of 2000, Albert Gorse won the popular vote by 547,398 votes. However, George Bush won the election because of the Electoral College process. Normally, the winner of the popular vote wins the office or election. However, during this election it was not the case. Albert Gore did not win by a landslide; nevertheless, he still won the popular vote (Deatrick, 2012). While the typical American citizen may say that this one case is insignificant compared to the other elections, the significance recides in the mind of the person who was running for President and for the American citizens who voted for their

Throughout our course of history, there have been multiple times where a candidate had received popular vote but not the electoral votes necessary. This was shown in the 2000 election where President George Bush and Al Gore were both candidates in this election run. Although Al Gore could have been able to win the presidency because he had more popular votes, the electoral votes for President Bush were higher, enabling him to win the presidency.

The electoral college does not always vote for what the majority of the population wants. In 1824, Andrew Jackson had 99 electoral votes and 152,933 votes from the people. John Quincy Adams had 84 electoral votes and 115,696 votes from the people (Doc #3). Since neither of the men had 51% of the votes (Jackson- 41.3% and Adams- 30.9%), the vote went to the house of representatives where they elected Adams as president. The electoral college did not completely vote for what the majority of the population wanted (Jackson) so it went to the house of representatives and they elected Adams instead because the house was made up of more democrats (which was Adams’ party). In the 2000 election, George W. Bush ran against Al Gore. “Though Gore held a slim popular vote victory of 543,895 (0.5%), Bush won the electoral college 271-266” ~Review of the 2000 Election Ballots in Florida and Third Parties (Doc #5). The population had voted for Gore but the electoral college chose Bush

The election of 2000 was a very tight battle. This particular election came down to the state of Florida. Florida had 25 electoral votes at the time, so this state was extremely important. Nationwide, Al Gore lead George W. Bush by roughly 500,000 votes. This may seem like a large margin, but the race was not over. Gore still needed the correct amount of electoral votes. Ultimately, Bush won the election and served two terms as President of the United States. If you take a look at the numbers and the specific circumstances of this race, it is hard to believe that this race was legitimate. First and foremost, the state of Florida purged 20,000 registered voters and did not allow them cast their votes. Normally, this would affect both candidates.

Citizens should be given proper awareness and education concerning voting representatives for Electoral College before they vote. If the citizens of a state prefer for democrat to run for president then the people that they choose to represent the state should have the same views although in some cases the Electoral College chooses candidates different from the choice of popular votes, but that does not mean that it does not work. Some argue that the electoral college does not work, but there has been only 4 cases since the creation of United states this equates to 93% of the time the Electoral College ballots have reflected the consensus of the popular vote where the popular choice of candidate for president did not get elected , for instance the election of 2000 George W. Bush won the presidency, after weeks of controversy in Florida this made him the first President in more than 100 years to win election despite a popular vote loss, this led to calls for abolition of America's the Electoral College, which means that the electoral college is effective and not an embarrassment. "The Electoral College system gave individual states a key role, each state would choose electors equal to the number of representatives it had in the house in senate." If the citizens of states preferred for democrat to run for president then the people that they choose to represent the state should have the same

The other factor is how electoral votes are distributed. “...each State has two electors because of its Senate seats, regardless of its population. Because of them, the distribution of electoral votes does not match the facts of population and voter distribution”(343). “The current system unfairly favors states with smaller populations ...by allocating electoral votes according to a state’s representation in Congress”(Early History of the Electoral College, l). “The disproportionate electoral strength of the less-populous states enables a candidate, to win the presidency without winning the popular vote”(Critics Claim Democracy Tarnished, 1). The smaller states have more electoral votes per person than larger states; therefore more votes in larger states don’t count. Neil Pierce, author of The Electoral College Primer 2000 says, “Every other office in the United States is elected on the basis of the person who gets the most votes, ...But the electoral college, for reasons no one can ever explain to you logically, values some votes over other votes”. The popular vote winner has lost in election races in 1824,1876, 1888, and 2000. In 1824, Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams. In the election, Jackson received more electoral votes than any other candidate but did not receive the majority. The election was taken to the House of Representatives and Adams was elected (343). In 1876, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received more popular votes than Rutherford B.

The electoral college can be difficult to understand, especially when they say “every vote counts”, but the popular vote is not what decides who is president; instead, it only influences the electoral vote. Those who have been elected to cast the electoral vote take into account of who won the popular vote in the state, and then, 48 out of the 50 states use the “winner-take-all” system to vote for the appropriate candidate that won in their state. At times, the Electoral College is not the one to determine the next president. There are times when the election is passed over to the House of Representatives, where the next president will be selected. The Electoral College is undemocratic, over represents the small states, and gives no chance to third parties; therefore, it should be abolished.

In 2000, as the election approached, some observers thought that Bush, interestingly also the son of a former president, could win the popular vote, but that his opponent, Gore, could win the Electoral College vote because Gore was leading in certain big states, such as California, New York and Pennsylvania. In the end, Gore secured the popular vote, but Bush won by securing the majority of votes in the Electoral College.

Tension tends to be problematic. After all, family tension hurts everyone in and around the family, tension between nations often leads to war, tension in the workplace causes strife, and tension in churches frequently results in church splits. Although, some kinds of tension are essential. For instance, the surface tension of water allows things to float on top. Pressure between the various branches of the federal government allows the United States to operate in the best interests of its citizens. To ensure decent representation and fairness to the people in the midst of this strain, the founding fathers implemented certain means by which to elect officials in every branch of government, restricted the “power of the purse” to the House of Representatives, ensured that all citizens could be tried before a panel of their peers, balanced power between the federal government and the state governments, and ensured that a continuous power struggle would