Election Disenfranchisement Analysis

Despite the Electoral College system being founded by the founding fathers in America and being there as long as the Constitution exists, many people still do not have sufficient knowledge on how it works. The Electoral College does not provide honest presidential elections rather it has the potential to undo the will of people at any point from the selection of electors to the vote tallying in Congress (Shaw, 3). Electoral College in the United States has played a major role in depressing the voter's turnout. Every State is given an equal number of electoral votes despite the population and in turn, the system has put in place no measure to encourage the voters to take part in the elections. Besides, the system distorts

The electoral college has a major corruption through the fact that each vote is represented by a different percentage of a state’s population. Wyoming has one vote for every 187,875 citizens, while California has one vote for every 677, 345 citizens.(Document 2). This turns away any constant in the amount of voters

The outcome of the 2016 election left many Americans feeling confused, angry, cheated, and terrified of the future. Somehow, the sexist, racist, homophobic candidate Donald Trump had become the nation’s president, though Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received the majority of popular vote. This raised many questions over the constitutionality of the Electoral College system, and whether it was unfair to the people of the United States. In the electoral system, created by the Founding Fathers due to their lack of trust in the people, the constituents of each state vote for their preferred candidate, and all of the state’s electoral votes go to the candidate with a majority. Clearly, the Electoral

In June of 1804 the states had ratified the Twelfth Amendment which enacted the Electoral College in time for the 1804 election. When election time comes, Americans vote for the President and Vice President who are chosen by Presidential electors, who as a whole are known as the Electoral College. As a decision was needed for a method of choosing candidates, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 contemplated many different ways of electing the President, but toward the end of the proposals and ideas the matter had to be taken to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters which is the committee who conceived the original Electoral College. In recent years, much debate has been stirring regarding whether or not the Electoral College has a place within this country's elections. For many states this method of tallying and casting votes is great because every state receives a minimum of three electoral votes considering each state has two senators and at least one representative (Lewis). However, these minimum electoral votes make the distribution of electoral college votes uneven throughout the fifty states, making each American citizen's vote count less or much more which is cause for change. If the information on these weighted votes is analyzed it can be concluded that states with a population similar to Wyoming has one “elector” for every 177, 556 persons while Texas has one “elector” for every 715,499 persons. While the Electoral College has worked for generations, there are some negative factors that give cause to abolish this practice, such that are; faithless electors, the winner take all system, and finally, safe and swing states.

Most Americans think the Electoral College is a nuanced and complex system designed to safeguard democracy. It seems that dividing electoral votes among states and awarding each state's electors to one of the primary candidates would be an effective system and one that would preserve our nation’s freedom. And so society blissfully forges on believing our current system of election is both impartial and up to date. But little do most American citizens know that they are lacking the knowledge and context to understand how malignant the Electoral College is. The Electoral College needs to be abolished because it ignores the popular vote and what most citizens want, it causes candidates to focus too much on swing states, and the old reasons for using are now irrelevant.

As the pillars of the electoral college collapse under the tests of time, the institution itself becomes obsolete. First, the concept of, “Winner Takes All,” means that if an election splits 49%-51%, then the smaller party’s votes are virtually erased. This system represents only the majority party in each state, thus effectively silencing all other parties. Additionally, basing the number of electors on the members in both houses of Congress creates an unequal distribution of votes across the states. Due to their infamously low population, Wyoming should statistically have only one elector, but the addition of their two senators brings them to a total of three electors. This means that each of Wyoming’s votes represents less people than every other state. For instance, each of Texas’s 38 votes represents 733,157 people while each of Wyoming’s votes represents 195,157 people. Therefore, the votes of the people of Wyoming are worth 26.62% more than that of Texans. The inequality of voting power between states combined with the “winner take all” system method of tallying votes projects an inaccurate portrayal of will of the American people.

America has been acknowledged as being one of the world’s leading democracies, but to continue implementing the use of the Electoral College creates some distortion to that title. The out of date system does not accurately portray democracy. Theoretically, a democracy is government system that is ruled by the people. In reality, an individual’s vote may not matter depending on the state they reside in. Robert Dahl, a Democratic Theorist stated, “every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” Political equality is important to the distribution of power. Even if a person is wealthy and of power their vote should be counted the same as someone in poverty.

In the “Redrawing the Electoral Map: Reforming The Electoral College With the District-Popular Plan,” Craig J. Herbst discusses the reformation of the Electoral College, using a different method for elections, and the U.S. Constitution. The author argues that District-Popular Plan method is better for the nation because if it is used candidates will have put more effort into developing strategies for the popular vote, and people would be more knowledgeable about politics with those developments. Herbst notes that District-Popular Plan can help groups of people who are disadvantaged and underrepresented. He also states that the only and the best way to do this to have a constitutional amendment which is so hard to pass. Ultimately, he concludes the article with explaining the benefits of having the District-Popular Plan. Craig J. Herbst’s article was published in Hofstra Law Review which is and academic and credible source because it is peer-reviewed by experts on the issue. The purpose of this source is to inform people about the Electoral College and the U.S Constitution, and an alternative way for the Electoral College. I will use this source to get more information

Is it possible that the heart of the election process hurt the principles of democracy more than it helps? The Electoral College has existed since the time of the Founding Fathers leading many to believe it is a crucial aspect of the election process meant to protect the ideals of democracy. In truth, this system has largely hindered the possibility of a representative government. Thus, the Electoral College is archaic and anti-democratic, supporting unfair election practices such as underrepresentation and must be abolished.

The most recent case of an unfair election was the Bush vs. Al Gore Election. Robert Hall from the Sun Sentinel says that Al Gore should have won because he had 544,000 more votes than Bush, meaning that Al Gore had the majority vote. Al Gore still lost though because of electoral votes. According to Tom Landform, there have been 4 other cases like Al Gore’s where the candidate lost because of the Electoral College. This is completely unfair to the candidate because these people won their election with the majority votes that are needed but the Electoral College took their victory away from them. The public is a victim of this ongoing problem too. The public does not realize this but people’s votes are being “wasted” or thrown away. Tara Ross says that the winner take all system are “wasting” people’s votes. This happens because in an election the majority vote wins and all the electoral votes go to that party. This means that if a party wins with 50.1 percent it is equivalent to winning with 100 percent. This occurred in the Bush vs. Al Gore election also. According to Tara Ross from Democracy, Al Gore had 2.5 million people who voted for him in Texas but were wasted because of the winner take all system. The Electoral College is ruining the people’s say in who they want and what they want to happen. This system that America has is not working and needs to

The Republicans and Democrats would have you believe that America is perfect besides the other party. There's no doubt that there are some serious issues with the politics of this country, but one of my significant concerns isn’t the feud between the conservatives and the liberals, it's the Electoral College. In my opinion, the reason that politics is so utterly bungled is the inherent issues that stem from the election process. The Electoral College devalues votes and the voices of the individuals so in my opinion, removing it should be a bipartisan issue.

Five of the fifty-eight total United States Presidential elections in history have ended in discrepancies between the popular vote and the electoral vote; on average, the president elected into office was not actually favored by the majority of Americans almost ten percent of the time. We need to acknowledge the fact that this, along with the Electoral College system as a whole, undermines our foundation in democracy. Additionally, the Electoral College is based in slavery and oppression and is therefore not indicative of the social progress that America has made since the Constitution’s ratification. Because of this, I am proposing an amendment to eradicate the Electoral College and instead elect presidents by direct popular vote. This would end an antiquated, obsolete, and arguably undemocratic practice that continues to plague us despite centuries of progress as a nation.

The Electoral College was structured on the idea that no single entity, federal or popular, should have the power to determine the outcome of electing our country’s executive. Founding father James Madison writes in the Federalist papers of his concern tyrannical factions that arise in pure democracies. Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 recognizes a faction as “…a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” (The Federalist

The 2000 presidential election was a major eye opener for many people. As it appeared to also be the dismay of many, the candidate who won the most popular votes nationwide actually lost the contest. In the election's risen moment, popular attention centered around the Electoral College and its role in the presidential election. Under the U.S. Constitution, the people did not necessarily direct vote for the President in a nationwide election; rather, the people in each state would vote for electors from that state, who in turn would cast the constitutionally decisive votes for President and Vice President. Moreover, not only is the people's influence indirect, the Electoral College's voting pattern does not necessarily track the national popular

Imagine two candidates running for the presidency of a country. They are both outstanding candidates, and it is a close race. Going into the days of the voting, no one knows who is going win the election, and become the president. When the votes are tallied it shows that one candidate received more overall votes from the people of the country than the other. He, obviously being the favorite of the people, loses the election. Many of the people of the country are confused why he lost the election even though he won the popular vote. The winning candidate won because the country he won the presidency of, uses an outdated and flawed voting system. This candidate assumes the presidency knowing that he does not have the support of more than half of the nation that he is now