Essay on Electoral College

Another problem surrounding the Electoral College system is that it allows one-party states, states that almost always go to one party. In this context, a Democrat who casts a vote in a mostly Republican state feels that his vote is wasted because of no way that state will be won by a Democrat. Besides, the system is based on two-party elections, the Democrat and the Republican leaving Americans with two candidates to choose (Belenky, 364). The voters end up picking the candidate with fewer issues rather than the one they support. In my opinion, people feel that Electoral College has single-handedly defeated

The Electoral College: a system that the U.S. has used over the years to choose representatives and is a compromise between election by a vote. The Electoral College should not be abolished for three reasons. These reasons are: The system helps candidates who struggle with winning the Popular Vote; with Electoral Votes, it gives the little states enough power and votes, and if we abolish The Electoral College, we weaken the Political Two-Party-System. And if not weakened, then destroyed. These reasons will show that the Electoral College should not be abolished, and should be kept.

This system needs to be put to an end. The American people are well enough informed to elect their own president without the aide of an Electoral College. The electors in the Electoral College do not actually make decisions anyway. They are just figurative for they should vote along their state’s popular vote, even though most are not legally bound to do so. Even though the electors’ votes reflect that of their state’s popular vote, the views of the people are not always represented. If one candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, and the other candidate receives 49.9 percent, the candidate with only .2 percent more of the popular vote receives all of that states electoral votes. This system is also very unfair to the third party candidate. He/she has very little chance of receiving any electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the national

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. With the Electoral College in affect third parties don't have a chance to become the president, which isn't fair. Electors are expected to be honest but in the past our country has caught some untruthful ones. The electoral College was created so long ago that it is now outdated, so we shouldn't even have electors. People of the U.S. may think that they are participating in a direct election for the president, but with the Electoral College system

In order to fully understand the underlying problems of the Electoral College we have to look back at the time that the idea of the Electoral College itself was proposed and see how the culture of the time and the ideologies of the people involved helped shaped the final outcome. Life today is much different than it was two hundred odd something years ago, and it’s fair to say that the political ideals and social norms around our society have changed drastically.

A president can win the majority of the popular vote but may lose the electoral vote. If political candidates lose the electoral vote then the candidate might have lost the whole election. There are many examples where this situation has happened before. According to Document G, a chart shows different presidential elections from the year 1824 to 2000. In 1824, Andrew Jackson was running against John Adams.

But this year, that is not the case. The media frequently refer to this year’s presidential election as one of the most competitive in recent history, perhaps since 1960 when Kennedy won with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646. In the final sprint of the marathon 2000 presidential campaign, Democratic nominee Al Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush are neck and neck. Particularly in a contest close as this one, the Electoral College warps national politics and could lead to a major constitutional crisis. So, with a race this tight, it is entirely conceivable that one candidate may win the popular vote and still lose the election. This would mark the first time since 1888 that the president-elect lost the popular vote. Since it has happened three times before in American history, in 1824, 1876 and 1888, it could certainly happen again. In 1824, John Quincy Adams received fewer electoral votes and fewer popular votes than his opponent Andrew Jackson but won the election when the House of Representatives favored him by six state votes. Then again, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel J. Tilden with just one electoral vote in spite of having lost the popular vote. It was a contentious victory because the electoral votes of four states were disputed until eventually

The electoral college system is unnecessary at this point in time. When the electoral college system was thought up in the 1700s by the framers of the constitution, they believed that electors to represent the peoples’ vote would be more efficient since it was extremely difficult to get information to and from places quickly, meaning that citizens would be late on news. To to combat that, the framers created the electoral college system, a system where electors elected by a political party would represent the peoples’ vote, gather in Washington, and vote on their behalf. Because of the lack of technology, this method wasn’t a bad way to vote for presidents efficiently. But technology improved, negating the problem of Americans not knowing the news in Washington and concerning their candidates. Today, Americans have access to current and reliable news regarding their candidates and are generally up-to-date with politics. So with the technological advances present today, why do we still employ an electoral college to vote for our next president? There isn’t a pressing reason to keep it.

First, The Electoral College prevents majority rule and should not be abolished. ”The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. It levels the political playing field a bit” (Williams, Walter E.). It is said that Hillary Clinton won popular vote majority. Therefore, if the nation were not encumbered with outdated electoral college. Clinton, instead of our present one, would be the next president of the United States. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote just as Clinton supposedly did. Such outcomes have led to calls to desert the Constitution's Article two provisions for the state electors to select presidents. Before the U.S. deserts the Electoral College, let's consider the purpose it performs. According to 2013 Census Data, Nine states- California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and Michigan have populations

The United States, well known for its democracy, holds elections every four years to elect its President. Every American citizen over the age of 18 has a right to cast a vote in the presidential election. The voting process, although it seems easy and straightforward, can be very complicated. In the 2000 election, Al Gore captured the majority of votes, but George Bush won. The reason for this strange outcome and why Al Gore lost was because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is voting system where different states are given a certain amount of votes in the election, and which ever candidate wins a state, is given that state’s votes. The Electoral College is out of date, and should be replaced by the Popular Vote system,

The Electoral College’s influence discourages many Americans from voting due to the fact that they simply do not see the point. If a candidate wins the majority in a state, according to the current winner-take-all system, they receive all of the state’s electoral votes. In states like California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas, which all have twenty or more electoral votes, winning the majority can make or break a presidential candidate’s chance of winning an election. Even

thinking of the 2000 U.S. presidential election -- Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he

When the Electoral College was put in place as part of the voting process it seemed a good idea. “Our framers distrusted democracy and saw the Electoral College as a deliberative body able to correct bad choices made by the people.” (Anderson 519). Times have changed and today’s society is a lot different that it was when George Washington was President. It’s about time that the U.S eliminates the Electoral College and makes America more of a democracy by making the popular vote the deciding factor in electing the president.

The arguments to modify or eliminate the Electoral College system are all derived from the notion that it is outdated. Under the current system if a candidate wins a large states like California, then they win twenty percent of the needed votes even though California only accounts for eleven percent of the U.S. population. What's more is a president can be elected without winning a majority of the popular vote. This has happened 15 times in U.S. history. The

To begin with, the electoral college is an undemocratic system in which the popular vote isn’t taken into account because it all depends on the electoral vote. A fair democratic system would be if the candidate that wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote because the people should have the power to choose and have a voice. For instance in the election of 1888 Jackson won the popular vote with 5,534,488 but lost the electoral vote to Harrison who won 233 electoral votes; therefore showing that the vote of the people does not matter (Doc G).This example reflects that the power to elect president relies on the electoral vote meaning the senators and representatives. Overall the electoral college must be abolished because the presidency must be won by the people’s votes because they are