How Harmful Is The Electoral College?

A Congressional Proportional method is another alternative being proposed in opposition to the Electoral College. A Congressional proportional method would allocate votes based on the winner of each congressional district. It would also award the winner of the overall popular vote in each state two electoral votes(senators). Once again on the surface this system looks fair and reasonable, but if you investigate deeply it can be seen that there is one glaring flaw in this system. The act of Gerrymandering which is used throughout the United States in every state is when the authority in each state decided which way the districts will be drawn. In simpler terms an authority could draw district that would exclude certain type of voters to increase

The distinguished contributors to this instructive volume - including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Michael Barone, and Walter Berns- show why it would be foolish to abolish the Electoral College by explaining not only its historical and cultural significance, but also its present role in instilling a measure of stability and sanity to our electoral and party systems. This is the definitive volume for all those interested in the logic, and continuing importance of this unique American political institution.

In Act one of The Crucible, Arthur Miller carefully chooses diction in the scene of Reverend Hale first meeting the ill Betty to intensify the dramatics of the scene. When Hale first arrives in Salem, he is taken to see Betty, who had fallen ill and has not awakened since her father caught her and Abigail dancing in the woods with others. Reverend Hale starts speaking Latin. He says “ In nomine Domini Sabaoth sui filiique ite ad infernos ”(Miller 48). That directly translates to “In the name of the Lord Sabaoth and of his son, depart to hell”.

Candidates running for president might not get the majority vote, but still win the election. How is this possible? This is due to the electoral college. The electoral college is a system where each state has a specific amount of electoral votes that is determined that state’s population. Either candidate from either party can win a state and that candidate will get the number of votes that the state has. Whoever has the most electoral votes based on states, will win the election even if that candidate does not have the majority vote from the people. Should the electoral college be abolished or changed? The outdated ideas of our founding fathers, the number of electoral votes, and a few key elections support how the Electoral College should

Everyone knows that coming up soon this November is the election that will elect the President, Vice President, and other positions for the government. The process to getting elected can be difficult and confusing. People first need to get nominated, then they need to start their campaign with a platform, slogan etc., next they need to win people’s support and get them to vote and they also need to get the electoral college to vote for them. The electoral college is the group of people elected from each state that vote using the amount of votes that the state has (based on the population). Some people believe that the electoral college should not be used because it does not always vote for what the majority of the state is voting for, which

The Constitution Convention of 1787 gave birth to the system of Electoral College. According to the Constitution, electors per state are equal to the number of seats each state holds in the Congress, which include the Senate and the House of Representative delegations. California holds the most Electoral which is 54 electors. However, with every census the numbers of each states electoral change due to the process called reapportionment. Reapportionment can be defined as the “the process by which congressional districts are redrawn and seats are redistributed among states in the house ; reapportionment occurs every ten years.” The Electoral College should not be preserved because it is unfair due to the fact that candidates who do not win plurality of the votes can still get electoral votes. It is unfair to depend on the 538 Electors to become the voice of three hundred and nineteen million people.

The electoral college is an institution that every four years is in charge of electing our President, and Vice President. In school we are always taught that its the right and fair way to elect our president, but why? When the Founding Fathers created the process in 1787 along with the constitution certain founders such as James Madison thought the process would hurt the south and under a prior agreement set by southern slave states allowed states to count slaves as votes. This gave Southern States the majority of the electoral votes. In the first distribution of electoral votes Virginia(a heavy slave state) came out the big winner with over a quarter of the US votes where a state like Pennsylvania(a free state) had far less. The pro-Southern

Wyndham great post again. Although, I am not convinced one party has any advantage over the other party in the Electoral College. Your post reference the National Archives as stating, “…neither party has consistently won the presidency, with the control passing from one party to the other and back, usually after one or two terms.” So, history has not proven any party advantage over the other in the Electoral College too.

The Electoral College, first instituted in 1787, is designed to give all states in the United States a say in who the president will be. The Electoral College works by giving a vote to each House Representative and Senator for the state. The senators and representatives for a state cast their ballot based on the popular vote in the state. Whichever candidate gets the most electoral votes in the state gets all the electoral votes for the state; this is called the winner take all system. Many people believe the Electoral College is flawed and should be changed while others believe it should be thrown away altogether. There are many things about the Electoral College that should be changed but the system is not completely broken. The Electoral College is a flawed process, but one that is needed for a fair election. The way electoral votes are given is fair but, how a President is chosen with no majority, which is a requirement to become president, and the winner take all system are ineffective and must be changed because they do not reflect the true will of the people.

In this week’s discussion we talked about if the Electoral College and if it is important or not in our country today. Do we really need to have the Electoral College? I believe it is important in our country today and I believe we should try to keep it in our country for as long as we can.

The Electoral College system was initially set up to help create a more efficient way of electing government officials. In the 1700’s the media coverage was not as broad as it is today, so many people would be without knowledge of the candidates or even what is going on in that election. With the vast coverage of media all around the country, people are more informed and better educated than ever before. This coverage of media makes the sole purpose of the Electoral College irrelevant and it should be taken out of our system today.

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

In this year's presidential election, many voters dislike both the democratic and republican nominee. As such, the democrats in states that are almost guaranteed blued states have elected to trade their votes for someone voting for an independent candidate in a swing state. This "strategic" plan, once used before in the 2000 election when Bush ran against Al Gore, allows people's votes in non-swing states to have an effect on the election. While this strategy makes sense in theory, it completely contradicts and cheats the electoral college and all of the people who have decided to vote fairly in their own state.

The Electoral College was founded in 1787, when the writers of the Constitution were discussing how they would go about electing the future Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States. The Electoral College is just a part of the United States process of electing the next president. In the diagrams on the page above, you can see the Electoral College in the election of 1800 and in the election of 2012. Over time, the Electoral College has played the same role, but as times are changing, is it necessary to keep the Electoral College and continue with what is familiar, or throw it in the trash and try something new?

The Electoral College has been around since the ratification of the Constitution. Overall, 5 of our presidents have not one the popular vote. These presidents are John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and our current, “president”, Donald Trump. This is why the electoral college should be replaced because only specific states (swing states) end up determining the outcome of the elections, it is outdated for our new, advanced country, and already 5 presidents haven’t been the candidate people wanted more.