The Pros And Cons Of The Electoral College

The term Electoral College gained a vast amount popularity in the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016 which brought many controversial arguments in favor and opposed to the Electoral College. If you haven’t heard or don’t know much about it, as a voter and an American citizen, it is important to know what it is and how it affects our community.

The Electoral College is a group with too much power, so much power that they cause the average citizen’s vote for president to fail to be significantly substantial, and that needs quite a few changes. The Electoral College believes that they can accurately reflect not only the nation’s desideratum, the group also believes they can reflect the nation’s absolute need. This is a democratic government and an American citizen deserves to have an irrefutable say in who he or she wants as a leader; the country might be a better place to live in if that were to happen; perhaps this generation might not experience it.

Those who are for the Electoral College have their own interesting host of points to make on the subject. They make mention of it contributing to the cohesiveness of the country, that it enhances the status of minorities, that it encourages political stability, and that it maintains a federal system of government and representation (Leip) . Regarding the Electoral College affecting the cohesiveness of the country, the concern is that without the Electoral College states with lower populations are devalued and that having the college ensures that they have some value and stake in its votes towards the election. This makes some sense, but it is just worth noting that the votes of the college are determined in some degree by population anyway.

The Electoral College always has its huge impact on the elections and more importantly on the very close elections. Both Republican and Democratic candidates feel at times that if their parties win the popular vote, they win the election, but that is when the electoral votes play their part. The electoral votes are combined by states and the electors in each state abide by the people's voice, but also have a chance

The Electoral College is one of the oldest establishments in American history. The college has been disputed over for many years, and many arguments have been brought up against the system. Though there are many people who disapprove of the college still has supporters of the college that think it is very beneficial to America. So here are a few pros and cons of the Electoral College.

very much which causes the candidates not to pay attention to the States they don’t guess they have a chance of winning (Eric).It is true to some extent that every vote doesn't matter in the electoral college system. For example, a Democrat Californian who does not get the change to cast his vote for some reason should not be angry as his vote does not make much of a difference, but the same can’t be said about a voter in Florida or other swing state where every single vote can make a difference in the outcome of the presidential race. U.S. voter participation is quite low because most people think their votes don’t really matter, and it is argued among some, that removing the electoral college would increase voter participation(Amelia). In practice, the winner of the electoral college takes all of the state's electors which in turn decreases the importance of minor parties. However, the Electoral College is not the cause of the American two-party system, and it has had the disposition to increase the chances of third-party candidates in some situations. Some supporters of the Electoral College state that it can isolate the impact of election fraud,

The electoral college has been used for more than two centuries and over that time period, it has “established itself as a remarkably stable, adaptable, and successful method of selecting Presidents.” (Vile) The electoral college gives both parties a chance at winning the election. According to the article “Electoral College: Pros & Cons” written by John Vile, there are “more” democrats is the US, making it harder for the Republicans to win the elections. But with the electoral college it evens out the odds of each party winning. The electoral college has also “provided peaceful inaugurations of new administrations.” (Vile) As the US continues to grow in naturalization and centralization the “electoral college reminds us that America is one nation.” (Vile) The electoral college gives electors from both small and large states the opportunity of becoming President. When becoming President the electoral college prevents any President from becoming too dependent on political issues “like the Congress, and promotes separation of powers, which facilitates liberty.” (Vile) The electoral college continues to show everyone that abolishing it would

At the time of its creation, the framers of the Constitution believed that an election based purely on popularity was hasty, while others protested on giving Congress full power to select the next president and vice president. Altogether, the Electoral College was set up to allow voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, as described in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. However, battleground state citizens are showered with more attention from the presidential candidates. On the other hand, if you live in a “red” or “blue” state, you are out of luck. A vote from a citizen living in a “red” or “blue” state doesn’t

Many believe the electoral college’s votes protect the states that have small populations from the large populations states and in turn candidates will have to give more attention to small states. If this was true it is being executed horrifically. Candidates are visiting, advertising, and campaigning more and more in swing states. In other words, the electoral college doesn’t make candidates care about small states, or even big states.

The 2000 United States (U.S.) presidential election concluded with Vice President Al Gore winning half a million more popular votes than George W. Bush (50,992,335 to 50,455,156) yet losing the White House in the Electoral College by only five votes (271 to 266). It once again raised questions about the validity of the Electoral College as the same scenario has occurred in the 1824, 1876, and 1888 presidential elections. This essay will discuss two problems of the Electoral College: the failure to accurately reflect national popular vote will and the problem of state bias. I argue that the U.S. should abolish the Electoral College and implementthe direct

Many believe the Electoral College’s votes protect the states that have small populations from the large populations states and in turn candidates will have to give more attention to small states. If this was true, it is being executed horrifically. Candidates are visiting, advertising, and campaigning more and more in swing states. In other words, the electoral college doesn’t make candidates care about small states, or even big states.

The presidential process consist of 4 main steps which are, primaries and caucuses, national convention, general election and the electoral college. This is the way the president have been chosen for many years. Not everyone agrees all the time, but this time it seems that there is more people upset over the results from the presidential election. Many say that it was unfair or that it was somehow rigged. This process has been around for many years, but does this mean it is perfect? Does it need some adjustments? The most important question would be Is it fair? Does it really take into account what the people want? All these questions arise, yet nothing is ever really done to fix the problem, if there is one. In order to figure out what to do people need to take a closer look at the whole process and really analyze it.

Using the 2016 presidential election as an example, we can see how the Electoral College can allow a candidate to take the “winner-take-all” system towards the presidency. Another example of how a candidate can win the election by winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote can be seen in the presidential election of 2000, where candidate George W. Bush lost the popular vote to candidate Al Gore but won the electoral vote, drawing criticism to the Electoral College, with some saying that it has “outlived the purpose for which it was created” (Duquette, 2017). In this “winner-take-all” system, more attention is focused towards electoral districts rather than a national platform. For example, if a third party were to have a chance in winning an election in a district, “the voter must take this fact into consideration” (Bowler, 1994). This makes it possible

The Electoral College is almost an archaic system, however, we cannot blame our nation’s founders for the flaws we find today. The US constitution was written in a time when political parties did not yet exist. In the conflicting party’s absence, the largest division between Americans was small states against large states (5 – 11 para). The small states vouched for congress to elect our president so that they would receive enough representation that they

“Our vote will not count! Our voices are not being heard!”, is a rallying cry heard at this moment in our nation as the conversation of whether or not we should keep the electoral college as our founders had designed it is taking place. Disregarding what our architects of the constitution wrote, there is a change in the air for how we as a country vote and decide who becomes our next leader. As it stands now, the electoral college votes for the presidency, which can lead to frustration for the many who vote. The last election should be a case in point. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote while Donald Trump actually achieved the presidency by receiving the required 270 electoral votes.