Why The Champ Takes All Framework?

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, yet Donald Trump is president because he won the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the system that the United States of America uses to elect the president and vice president. A couple of groups have a problem with how the Electoral College currently operates with people like Barbara Boxer, a California Senator, stating that “94% of campaigning by the presidential candidates in 2016 took place in 12 states. That was it. Two-thirds of these general election campaign events took place in 6 states.” (Congressional Digest, page 21). The idea that the Electoral College and presidential elections is ignoring the majority of the states has spurred different groups to attempt to reform the Electoral

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

A debate has been brewing in recent years about the way we elect our president. The first system is the Electoral College which is very complicated. Americans are not knowledgeable about it and worry that one candidate can win the popular vote and not the Electoral College. The opponents of the Electoral College propose a new plan called the National Popular Vote (NPV). The pro-Electoral College party think the bill’s risks and costs are not worth the possibility of some gains for certain states.

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.

Every time there is an election in the United States, the debate of Electoral College always heats up, and suddenly everybody seems to know about or at least they are interested in learning about it. The Electoral College is firmly established under the United States Constitution to elect the president and the vice president of the United States indirectly. A slate of “electors” are chosen from each state, and they are the ones responsible for voting for president in the general elections depending on which party the candidate is vying with. From this statement, what it means is that one does not choose his or her preferred leader directly and this has made many suggestions that the Electoral College is not a true representation of democracy. This paper will look at the strongest arguments for and against the Electoral College, analyze whether the current Electoral College should be re-engineered or scrapped in favor of direct vote and finally determine if the Electoral College is consistent or contrary to democratic principle.

The Electoral College is the system established by the Founding Fathers to select the President of the United States. It is important that Americans have a fundamental knowledge of this system, and the obstacles overcame in its development. There were many obstacles faced by the Founding Fathers while constructing the government. America was comprised of 13 states that wanted to protect their individual rights and leery of a strong centralized government. The nation’s population lay across a vast area with limited communication capabilities. In addition, the Founders believed that a true gentleman should not campaign for office. “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office” was the saying. They challenged themselves

In 1787, the framers of the constitution assembled and decided how the new nation would elect its president. It took the framers little less than a month to accomplish this task. During that month they considered various methods ranging from direct election of the president, to selection by legislators, to selection by electors. Finally, they settled on selection by electors, most commonly known as Electoral College. There were various reasons why Electoral College ultimately won out. We will explore some of the reason later in this essay. I believe that the reasons which were legitimate at the time are no longer valid and the time has come for us to replace the Electoral College with a system

Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. Without such a mechanism, the president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own. For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority (270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together

In the United States, the Electoral College determines the victor of a national election. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. This system is a “winner takes all” system. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the votes in an individual state gets all of that states electoral votes. The 2016 presidential election will have 538 electoral votes, this means that the election will be decided who is the first candidate to 270 votes. Some people have seen this system as outdated and unjust. Many are looking at a way to change the system and others would like to do away with the system

As Richard Posner wrote for the Slate.com, “There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.” What great news this is for our country. If we were to encounter an election in which no candidate were to win a majority of the votes, then either candidate would be allowed to have the votes of any state, Washington D.C. included, counted time and time again. The end result of such lunacy, would be “debilitating uncertainty, delay, and conflict” (Posner, slate.com). We need our electoral college to be sure that such issues do not take

A debate has been brewing in recent years concerning the way we elect our president. The first system is the Electoral College, which is complicated. Americans are not knowledgeable about it and worry that one candidate can win the popular vote and not the Electoral College. The opponents of the Electoral College propose a new plan called the National Popular Vote (NPV). The pro-Electoral College party contemplates the bill’s risks and costs are not worth the possibility of gains for certain states. The NPV believes that the US should adopt the National Popular Vote. NPV achieves well in making a clear and concise argument on why the Electoral College should be replaced. The first item that NPV discusses is the shortcomings of the current system. A smart move to describe everything that is wrong with the Electoral College and then immediately follow up with their idea. NPV displays how that the winner-take-all system is the root of the problem. The system allows for candidates to ignore states and candidates to win without popular vote nationwide. The argument is unblemished in the essay, but in the next essay that we read the author says NPV is promoting winner-take-all. Which is creating a problem on both sides of the argument and discredits, causing a weakness. NPV states, “presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or campaign in states that they cannot possibly win or lose” (Rourke, 145. Their argument is also supported by bringing up

The Constitution of the United States of America created a system called the Electoral College where it outlines the rules in which we elect the President of the United States of America. As stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution created the Electoral College. Each state receives as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives. Therefore, each state, including the District of Columbia, will have at least three electors. This is the vision of the Constitution. Now the problem arises when all the Electoral votes from one state are given to the popular winner for that state. This causes a with people’s right to chose their leader as votes of the people that voted for the losing candidate are tossed in the trash. All this while giving the state the ultimate power to elect the president.

The Electoral College is the process in which electors vote for the president of the United States.

The winner take all system states that the candidate who gets the most votes (or a majority) more than any other candidate wins all of a state’s votes. Despite the system having its own advantages, it still leaves some difficult decisions that candidates have to face such as allocating what resources to use or focusing on not only competitive states, but swing states and large states where candidates will spend most of their time or their money and attempt to attract the media. This winner take-all system takes an enormous toll on third party candidates. While third parties can attract popular votes, it is extremely difficult for them to attract any electoral votes because they have a very slight to no chance of winning a state. Because they can’t win many electoral votes, it takes a large toll on their ability to raise funds and gain other campaign resources. While the Electoral College has been beneficial in many ways, there are some citizens who believe that it should be abolished. That actually is not such a good idea and there are many reasons why. One is that it would require an additional constitutional amendment and it would take the majority of the states to pass it. As most to all of the states favor a two-party system, the chances of abolishing the Electoral College are slim to none. Another reason would be that competitive states appreciate the Electoral College. While states such as California and Texas already have their minds set, states such as Ohio and Iowa favor the system because in the past and present, their vote has gone on to help elect a candidate into

Two hundred and twenty-nine years ago, our founding fathers had debated on which route to take when electing our President. In 1787, the “Committee of Eleven” had come to a compromise, and created the Electoral College, which is a group of individuals elected by the people to cast votes for the presidency. The Electoral College is described as “a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote” (Price). The reason behind the Electoral College was to preserve “the sense of the people,” while ensuring that our president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under