Category: Electoral College

If you’re a United States citizen, 18 years of age or older, you probably think you have the right to vote for presidential candidates in the national election. That’s partially correct. When citizens cast their ballots for president in the popular vote, they elect a slate of electors. Electors then cast the votes that decide who becomes president of the United States.

Usually, electoral votes align with the popular vote in an election. But a number of times in our nation’s history, the person who took the White House did not receive the most popular votes.

The founders thought that the use of electors would give our country a representative president, while avoiding a corruptible national election. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 report that,

…[T]he members of the General Convention…did indulge the hope [that] by apportioning, limiting, and confining the Electors within their respective States, and by the guarded manner of giving and transmitting the ballots of the Electors to the Seat of Government, that intrigue, combination, and corruption, would be effectually shut out, and a free and pure election of the president of the United States made perpetual.

The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, explains what might seem like a convoluted system to voters today:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as its legislature may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and members of the House of Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the legislature.

But no person shall be appointed an elector who is a member of the legislature of the United States, or who holds any office of profit or trust under the United States.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.

In 1796, Federalist John Adams was elected the nation’s second president, and Thomas Jefferson, of the Republican Party, was elected vice president. On December 28, 1796, Jefferson wrote a letter to Adams, observing, ‘The public & the papers have been much occupied lately in placing us in a point of opposition to each other. I trust with confidence that less of it has been felt by ourselves personally.’ How did their political differences actually affect their leadership?

Initially, electors cast votes for candidates without designating whether they were voting for president or vice president. The flaws in this system became evident in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes. It took the House 36 votes before the tie was broken and Jefferson took office as president.

In 1804, 12th Amendment to the Constitution made sure that electors designate their votes for president and vice president, but the 12th Amendment leaves in place a tie breaking system established by the Constitution by which the House of Representatives breaks a tie on presidential electoral votes and the Senate breaks a tie on vice presidential electoral votes.

In some elections, the Electoral College has voted presidents into office by extremely slim margins, as was the case in 1960, when John Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by fewer than 120,000 popular votes. Electors have even failed to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged, as was the case when an elector pledged for Michael Dukakis voted instead for vice-presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen.

While these electoral methods may seem strange to us now, it may seem even stranger that the founders didn’t provide a process by which to nominate presidential candidates. They seemed to expect that candidates would be as obvious and unanimous choices in the future as George Washington had been in their time.

The Electoral College is the responsible cause of the unfair voting system in the United States today. In my senior year of high school, my teacher showed me that the Electoral College discourages many Americans from voting, and it mocks the idea of “one man, one vote.” I wrote an essay about the Electoral College entitled “We Need to Rid Ourselves of the Electoral College.” My opinion was and still is that the Electoral College is in need of mending. With each state having different amounts of electoral votes, candidates are prone to persuade the states with larger amounts of electoral votes than other states with smaller amounts. Even worse, the Electoral College means that a presidential candidate can have the majority of votes, but that candidate can still lose. This especially discourages independent or third party candidates who want to run for President. I believe that the outdated Electoral College takes the voting power from the people’s hands and it must be eliminated. lectoral votes.

When the Electoral College was first put into place in 1787, it was justified. The population at that time had similar opinions and preferences; what was good for the majority of a state was considered good for the entire state. Hand-vote counting was also difficult at the beginning of the Electoral College, and votes being eliminated at the state level made counting much easier and more reliable. However, in two hundred years, America has changed quite a bit. To argue now that the majority of any state has the same preference would be impossible to support. The current Electoral College unjustly awards electoral votes based on a winner-takeall method. The candidate that gets the majority of votes in a state gets all of that state’s electors. Even if forty-nine percent of a state votes Democrat and the other fifty-one percent votes Republican, the Republican side receives all of that states electoral votes. This means that many votes get eliminated at the state level, which causes millions of votes to be uncounted. This is frustrating to me because there would almost be no point in voting for a candidate who is obviously not going to get the majority vote.

The winner-take-all method undoubtedly discourages and eliminates third party candidates. For example, if an independent candidate gets as much as thirty percent of a state’s votes, chances are that that candidate will not receive a single electoral vote. In my high school essay, I wrote about an independent presidential candidate Ross Perot who received twenty-nine percent of the popular vote in America, but received no electoral votes.

Voting power in each state hinders the election and its turn out. Smaller populated states get relatively more voting power than larger states. This is because electoral votes are not distributed based on the population of each state. States that have a small population are in possession of too many electoral votes. For example, although the state of North Dakota has a considerably smaller population than Wyoming, both of these states have the same number of electoral votes. If someone were to live and vote in North Dakota, their vote would not be worth as much as someone who lives and votes in Wyoming. It is extremely difficult to justify that some Americans have more presidential voting power than other Americans.

I believe that the best way to fix the Electoral College is to eliminate it altogether. It should be replaced by a direct or popular vote. Unfortunately, the Electoral College is in the Constitution and, in order for it to be eliminated, a constitutional amendment would be required. Eliminating the Electoral College would also result in the loss of some states’ voting power, so it would be difficult to get the majority of state legislatures to approve an amendment. However, if we decide to fix the Electoral College, which I propose in my essay, we could split up electoral votes proportionally. For example, if candidate A receives thirty percent of a state’s votes, and candidate B receives seventy percent of that same state’s votes, and this is in a state with ten electoral votes, then candidate A would receive three electoral votes and candidate B would receive seven. This would mean that nobody’s vote would be eliminated at the state level, third party or independent candidates would be encouraged to run for President, and it would be up-to-date and consistent with the quote “One man, one vote” and the constitution. I hope that in the near future, much needed changes will be made in order to make the United States a better example of democracy, especially in the most important election of this great nation, the presidential one. With much needed changes, the Electoral college will not contradict but rather support the Preamble of the United States Constitution as well as democracy:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

Understanding the Electoral College

Should the electoral college be abolished? Many people within the American electorate believe that they, themselves, vote for the president of the United States. Little do they know, the president is elected by one of the most undemocratic political institutions in this country – the Electoral College. Presidential elections are determined not by popular vote but by an electoral college in which, in all but a few states, electors are assigned on a winnertake-all basis. Representation in the Electoral College is based on population, which is assessed every ten years by the census. Each state receives a minimum of three electoral votes. Additional votes are assigned for each seat a state holds in Congress above that minimum. The Electoral College is the greatest threat to our democracy because it contradicts the very foundations of any democratic system if democracy means that the majority rules. The replacement of the Electoral College by a national popular vote would reduce the likelihood of contentious outcomes and transform the electoral process into one with democratic ideals. Three characteristics of democracy can be identified of which are necessary for a democratic institution to persist.

Democratic Foundations and the Rule of Law

The first characteristic of a democracy, at the level of government, is a system in which the laws are essentially made by and governed by the same individuals. Our current system does allow for the first characteristic of democracy to persist because our nation is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law states that every person is subject to the law, including lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges. The rule of law separates our political system from a monarchy or an oligarchy in which the ruler or head of state is held above the law. The rule of law, however, can still fail to serve its intended function if there aren’t mechanisms to protect it from corruption. The founding fathers, when drafting the constitution, addressed this issue by employing the tactic of separation of powers to ensure that there was a system of checks and balances on every institution of the government.

Political Equality and the Electoral College

The second characteristic essential for democracy’s existence is that, at the level of society, the political system must be characterized by equality. The tenet “One person, one vote” is fundamental in achieving political equality. With the establishment of the Electoral College, however, the path towards political equality is hindered because the idea of one person, one vote is suppressed. Firstly, there exists a different weighting of votes in different states, with less populous states receiving greater representation. According to the 2000 census, California’s population was 33,871,648, giving it fifty- five electoral votes, Wyoming, the least populous state, had only 493,782 residents, earning it three electoral votes.

To sum it up, California gets one electoral vote per 615,848 residents; Wyoming receives one vote per 164,594 residents. That is nearly a 4:1 ratio in favor of Wyoming. The fact that an individual from one state can have four times the voting power as an individual from another state clearly proves that there is no political equality. Secondly, within state congressional and legislative elections, the determination of district boundaries is another potential source of effectively distorted representation.

There exists gerrymandered congressional and legislative districts within each state which directly affect the results of local precincts and, ultimately, the decision of the electors representing the entire state. Partisan and self-protective redistricting has led the outcomes of most seats to be largely predetermined: lines are frequently drawn to protect incumbents and/or to maximize the expected number of seats that the majority party will retain. Where the latter goal predominates, this typically leads to a small number of districts in which the opposition party has an overwhelming advantage, a larger number of districts in which the majority party has a smaller, but still “safe,” margin, and few if any districts that are truly competitive. In a homogeneous society governed by majority rule, every individual would have an equal voice in making decisions or laws. But as society becomes heterogeneous, members of minorities risk becoming consistently marginalized and effectively disenfranchised.

The Impact of the Electoral College on Voter Engagement

Single-member first-past-the-post electoral systems such as the legislative elections in states can cause members of minority groups to be underrepresented. Finally, at the level of the individual, democracy implies both self-efficacy and engagement. This is the third characteristic necessary for a democracy to exist. The Electoral College, however, fails to pass this specific litmus test. The chief executive of our country can be entirely decided by the swing states. Campaigning is reduced to these few selective states because the other states don’t have as significant an effect on influencing an election. In addition to the limited campaigning, if democracy is characterized by an autonomous citizenry in which citizens act as equals, then when significant numbers of citizens abstain or are denied the right to participate, government becomes less democratic. Many people abstain from elections because they believe that their vote doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because a state’s electors, excluding swing states, will traditionally vote in a certain manner.

Consequently, a democratic ideal can be described in which all citizens would exercise the voting franchise. While it is well known that this ideal is far from being achieved in the United States, it is less well known that this has long been the case: In the 1954 presidential election, only 63% of voting-age Americans went to the polls. Sixty years later, despite innumerable changes in media, culture, and politics, 55% of eligible-age voters participated in the 2004 presidential contest. Finally, the Electoral College doesn’t equate to self-efficacy and engagement because it doesn’t reflect the collective will of the nation’s citizens. Throughout this country’s history, five times the winner of the popular vote lost the presidential election, two of those times have been within our lifetime. This situation can more easily be comprehended through a different lens like a basketball game for example. If a basketball team were to score more points than the opposition and still end up losing the game, there would be an outrage. It’s a system that in no way reflects democracy.

Defending the Electoral College: Counterarguments

Even though the Electoral College is an undemocratic institution, there are still many people who support its establishment within our political system. Many of these proponents of the Electoral College object that a national popular vote, the democratic alternative, would confine campaigning to the great metropolitan areas, to the exclusion of the heartland. Candidates and resources would flock to the great urban-suburban communities of the coasts and Great Lakes, leaving the smaller cities, towns, and rural areas of the great interior to wither in political isolation. It is quite evident, however, that this is exactly what’s occurring today in political campaigning: political candidates and resources are all concentrated in swing states. 94 percent of campaigning by the presidential candidates in 2016 took place in 12 States Since the Electoral College doesn’t favor a more nationalizing style of campaigning and doesn’t require candidates to assemble multistate and multiregional coalitions, why should campaigning be focused in swing states, of which typically have a smaller population, instead of focusing their political efforts on the largest, most concentrated communities. Candidates should have to campaign to a larger swath of people if our country expects to attain an educated electorate of which is essential in a democracy.

Many proponents of the Electoral College also mention the two-party system, which was an unintended consequence, to defend the established system. The proposed argument is that The United States has not been plagued by splinter parties and third parties, as have many European nations, which helps prevent gridlock between the branches of government and instead promotes bipartisan cooperation. The notion of gridlock stems from the idea that the present system requires a base of support sufficient to carry a majority in a few states in order to procure a modicum of electoral votes. Theoretically, this has discouraged parties that support one issue to take extreme ideological positions. The status quo, however, has proven that the twoparty system does lead to gridlock instead of bipartisan cooperation. Excessive political conflict and gridlock are negative characteristics of the current polarized environment that need to be minimized or eliminated. In two-party systems, politicians in leftist parties will often be perceived as highly differentiated from politicians in right-wing parties. Yet, in multiparty systems, there is greater complexity and potential for confusion since there are often multiple parties on the left and/or right. The option for voters to select a candidate that most aligns with their political ideology and views is more prevalent in multiparty systems than in a two-party system. In a multiparty system, voters will have to choose from two ideologically polarized candidates increasing the polarization in congress thus creating gridlock instead of cooperation. Multiparty systems, similar to those prevalent in Europe are forced to work together to form a coalition of many different views. This increases the amount of cooperation within the many different parties. This cooperation has ultimately brought about social change and progress in certain sectors within our society that weren’t necessarily prevalent issues when the electoral college was established.

The Call for a More Democratic Electoral System

So should the electoral college be abolished? This essay proves it should. The vast majority of the electorate believes that the Electoral College is undemocratic and unrepresentative of American ideals. Approximately 62 percent of the people in this country, regardless of party, think the electoral college should be abolished and transitioned to one where the winner wins. The new system in which we choose to replace the electors or the Electoral College is what this country needs to come to a consensus on. Many different proposals have been brought to the table including a direct popular election plan, a proportional electoral plan, and a district electoral vote plan. One plan, in particular, has gained massive national attention as states have begun to individually adopt it: the automatic electoral vote plan. This plan would retain the electoral college but abolish the office of the elector. All of a state’s electoral votes would be cast for the winning candidate in that state. This would ensure that the presidency is won by the winner of the national popular vote. Regardless of any system adopted by our country in order to elect our president, it needs to be one that represents this country’s ideals of equality. It must be a system that adheres to democratic characteristics because this is the only type of system that respects political equality. It must not be the Electoral College because it is inherently undemocratic.

The electoral college is the system used to elect the president in the USA. There are several strengths of the system, such as that it ensures candidates campaign in a variety of states not just a few. There are also many weaknesses of the electoral college system; states can become safe seats; the result can be unrepresentative of public wishes and smaller states may have disproportionate levels of influence.

A strength of the Electoral college system is that it promotes candidates campaigning widely. In 2016 Trump campaigned in more states than Hilary, visiting small states such as Maine and Nebraska, this is considered to be one of the reasons for which he won the election. Hence it is evident that the electoral college promotes campaigning in smaller states as the winner visited substantially more states, thus it preserves the voice of smaller states by making their votes important to the elections result. One weakness of the Electoral College system is that it produces safe seats. States such as California which solidly votes Democrat and Alabama which continuously votes for Republican candidates creates safe seats. In seats that vote the same way continually there is little competition during elections as candidates do not believe they stand a chance at election, such as Hillary Clinton in 2016 who didn’t visit Alabama or Texas during her electoral campaign. Although there are still highly competitive states that are well contested, such as Florida this means that candidates are much more likely to campaign in these swing states than safe states, increasing their influence in elections.

Another weakness of the electoral college system is that it is unrepresentative. In the 2016 election Hillary Clinton won 232 Electoral College Votes losing to Trumps 306 Ecv despite the fact that she won the popular vote by 2.86 million ballots. Hence meaning that the Electoral college system is unrepresentative and does not portray the wishes of the public.

Furthermore, the electoral college is weak as it gives excessive power to smaller states. For example, Wyoming, a state with a small population has 3ECV, which if this proportion of population was used for calculating the number of votes for all states California would have 180 ECV rather than 55. This shows that the fact that minimum number of ECV is 3 for each state gives the smaller states undue influence on the result of the election, this also means that the votes of people in smaller states are worth more than votes in states such as California.

The Electoral College is a group of representatives derived from each state and the District of Columbia, whose major role is to elect the president and the vice president of the United States of America. The College is established by the constitution of the United States, and it has been a critical part of America’s political system for decades. The candidate who gets the majority of the electoral votes is given authority to lead the country after the outcome of an election is certified by Congress. The College has been a hot topic for discussion that has attracted the attention of two different schools of thought. The first group comprises critics who oppose the system, and who have made several calls for either reforms or abolition. The second group is comprised of opponents who support the system and who have rejected calls for its abolishment. Both sides have compelling arguments that support their different political ideologies.

The Electoral College has been in operation for more than two hundred years. Since its adoption as part of the US political system, several elections have been conducted and it has played a key role in facilitating the democratic appointment of a president without the influence of population numbers in different regions (Connors 13). The pros of the system include protecting the interests of the minority, facilitating a two-party system, directing more power to the states, and promoting the distribution of popular support.

In contemporary America, the population of urban areas is higher compared to that of rural areas. Therefore, there is an uneven representation because of the differences in population density. Some states have low populations and a high number of rural metropolitans. The people in these areas mainly include farmers whose interests are not as valued as those of the middle class in cities are (Reed 64). In that regard, the Electoral College protects their interests because the president and the vice president are not elected by a popular vote (Houser 18). The system enhances political cohesiveness because it compels politicians to campaign in all areas of the country (Connors 17). If the top positions were filled through a popular vote, then candidates would focus their campaigns on highly populated areas. The need to acquire votes from multiple regions necessitates the creation of a campaign platform that has a national focus and appeal (Levine 53). Without the college, people in densely populated areas would be marginalized due to poor presentation.

The US has two predominant political parties, namely the Democratic and the Republican Party. The political system has been widely criticized by historians and political scientists. However, research has shown that the structure creates more stability in the nation because issues of national concern are usually generalized and not specific (Houser 19). The system enhances the cohesiveness of the country because a candidate’s support must be distributed throughout the country for them to be elected president (Reed 75). In that regard, presidential candidates increase their chances of winning by forming coalitions of states and regions. This unifying mechanism is beneficial to national cohesiveness. Moreover, the two-party system absorbs third movements that have been historically shown to propagate radical views (Connors 24). The assimilation encourages the proliferation of two pragmatic political parties that focus on public opinion rather than extremist views that are characteristic of smaller parties.

The political system directs more power and control to the states because of the power to select representatives to the Electoral College. These delegates participate in the election of the president and represent the interests of all states regardless of their population (Levine 54). In that regard, the system maintains and enhances the success of a federal system of government and representation (Houser 23). The states have important political powers that allow them to address the interests of the citizens both in rural and urban metropolitans. For example, each state participates in the political decisions of the nation through its representatives in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Electoral College (Houser 29). Proponents of the system argue that abolishing the Electoral College would necessitate the abolishment of the Senate and the House of Representatives because they are comprised of individuals who represent all the jurisdictions of the US.

According to the structure of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must receive support from all parts of the nation to win an election. A candidate’s popularity must be distributed nationally because electors are representatives of all the states (Levine 62). This system promotes political cohesiveness because people from different regions and states must come together to provide support to a certain candidate so that they can have a majority of the electoral votes (Medvic 42). This structure eradicates the probability that a candidate might spend their campaign resources on highly populated regions (Levine 64). Some states are considered swing votes. However, a candidate must receive support from all the regions of the country to win. No single region has the necessary number of electoral votes needed for a presidential candidate to win. A candidate who is popular in a certain region must appeal to voters in other regions to receive the necessary majority for victory.

Opponents of the Electoral College have criticized its effectiveness in fostering democracy and national cohesiveness, and have argued that it should either be reformed or abolished. They have presented several reasons that support their argument that the system does not foster democracy, even though its proponents claim it does. The cons of the Electoral College include the possibility of electing a minority president, a failure to reflect the will of the nation, the uneven distribution of power to certain states, and the depression of voter turnout.

The major disadvantage of the Electoral College system is the probability of the election of a minority president. There is a risk of electing a president who does not have the majority of popular votes (Dufour 8). This occurrence could happen in three main ways. First, if more than two candidates vied for the presidential seat and shared the votes, there is a possibility that none of them would garner the necessary majority. This would happen if the people were so divided that the candidates shared the votes. In 1824, 1948, and 1968 the situation was witnessed (Medvic 63). Second, a minority presidential candidate could win if one of the candidates garnered the most votes in a few states while the other got enough votes to win the necessary majority of the Electoral College (Dufour 10). Third, an independent candidate could alter the numbers such that none of the two top candidates gets over 50% of the votes cast (Levine 78). Smaller states could have a larger percentage of votes because compared to their populations, thus compromising the integrity of the election about the will of the majority.

The Electoral College system fails to reflect the collective will of Americans in two ways. First, there is an over-representation of people in rural metropolitans because of the uneven distribution of votes based on population. Electors that represent each state in the College are determined by the number of representatives in the House and the Senate (Levine 49). In that regard, votes in different states carry different weights. Second, the system supports a winner-take-all approach as the candidate takes all the Electoral votes in the states they win the popular vote (Dufour 15). This makes it harder for independent candidates and third-party candidates to have any significant political influence in the Electoral College. For example, if an independent candidate received the support of 30% of the votes, he would still not qualify for any Electoral College votes (Levine 72). Therefore, the system discourages the participation of independent and third-party candidates, and so, it denies the electorate the opportunity to choose from a wide variety of candidates.

Opponents of the Electoral College system argue that it gives too much power to smaller and swing states. This argument can be explained by comparing the states of California and Wyoming. California has 55 Electoral College votes, while Wyoming has three. Consequently, each Californian vote represents 705,454 citizens while a single vote in Wyoming represents 191,717 citizens. In that regard, there is an uneven distribution of power since one vote is not equivalent to one person (Dufour 19). Voters in less populous states have more power than voters in highly populated states have. The major political parties aim to win the support of voters in certain states to emerge victoriously. For instance, the Democratic Party aims to win the votes in California while the Republican Party aims to win the votes in Indiana (Klepeis 11). The concentration of electoral votes in certain states compels presidential candidates to focus their campaign efforts in specific states that have higher political influence. In 2016, a report by PBS NewsHour revealed that presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had concentrated their campaigns in 11 major states, among them Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina (Ross 84). Some states have fixed voting patterns: Minnesota is largely Republican and Utah votes for the Democrat (Levine 83).

The structure of the Electoral College discourages some voters from participating in elections because of the feeling that their preferred candidate might lose the election. For example, in the 2016 election, Hilary Clinton (the Democrat candidate) had a 15-to-20-point lead over Donald Trump (the Republican candidate) for a long period as shown by the results of the polls (Ross 91). However, the outcome showed a big difference with Donald Trump in the lead. Such an outcome could discourage some people from voting because of the poll’s indication that a win for their candidate of choice was inevitable as indicated by the polls. Another reason why the system depresses voter turnout is the effect of swing states. Some states are considered more important than others are because they are highly populated (Klepeis 14). For instance, California and New York are swing states (Ross 92). Many voters feel like these states are the sources of votes that count. Therefore, they fail to vote based on the assumption that their votes do not count.

The Electoral College has been part of the United State’s political system for more than 200 years. During that period, the system has been discussed and debated from both positive and negative perspectives. Opponents argue that it promotes inequality and it should be abolished. On the other hand, proponents argue that it enhances cohesiveness and political stability. From the foregoing discussion, it can be deduced that the Electoral College does not reflect the nation’s popular will due to the uneven distribution of votes in the Electoral College for each state. Moreover, presidential candidates pay more attention to swing states that have more electoral votes. The system favors poor rural regions over populous urban metropolitans.

The main goal of developing the system was to solve the problem of population disparity in the country. Since its creation, the population of the US has changed immensely. Moreover, the distribution of people in different states and regions has changed. Therefore, the system is ineffective in contemporary America. The system promotes the distribution of popular support. However, candidates pay more attention to states that might “swing” votes in their favor. They focus on states that include Ohio, California, New York, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. The importance of minor parties and representation is low because the Electoral College system encourages a two-party political structure. Therefore, the system should be abolished to create a more democratic the United States of America.

Have you ever imagined a person who earned more votes than the other candidate but did not win the election ? Today, I am planning to focus on the topic popular people’s vote and electoral vote for my paper. NPV, as stated by Wikipedia, is, “ The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.” Electoral college system according to national archives and records administration, it states/defines that, “The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and the election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the elector, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.” While the Popular vote seems to be popular choice, there are some who see the Electoral college as the better solution to the voting results. Honestly speaking, there are pros and cons to both, but I have chosen to explain the pros and cons of electoral college only.

The existing system of presidential elections was split between two stages. For the first stage, the popular voting takes place throughout the 51 states where citizens cast a vote and are later on elected democratically to the candidate for the presidency. There is indeed a maximum of 538 voters or delegates. The other is the election of the members elected from those in the 51 nations will choose the President. Of the 538 votes, it is necessary to win a minimum number of 270 votes. And afterwards, the president is inaugurated. This really allows you (U.S citizens) to adequately select the President. All of this makes a fair process of selecting for the President. It lowers the risk of illegal voting and causes the representative of each State to be very powerful, although no matter how small or insignificant it might be.

The Popular People’s Vote campaign seeks a legitimate democratic vote. Therefore, it does ensure that the person getting the majority of the popular vote gets immediately 538 votes after the first phase of the election in the 51 states. It also makes it possible for the nominee to obtain the absolute majority of the votes from all 51 states. It proposes that somehow the vote totals must be strictly democratic. In other terms, from the first round of the election, a person who gets the plurality would eventually receive the support from 538 electors among 51 nations. The applicant may receive significant majority support in principle from across all 51 nations. The issue could be that a nominee has to focus on his/her promotions on the populous regions and they might even jump states to win in the general elections. It increases the chance of corruption in just the system of voting and it could lead smaller nations to be marginalized.

But not all of the nations had agreed to or will be participating in the NPV. I believe that it would seem in such a way that the NPV still has more restriction than for the Electorial college process. Now it’s not even possible to say which form is better, because both have certain difficulties. Yes, It does diverts the popular election of not only the country from those in the preference of representatives, causing it more undemocratic, but also guaranteeing fair representation of each nation and fair elections. On the other side, the NPV gives a vote to the general public. It excludes the Electoral College system and brings the majority of States at the possibility of illegal voting and other inconsistencies.

There are several advantages and disadvantages regarding the Electoral college, the most important advantage for the electoral college is that it asks for political support allocation which means that the candidate should gain popular support for winning the election due to the current arrangement of the Electoral College. I mean, it does help creates better unity within the country, because the approval needs to be distributed to obtain a vast bulk of voting. The second most important advantage of the electoral college is that it offers a claim, or we can say support for minority interests groups because as the Electoral College needs a broad level of coverage, the vote entering the national level is given to the minority parties. The vote totals of a small percentage in a country can make a distinction in an election too. Last but not least, the arrangement of foreign representation is established in the electoral college. The USA was founded on the principle of an unreasonable state’s rights. This first of all is part of the reason for the territorial uprising. The Electoral College can uphold a general view so that there can be a continuation of the structure of government and the organized political authority from each national and local federal government. Each State and district receive the equal opportunity, whether it’s from the House or the House of representatives.

Now, focusing on the other negative side of the electoral college it does have several disadvantages. First and foremost is that it includes a chance of electing a minority president. Over the past 20 years, the US has chosen two minority candidates just because of the Electoral College. As per my research I also found out that with much less than 50% of the overall people’s vote in 1992, Bill Clinton’s presidency was elected and formed too. The second most important disadvantage is that it might actually prevent people from voting. As in, although a popular vote is a political system process , the electoral elections and the change in the population DOES mean that votes are redistributed every ten years and because of that it is, therefore, complex that certain fewer steps are required, which could give citizens the feeling that their votes would never make any difference, so that they simply remain at home. Lastly, coming to the third disadvantage of the electoral college , it is stated via many articles that it tends to favour some less populous and smaller countries like eventually, the electoral college gives too much power, which is rather unequal with the larger states and the voting power of these kinds of small states has historically been reinforced whereas the Republican Party has supported it too as well.

To sum it up, I personally think that the Electoral College is perhaps not the best way to respond to U.S. presidential votes, but it can also appear to be the appropriate method and it also provides agreement and helps protect the minorities who could see their freedoms invaded against their system.

What is a democracy? In the United States democracy is the ability to vote and elect freely and equally. The problem is that some people are not educated about voting, which the United States attempted to solve with an electoral college, a group of delegates whose votes matter more, as a safety net. This unfortunately did not work as well as the government had hoped and only made things more complicated. The electoral college should stop being used because of the fact that it has political inequality in voting, confusing elections, and too much power.

The first reason that the electoral college should be abolished is because it promotes political inequality. In elections, there are two groupings of elections: the popular vote, which is the public’s vote, and the electoral college. Because people who live in smaller states feel like they aren’t represented, the electoral college gives these more votes. This actually leads to the opposite because less people are being represented fairly. An example of this is the fact that 13 of the smaller states have a combined population that is smaller than the state of Illinois’s population, yet have 24 more electoral votes. This proves that the electoral college gives unequal representation to certain groups.

The second reason that the electoral college should no longer be used is because it leads to confusing elections. The electoral college can lead to elections where a candidate can have the most popular votes yet still lose. In the election of 2000, for example, despite the fact that Al Gore had almost 500,000 more votes than George Bush, Bush won because he had the most electoral votes. This makes no sense because it is obvious that more people voted for Gore. The electoral college causes confusion during elections.

The third reason that the United States should get rid of the electoral college is because it has too much power. In many elections, it seems to be the only thing that matters, such as in the 1992 presidential election. Despite the fact that Bill Clinton didn’t even have half the popular vote, he still won because of the electoral college. This is bad because it makes Americans feel as if their votes don’t matter.

Though some people think that the electoral college is a good thing because it is a safety net over uneducated voters, it isn’t because the majority of voters are educated to begin with. The electoral college should be abolished because of the fact that it has political inequality in voting, confusing elections, and too much power.

Every government has a system in place to effectively chose a leader. This system for the United States is described as the Electoral College. Composed by the Founding Fathers, the process provides a modus operandi of election. The Electoral College allows smaller states to have a say and was created to prevent political manipulation. It has been the electoral system for the United States for over 200 years.

In 1787, towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, the electoral college was proposed by the Committee on Unfinished Parts. There have been a variety of motives for adapting the Electoral College suggested by historians. Some believe it was the concerns regarding the balance between large and small states, separation of powers, and the relationship between the branches of government. “The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing ‘senatorial’ electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation” (Electoral College, 2010). They were attempting to create a method of election in which the population is fairly included and protected from political deception. The delegates universally approved this plan and it made its way into the Constitution. The process ultimately met with a favorable initial reaction by the public.

Every election year, candidates for elector are nominated by political parties in each state. Instead of voting for the presidential and vice presidential nominees, it’s these individuals for whom citizens vote for in November. Voters will then cast a vote for the electors pledged to the presidential and vice presidential candidates of their party or choice. Then, the slate with the largest amount of popular votes is elected. This winner-take-all system is also known as the general ticket system. Roughly a month later, electors assemble in their corresponding states. They are each pledged to a party or candidate, and are expected to vote for the candidates in which they represent. However, they are not required. Separate ballots are then cast for President and Vice President by these electors, and the electoral college dissolves until it’s needed again in the following election. On January 6th of the year after the election, a joint session of Congress is held where the electoral votes are added up and verified. In order to win, a presidential candidate requires a majority of votes. Currently, the majority needed is 270 out of 538. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes based on its population. For instance, Texas and Florida are both largely populated states and therefore have a larger number of electoral votes.

But what is its purpose? The Electoral College serves as a buffer between the President and the population. Many people are divided on the principals of the system. “Many who favor the system maintain that it provides presidents with a special federative majority and a broad national mandate for governing, unifying the two major parties across the country and requiring broad geographic support to win the presidency” (Wayne, 2019). Meaning the Electoral College unites the two parties through a president with broad geographic support. They may also argue it gives a voice to smaller states and less populated areas. Those who oppose however, may argue that the system is outdated and undesirable due to the potential for an undemocratic outcome, where the winner of the electoral vote is not the winner of the popular vote. Opponents also argue it affects voter turnout in party-dominant states, elicits bias against independent or third-party candidates, and the chance of a faithless elector. Today, the Electoral College is simply the system in place by which the President and Vice President of the United States are selected by the formal body.

To conclude, the Electoral College is the United States’ method of electing our leaders. Created by the Founding Fathers and ratified in 1804, this has been the electoral system for over 200 years. As the middleman between the President and the people, its job is to simplify the presidential vote by requiring the people to vote for electors, who then vote for President and Vice President. Some believe the Electoral College is a just and fair system, while others believe it’s unfair and can lead to undemocratic outcomes. Whatever the case may be, the most important thing to remember is to vote.

A significant portion of Donald Trump’s victory can be accorded to his popularity in rural areas, especially in the Rust Belt. The Rust Belt is a region in the US that was known for its thriving iron and steel industries, which has now been ravaged by economic decline due to deindustralisation, population loss and urban decay (Abadi and Gal, 2018). The loss of locally owned industry not only greatly diminished the people’s economic prospects for the future but greatly eroded the social fabric of the communities, that connected the people to politics, leaving them greatly disillusioned and alienated (Pacewicz, 2016). This made them highly susceptible to Trump’s populist message. Most notably were Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. These states were said to be part of the democractic Blue Wall and also part of the swing states coalition that commanded the election. These states were democractic strongholds since the 1980s and to the surprise of pundits decidingly flipped to Trump in the 2016 elections which ultimately cost Hilary the election.

Rust Belters tipped towards Trump as they resonated most with his anti globalist message. His rallying cry to take back American jobs and to restore back the old America cut to the heart of most rural voters in the Rust Belt who felt that they were left behind and forgotten by the establishment. Voters in these regions were extremely frustrated at their diminished economic prospects and also had resentment for the political elites of Washington who in ways, directly contributed to their downfall due to their support for open economy and globalisation which led to manufacturing jobs going overseas and the lack of job opportunities at home. This anger was multiplied by voters discontentment with the elites inability to follow through with promises, years of government shutdowns and impasse, culminating in widespread support for Trump who was seen as an ‘outsider’, someone that says things like it is and one who is able to bring change to the White House.

However, attributing Trump’s victory solely to economic anxiety of the population does not do justice to ascertain Trump’s competitiveness in the elections. Trump’s white chauvinism, racism and anti immigrant sentiments also helped secure his position among a portion of his voters. Such overt racial remarks such as that “Mexicans rapists or drug dealers” would usually cost candidates the election, however for Trump it can be said to have boasted his popularity among his base. This is due to the racial resentment of whites, especially the non-college educated ones.

Increasing diversity in America as well as the notion that America is becoming a ‘majority-minority’ country has increasingly threatened white hegemony in America (Edsall, 2018). White voters fear of a threat to their group status in society comes from the notion that minorities are doing better than they are and thus are a direct threat to their own economic and future prospects. They believe that minorities will usurp control of society and political process from them (Riley and Peterson, 2019). This notion is further highlighted in light of eight years of Obama presidency, where during that time, news and politics had become increasingly racialized. Such grievances were thus played up by Trump and his appeal to ‘Make America Great Again’, synonymous with bringing back old America and his hierarchical status of a dominant white class (Riley and Peterson, 2019). Furthermore, during the campaign the dehumanization and fear mongering of minorities and immigrants also served to increase the fear of white voters and also embolden those who already have racial tendencies. Comment by razanaa rafii:

Two important changes occurred throughout the campaign, one was economic change and the other was cultural change. Pundits often make the mistake of attributing one as more important than the other, or by separating the two. However, it is important to note that both are important in trying to make sense of the elections result. Both economic anxiety and racial resentment are in interplay and to some extent they both reinforce each other. Often anxiety triggers stereotypes, anger and threatening stimuli, and in a political environment like Trump’s, there is no doubt that such anxieties become racialized (Riley and Peterson, 2019).

Ironically. part of Trump’s victory can be attributed to Hilary Clinton. I argue that Trump was able to win the election because Hilary was his opponent as opposed to someone else such as Bernie Sanders.

With record low disapproval ratings, comparable to Trump, it can be said that Hilary was one of the least liked candidates in the elections. This unpopularity was further exacerbated by Clinton’s lack of charisma and ability to mobilize her base. She failed to mobilize the ‘Obama coalition” which were mostly made up of millenials and minorities. In 2016, almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton (Ben-Shahar, 2016) and overall Clinton got nearly 5 million fewer votes than Obama (Montanaro, 2016). This may be due to Clinton’s image as the ultimate face of the establishment whilst Trump and her predecessor Obama were seen more as political reformers. Additionally, the public’s dissatisfaction with the choice of candidates can also be seen in the surge of “protest votes’ for third party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, which ultimately contributed to Clinton’s downfall. The number of people choosing not to vote for the Republican or Democratic nominee went up by 4.5 million votes in 2016, nearly tripling from 2012 (Montanaro, 2016). This shows that despite voters being turned off by Trump, they also could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

The general distaste for Clinton can be chalked up to her image as a corrupt out of touch elite. This distrust is based on her shady history of closed door speeches to Wall Street, Whitewater and Benghazi to name a few and was further cemented by the email scandal that rocked her campaign. Despite Trump having more scandals than Hilary, the damage done to her was far more potent. This may be due to to the incessant nature of it that prevented people from properly scrutinizing each scandal and also to Trump’s ability to spin the tales in his favour and to play it off.

In the 2016 elections, despite winning the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, Hilary still lost the elections. This was due to Trump’s electoral college win, where he managed to secure 306 out of the 538 votes and Hilary was awarded 232 votes. (CNN Politics, 2016) Trump’s win was not the first time a candidate had won the election whilst losing the popular vote. Hence, the genesis and workings of the electoral college systems helped tip the election to Trump’s favour.

The electoral system works in an inherently unproportional way. It allocates states as many electors as it has members in the Congress. While representatives are allocated to states based on population, each state gets 2 senators regardless of population (Beinart, 2016). As such, this leads to smaller states being overrepresented in the electoral college as compared to larger states that are underrepresented. () Coincidentally, such states with the greatest power in the college also tend to be more white and conservative, while states with the least power tend to be more diverse and liberal leaning (Thornton, 2016). Therefore, due to population distribution, white voters are worth more under the electoral college system as compared to other groups (Thronton, 2016).

This amplification of the worth of white voters is further augmented due to the battleground bias in the electoral system. Battleground states are a select few states that effectively decides who wins the elections. Playing into Trump’s hand, most of the traditional battleground states are also much whiter and less educated than the rest of the country () allowing him to capture a large percentage of the electoral votes. Furthermore, the “winner takes all” mechanism in the system further strengthens battleground states (Cohn, 2016). A winner-take-all system doesn’t reward any additional votes beyond what’s necessary to win a state or a region. You get all of Michigan’s electoral votes, whether you win it by one or one million votes. Therefore, despite Hilary’s wide gains in states like California, these states were where votes mattered the least and hence, Trump’s one-point margin, allowed him to claim three-fourths of their Electoral College votes, winning 75 of 79 votes at stake (Cohn, 2016). Therefore, the electoral college system, though it does not account for the reasons that people voted for Trump, its systematic wokings had enabled Trump’s win in the election.

In conclusion, Trump’s 2016 campaign can be said to be one of the most divisive campaigns in US history. It was based on the foundation of bringing back the golden age of America and to restore it to its past glory. He appealed to the ‘heart’ of Americans and in a country where patriotism should never be underestimated,this proved the winning ticket into the White House. Since he has been in office, Trump has initiated decisions that will have lasting consequences on the internal stability of the country as well as its role and position in the international world order. As candidates gear up for 2020, it acts as referendum on Trump’s presidency, and what path the American people would like to chart for the country.

References

1. Abadi, M., & Gal,S. (2018, May 7). The US is split into more than a dozen ‘belts’ defined by industry, weather, and even health. Business Insider US.
2. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.sg/regions-america-bible-belt-rust-belt-2018-4/?r=US&IR=T
3. Edsall, T. B. (2018, August 30). Who’s Afraid of a White Minority? : The battle over how to project the future population of the United States has profound political implications. The New York Times.
4. Retrived from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/america-white-minority-majority.html
5. Pacewicz, J. (2016, December 20). Here’s the real reason Rust Belt cities and towns voted for Trump. The Washington Post.
6. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/20/heres-the-real-reason-rust-belt-cities-and-towns-voted-for-trump/
7. Riley, E., & Peterson, C. (2019). Economic Anxiety or Racial Predispositions? Explaining White Support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election. Research Gate.
8. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332858937_Economic_Anxiety_or_Racial_Predispositions_Explaining_White_Support_for_Donald_Trump_in_the_2016_Presidential_Election
9. Ben-Shahar, O. (2016, November 17). The Non-Voters Who Decided The Election: Trump Won Because Of Lower Democratic Turnout. Forbes.
10. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#2982d2a953ab
11. Montanaro, D. (2016, November 12). 7 Reasons Donald Trump Won The Presidential Election. NPR.org
12. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election
13. Cohn, N. (2016. December 19). Why Trump Had an Edge in the Electoral College. The New York Times.
14. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/upshot/why-trump-had-an-edge-in-the-electoral-college.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock
15. Thornton, P. (2016, December 8). Trump Is President Because White People’s Votes Count More in America. The Washingtonian.
16. Retreived from https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/08/white-peoples-votes-are-worth-more-electoral-college-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-alt-right/

It is worth noting that the presence of the Electoral College contradicts the existing belief that, in a democracy, the winner is the one who receives the most votes. This system was introduced to eliminate the possibility that a large state would impose its political position on the whole country. Despite the possible advantages, there are certain aspects that illustrate the need to alter the existing approach. The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments to prove that the Electoral College is outdated and needs to be changed due to a number of reasons.

The electoral system that exists in the United States is obsolete since it has been formed and reflects the needs that were relevant in the 18th century. At that time, there was no communication system, as well as national media, which implied that voters could learn about candidates only from people who represented their area at the state level (Ross 103). Moreover, sparsely populated regions were concerned that large states would promote their candidates, which was not fair or objective. However, at present, the communication system is developed enough and voters have access to various sources, which help them make an informed decision.

In addition, the winner of the popular vote may lose the College votes, and the candidate who receives fewer votes than their opponent will become the president. Therefore, it is likely that the opinion of the majority of people will not be taken into account (Friedman). Moreover, to become the winner, a candidate does not need to gain an absolute majority, which has been evidenced by the documentary discussed in class. In this case, it is impossible to state that every vote has the same weight.

Further on, proposals to change the principle of presidential elections or to cancel the two-tier electoral system have been put forward many times. An important disadvantage of the existing system is related to the swing states the existence of which affects the course of the election campaigns. Since the runner-up candidate does not receive a single elector in the state, it is pointless to fight for votes in those states where the chances of winning are small (Gordon and Hartmann 37).

In particular, Republicans do not need to campaign in New York or California, and Democrats may ignore voters in Texas or Alabama. The situation leads to the fact that political campaigns are carried out mainly in the swing states, which historically move from one party to another (Virgin 38). This means that candidates can influence the course of elections with money, and they will not need to allocate resources to campaigning throughout the country.

Despite the fact that there is a set of reasons why the abolition of the current system is required, it may be assumed that it will remain unchanged. The existing principles of voting will not be changed due to the fact that they have proved to be stable for many decades. To abolish the College, it is essential to put forward an amendment to the US Constitution for which two-thirds of the members of both chambers of the Congress will have to vote (Streb 176). After that, 38 of the 50 states will also need to vote to abolish the existing system. This situation is unlikely to occur due to the fact that smaller states such as Wyoming with a population of fewer than 600 thousand people will not want candidates to stop fighting for their votes.

Thus, it can be concluded that the Electoral College is indeed outdated, and it does not reflect the contemporary realities. In addition, it needs to be changed since the existing system has particular flaws and does not serve the interests of the country’s residents. Nevertheless, the Electoral College will not be abolished due to the fact that Congress will not allow a global change in voting principles.