Category: Electoral College

In November 2020, the United States Elections were held, Joe Biden won the election with 305 Electoral College votes compared to Presidential Incumbent Donald Trump’s 232. For centuries the United States utilized the Electoral College voting system. A simple description of the system is that each state gets a certain number of electoral college votes partly based on its population and there are a total of 538 electoral votes, the winner of the election would be the candidate that wins 270 electoral votes or more. This means that the winner is determined not by who has the most votes, but is determined by the number of “points” garnered from each state. There are numerous instances wherein a candidate has the popular vote, yet lost the election due to said system, a recent example being Hilary Clinton losing to Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Elections. This system makes people question whether or not their votes truly mattered in a democratic society like the United States and whether this system, which was formed by the Founding Fathers during the 1780s, is obsolete and in need of abolishment or change.

The main rationale behind the creation of the Electoral College stemmed from the need to balance the interests between high-population and low-population states during the early years of the United States of America. According to founding father Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper Number 68, the body (Electoral College) was formed as a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia between large and small states (West, 2019). Many of the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia worried that large states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania would dominate the presidential elections and as such, they devised a body or an institution to make sure that each state had voted in proportion to its number of Senate and House members (West, 2019). There were also some major considerations as to whether congress or the state legislatures should choose the chief executive. The delegates also had an anti-majoritarian policy in mind as there was a concern regarding that voter intelligence. In the context of the time period, the lifestyle of Americans was still rural and local, many people had not yet received education leading to politicians having little trust in the wiseness of the public’s choices. The premise of this objection was to prevent the exploitation of the lack of voter intelligence by populist candidates or policies as the Founding Fathers wanted intelligent politicians in seats of power. The main objective of the creation of the Electoral College is to minimize social havoc, disturbance, and corruption, and to rely solely on the people themselves during the president’s tenure.

In the beginning period, because of Washington’s status, the Electoral College system’s operation has been steady. However, after Washington’s reign as president, the emergence of political parties had a significant effect on the system of voters’ congregations. Ultimately, the idea for the formation of the institution was proved to be obsolete with the emergence of presidential parties wherein there was a distinction between them and present were a clear set of political beliefs, platforms, and ideologies that were made known to the masses (Amar, 2020). With the people’s willingness to participate in the election, most of the states adopted the popular election system in 1824 (Xiao 2018). The problems of the Electoral College system became even more apparent over time, as studies delved deeper into the complexities of the aforementioned system. Kaitlyn Marlowe (2020) identified three (3) major flaws in the Electoral College system as well as other minor problems that hinder the democratic process in the United States.

The first flaw in the system of the Electoral College is that the popular vote does not guarantee that a candidate is automatically elected by the Electoral College. Marlowe (2020) argues that the popular vote is the most democratic means of election because it gives citizens the opportunity to directly control an election, while the Electoral College could potentially change the outcome against the nation’s will. She also states that the Electoral College is a complex process, but complexity does not equal democracy. The United States is a democratic republic therefore the Electoral College was never designed as direct democracy. Throughout the U.S. presidential elections, there were four instances that the candidates with the lower number of popular votes won the national election and eventually became the presidents. In the years 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, such an event did occur with the most recent case being Republican candidate Donald Trump versus Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton. More people regard Hilary as the ideal president, with her having the popular vote, but the winner-take-all system chose Trump as the victor. If the popular votes conform to the electoral votes, the design of the Electoral College can be regarded as logically self-consistent. However, this inconsistency has led to a serious and reflective question: the president of the United States is the president of the people or the president of every state? (Xiao 2018).

The second problem of the Electoral College as posited by Marlowe (2020), is that it takes away the ability of citizens to elect the presidential ticket. While most states use the popular vote, there are still issues with this form of vote. According to Marlowe (2020), the issue is that even if a candidate receives only 30% of the popular vote, if that is the plurality, then the candidate received all the votes of the state. This gives the candidate a small number of votes to win over in order to secure the win and only represents a minority in the total population of the candidate’s respective state. This means that the remaining 70% will not be represented as they did not vote for the winning candidate. The winner-takes-all system might be good in alleviating some issues in dividing the votes, it ultimately creates unequal representations for the citizens with some voices mattering more than others. This can be an issue in diverse states as the system can indirectly enforce further divisions along political and social lines among its citizens that can be detrimental to the democratic process. One of the negative results this process may produce is a leader who only represents a minority of the population.

The third flaw brought about by Marlowe (2020) is that the Electoral College favors the two-party system. There is no possibility for a third-party candidate to receive an electoral vote. The first reason for this is the plurality problem. If an independent candidate received 10% of votes in a state, they would not receive electoral votes. The second reason is that electors are chosen by the two major parties so even if a candidate were able to get the plurality of votes in a state, the faithless elector punishments are not severe enough to discourage an elector from voting for their party, even if they manage to win a large number of votes. Since electors are decided by the state and the state almost always has a Democratic or Republican-leaning, it would be virtually impossible to have an elector for a third party or independent candidate chosen to be an elector. Then if the candidate was chosen, they would be considered a faithless elector if they did not vote for the candidate that won the plurality in the state they are in. In each state, because of the winner-take-all policy, the third party can barely win the majority votes. So, it is impossible for the third party to tap the door of the White House, which hinders Political diversity (Xiao 2018).

Another problem would be regarding the candidates’ campaigning and platforms. The Electoral College causes candidates to focus on states with large populations and a large number of electoral votes; exactly what the Founding Fathers aimed to prevent in the first place through the formation of the institution. When a candidate is aware they need to win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they will visit those states, speak with those citizens, and even develop a platform regarding policies that will favor those states even if those same policies have negative effects on states like Vermont and Rhode Island that are small, with small populations, and lower electoral votes, these states tend to be ignored. The effect of this is very apparent in states like Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) where the majority of the population is located in a small number of large cities, while the rest of the state is sparsely populated by comparison. In constituencies like Wisconsin, candidates will focus more on major metropolitan areas and less on the more rural areas. (Froom 2014). Marlowe also argued that the potential for election results to differ between the Electoral College and the popular vote proves the undemocratic nature of the system. The U.S. functions as a democracy in state elections, but never gave citizens’ the ability to directly elect their President and Vice President. This system is also undemocratic because it allows states, like Florida during the 2000 Election, to individually determine the results of a presidential election. By prioritizing one state, in some cases, or a handful of states in others, there is a loss of democratic practice and results in lower voter turnout in some states.

A system that favors the elite or more densely-populated states is inherently bad for democracy (Marlowe, 2020). The dilemma of the Founding Fathers not being able to determine the best way to elect the president has created a temporary system meant to address the flaws present in their time period but which has ultimately run its course in today’s context. The short-sightedness of their decision is apparent in the numerous flaws in the system they created. In their defense, the Founding Fathers did not fully see their goal of transforming the United States of America into a bastion of democracy where every person is represented and involved in the country’s democratic process. One of the issues holding back the democratic process in the United States is the antiquated system of electing the chief executive which is in dire need of reform or change.

There have been many possible alternatives to the current Electoral College winner take all system. The most common solution given by abolitionists of the Electoral College is to use a direct election to determine who is elected President. Direct elections are defined as the most representative of the national will; with each vote having equal strength there is little question about who should win an election.

Is the Electoral College fair? This debate has been dividing the opinions of Americans ever since it was first established by the Founding Fathers in 1804. In all honesty, the concept does not make a great deal of sense; the US is the only democracy in the world where the candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election. 538 members have been deemed as responsible for one of the most significant tasks in the USA – and possibly in the world. They decide who will become the next president of the United States. Like all things, it has advantages and disadvantages.

Firstly, it is worth considering that not every vote truly counts. In fact, when you cast your vote for the next presidency in November, you are not actually voting for the candidate on the ballot. Rather, you are voting for a group of electors to decide on the successor they wish to become president, whether that be Republican, Democratic, or some other third party. This majorly worries the critics of the Electoral College due to the chance of a ‘rogue elector’. In multiple states, there is no set law that requires the electors to give their electoral vote to the candidate who won the popular vote in their state. The lack of this law allows these unbound electors to cheat and give their vote to their preferred victor instead of the actual winner, which is undeniably unjust as the electors are able to abuse their power effortlessly.

On top of that, people who acknowledge that their vote does not matter tend to opt out of voting altogether. At least 40% of American voters stay home during elections, according to The Conversation. Deciding not to vote is far from an uncommon stance in America, but why is this? From my research, I established that there are multiple reasons for the US voter count being remarkably low. For example, some feel as though none of the candidates represent their ideas, others say they do not care about the outcome of the presidency enough, and some people simply are unable to vote. However, there was one particular reason that stood out to me: people believe that the electoral system is unfair! It is implied that if the Electoral College were to be abolished, Americans would be willing to increasingly participate in politics.

Moreover, there is the fact that in numerous presidential elections, the candidate with the majority votes failed to win the Electoral College – and thus forfeited the presidency. To illustrate, in 2016 Clinton surpassed Trump and won the national popular vote by almost three million. Yet, Clinton did not successfully take on the role of president due to Trump winning seventy-seven more electoral votes. Critics believe this makes the system unbalanced as it favors the electoral votes over the votes of the American people. According to The Guardian, this single incident was enough to turn some Americans off of voting ever again.

Intriguingly, it has been shown that swing states have an excessive amount of power in presidential elections. Whilst both major political parties – Democratic and Republican – have many states they can count on winning over, these ‘swing states’ are too closely divided to predict. If you were to live in a swing state during the November elections, you would be constantly bombarded with hundreds of canvassers knocking at your door in an attempt to get you to vote. Florida was the state that determined President Bush won in 2000. The margin was so close that the state law required a recount. Your vote is extremely valuable in these states as it could end up being the decider on the next president. Despite that, swing states are not entirely representative of the country as a whole. This much control should not be placed on a select few states and instead should be evened out across the American people themselves.

Although the Electoral College has some clear flaws, there are still ways in which it makes it equitable and undemanding. Suppose that a state had imperfections with voting. There is a simple solution. The state itself can recount its votes rather than a hugely expensive national recount. This saves a great deal of time and money for the country, meaning that the states who counted correctly the first time are fairly able to finalize their decision rather than waiting for a recount themselves.

In addition, the Electoral College forces the candidates to give a sum of their attention to the smaller or less populated states. This helps places such as Wyoming and North Dakota feel included and relevant in choosing the most suitable president for the United States. Many people claim that if the Electoral College were to be abolished, these states would suffer. This is not the case. In fact, it does more harm than good. It may give these states a disproportionate weight, but it does not give them more concentration than the candidates. According to FairVote, the 2016 candidates spent almost all their time in a handful of states, each of them being classed as ‘medium’ or ‘large’. Whereas the ten smallest states had no events and no attention. They do not benefit in any way!

Taking everything into account, the Electoral College can be both defended and criticized. Either way, to me, it is clear that the system is unfair and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, amending the Constitution would be a lengthy process – so as a substitute I believe it is necessary to at least place a law in which all participating states would agree to award their electoral vote to the candidate who gained the most popular vote in their state. On top of that, there could be a reassessing of who is affected in a negative way and an attempt to find a solution that would benefit everyone involved. I understand it cannot be fixed overnight – but we can take small steps toward rebuilding the future of American politics. I mean, wouldn’t you want your vote to count?

The United States uses a First-Past-The-Post system which is where the candidate achieving the most votes essentially “wins”, but functions with the Electoral College as a middle ground, this has many advantages and disadvantages. The Electoral College was initially made by the framers to be independent individuals generating the greatest decision for the nation, but unfortunately, the framers didn’t anticipate the formation of political parties.

A disadvantage of the Electoral College is that the college is supposed to provide representation based on state size, and this may seem unjust because it doesn’t represent what a greater amount of citizens in the country want. Such as the election between Trump and Clinton, Clinton won the popular vote but Trump won the electoral college votes. This creates a big disadvantage because the president is representing our Nation as a whole, and it seems unfair that the President represents a big entity of people when most of its citizens support the competing candidate rather than who is elected. But an advantage of the Electoral College also stems from the fact that it represents state size, this gives small states a chance to be heard and gives them a say in the election. If small states weren’t fairly represented then presidential candidates wouldn’t provide the proper attention these states need and all campaigning would be done in big states, but since the electoral college is in place these minority states are still being treated equally and receiving the required attention. I believe the Electoral College should be replaced with a popular vote because as stated before, the President represents the nation, and it should be the majority of voices of citizens that should be heard. ​In 1913 the 17th amendment was passed, and it authorized that the Senate be directly elected by the people, a similar approach should be taken in voting for the President. The electoral college emphasizes the divide of the country, especially when a President is elected through the electoral college but the majority of the public opinion of the country supports the opposing candidate.

The Electoral College is defensible on the same basis as that of the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise allowed for equal representation between states, even when comparing larger and smaller states to one another by creating two houses. One house gave states representation based on their population size, while the other house gave every state an equal two candidates each. By allowing for two senators per state regardless of size, smaller states would be given equal say in policy decisions. On the other hand, the Houses’ population-based representation allowed for the majority populations to be represented by giving each state several representatives based on their population. On that same idea, the Electoral College is supposed to provide that same equal representation when electing a president. The Electoral College is made up of several Representatives based on the state’s representation in the House plus one vote per senator. In theory, the Electoral College means that no state will be overshadowed by another with a larger population. Thus, based on that idea, the Electoral College is defensible and provides a legitimate means of equal representation.

The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board on July 29, 2022 voted that there is a need to improve the Electoral College instead of abolishing it. There have been arguments that this electoral system fails to take into consideration views of the majority in the country. As such, it is common to find cases where the person who is defeated by the majority votes wins the election because they have the right number of the Electoral College (The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board, 2022). A good example was the case when President Trump was declared the winner of the Electoral College while Secretary Hillary Clinton won the popular votes. These editors believe that the current system has some weaknesses that needs to be addressed. However, the Electoral College is uniquely American, and if improvements are made to limit cases such as the one discussed above, it remains one of the best in the world.

The point expressed in this editorial is that although the Electoral College has some weaknesses, it should not be eliminated. They hold a conservative view that the system can be improved instead of being abolished. The conservative perspective is based on the view that individual votes of Americans still matter in determining the presidency. I support views presented in this editorial about the Electoral College in the United States. I believe that this system entrenches the fact that every state in the country is semi-autonomous and when an individual wins the majority of votes in that state, they should be granted all the votes there. I also agree with the fact that some changes are needed to ensure that individual votes count to reflect our social values.

The Honolulu Civil Beat Editorial published a report on September 25, 2022 supporting a total ban on Electoral College. They argue that a single vote cast for a given presidential candidate should count on determining who wins the election (The Honolulu Civil Beat Editorial, 2022). The editors cite several cases where the unpopular candidate won the presidency because of the current system. As the leading democracy, they argue that the United States should provide an example that a country’s leadership should be defined by the vote cast by citizens. They believe that the current system makes the electoral system complex for no good reason. The simplest solution to the current problem is to adopt the popular vote system.

The editors’ point of view is that the Electoral College is a complex system of electing president, and as such, they oppose its use. They take a liberal role of completely abolishing the system and replacing it with one that is fair and easy to understand. The view is classified as liberal because it requires a radical change from the current system which is in use. I believe that these editors have a justifiable reason to demand for a radical change of the current electoral system in the country. A significant number of people in the country believes that this system denies them the opportunity to directly elect their desired president, and that the power is handed over to an Electoral College. Instead of completely abolishing the system, I believe that it can be improved. The electoral system reflects the unique socio-cultural values of the United States, and if these weaknesses are addressed, it will remain an effective electoral system.

References

Honolulu Civil Beat Editorial. (2022). Let’s dump the Electoral College. Civil Beat. Web.

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board. (2022). If we can’t kill Electoral College, let’s improve it. Houston Chronicle. Web.

Introduction

The Electoral College is a group of selected voters who have the power to elect a candidate into a specific office. In the United States, the Electoral College is responsible for electing the president and vice president into the office (Sabato, 207). The constitution of the United States specifies the number of electors each state should have. Each of the state’s legislatures decides the manner of choosing its electors.

The electors have the task of casting votes for both the presidential candidate and the vice president. In the long run, the presidential candidate is usually not chosen by the majority vote but by the electors. The idea of Electoral College has elicited mixed feelings among political scientists, scholars and critiques. This paper discusses cases for and against the Electoral College in the United States.

Discussion

Political analysts believe that the existence of the Electoral College has led to the development of the United States as a nation. This is because the Electoral College has led leaders to consider the less populous states in their campaigns and policymaking. Taking a case scenario where leaders were elected by popular votes, most of them would have assumed the less populous states and consider the urban states.

This means that the Electoral College prevents victory that is solely dependent on urban areas. Candidates are encouraged to take a much wider approach in their campaigns in order to win the elections. Therefore, due to the existence of the Electoral College, states that are less populous are being considered in policy making thus encouraging development throughout the United States.

Proponents believe that the Electoral College has enhanced the process of power separation in the government. The constitution was enacted to ensure that no single individual commanded a lot of power in the country. Therefore, the power of the government was separated into three branches: the judiciary, legislature, and the executive (Chang, 2007).

These branches provided a check to the idea of totalitarianism. According to the proponents, a president elected by popular vote asserts a popular support from the nation. This may lead to the president undermining the other branches of government such as the judiciary and the legislature.

However, the idea of an Electoral College is not without criticism. Critiques believe that the Electoral College bestows a lot of power to some states. Habitually, the candidate with the highest number of votes in a state receives the state’s entire electoral vote.

Critiques argue that this is wrong because some states have a history of consistently voting uniformly for either the Democrat party or the Republican Party. In cases where the state votes in a ‘blanket’ manner, candidates withdraw their attention from these states pay attention to the more populous states without a clear favorite.

Critiques have also argued that the idea of an electoral college discourages the voter turnout. This is because candidates with the highest proportion of votes in each state receive all the electoral votes especially in states where there is a clear favorite. In such cases, other voters usually feel that their votes will not have much impact. In most cases, candidates in states with a clear favorite do not campaign for voter turnout. The exception of this case can only be detected in the states with a large ‘swing’.

Conclusion

Different people have different opinions in cases concerning the Electoral College. Supporters believe that the Electoral College enhances the process of power separation. On the other hand, critiques believe that the process discourage voter turnout. The question of an electoral college has become a question of personal opinion and each person is entitled to his or her opinion on the matter.

References

Chang, S. (2007). Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 44(1), 205- 208.

Sabato, L. (2007). A More Perfect Constitution. New York: Walker Publishing Company.

Introduction

Made up of 538 electors, the Electoral College votes decide the president and vice president of the United States of America. The Electoral College membership is made up of 435 representatives, 100 senators, and 3 electors. In the United States, the electorate does not directly elect the president and the vice-president. On the contrary, the responsibility to do so is vested on the electors in the electorate college. The 538 members are appointed through a popular vote on a state-by-state basis (Kleeb par. 7). The number of electors represented in the electoral college is equal to the number of congress in each state (Kleeb par. 2).

Electors are loyal to a particular candidate for both the president and vice president’s office. In the United States, all the states elect their representatives in the Electoral College on a winner-take-all basis except for Maine Nebraska states (Kleeb par. 8). Every elector is required by law to cast one vote for the president and another for the preferred vice-president. For an individual to be considered a winner in the office of the president and vice-president, they must receive an absolute majority, which currently stands at 270 votes (Kleeb par. 8).

Disadvantages of the Electoral College

Critics argue that the Electoral College’s dependence on a popular vote is a bone of contention. This process does not allow the national wide popular candidate to be the automatic winner of the elections. It leaves a situation whereby the national wide popular candidate might not be the winner of the election. Most people feel that the winner-take-all elections are the most appropriate. The Electoral College process is biased as the swing states receive the most attention (Kozlowski 34).

Swing states are states that have a long history of a tendency to vote either Republican or Democratic candidates. Candidates pay less attention to such states if electorates have a history of consistently voting for the rival party. Also, the Electoral College process discourages voter turnout in a very significant way. The candidate with the highest popular vote in every state receives all the electoral votes in the states with clear favorites (Kozlowski 34). This discourages the electorates who feel that their vote might not make an impact in such states especially if the voter wanted to vote contrary to the state’s favorite. This system discourages the candidates from campaigning for voter turnout (Kozlowski 34). The system also gives the small states more power to influence the outcome of an election a factor that has always favored the Republican Party.

The Electoral College system makes it pointless and abortive to support a candidate who is not competitive in your state. This leads to the candidates concentrating on fewer states hence ignoring the majority of the country’s voters (Kozlowski 35). The Electoral College process can lead to a situation whereby the winner of an election is not necessarily the winner of the popular vote. The winner of the electoral votes takes precedence and may become the president even after losing on the popular vote but this situation has very serious implications on presidential powers. This weakens the presidential powers hence making governance very difficult since there are mandates that are given to the president only through the popular vote.

Advantages of the Electoral College

The above misgivings notwithstanding, the Electoral College system has positive attributes that make it acceptable. One of the very significant positive sides of the system includes the fact that it prevents victory based on urban areas (Lawler par. 10). This process does not give monopolistic powers to the highly populated areas as other systems like the winner-take-all. For a candidate to win, he or she must pay attention to even the smallest states since concentrating on heavily populated states does not guarantee a win. The system also provides the space for flexibility about voting laws in different states. States can formulate their laws and affect changes on their systems freely without affecting the national elections.

The Electoral College process also is famed for maintaining separation of powers (Lawler par. 5). Having a directly elected president through the popular vote can lead to tyranny. The devolution and separation of powers in the different branches of government were a calculated move in the constitution to provide checks and balances (Lawler par. 7). Having a directly elected president asserts that a president assumes a national popular mandate that can easily compromise and undermine other branches of the government (Lawler par. 8). The system also limits the entrance of a third party hence favoring a two-party system. Although some people see this as a demerit, it has brought the country some political stability. It also reduces the probability of the minority and interest groups swaying voters (Lawler par. 13).

Conclusion

This essay has discussed the negative and positive sides of the Electoral College system in the United States of America. The paper has shown how the system works identifying the possible negative ramifications that the system can influence. However, the paper notes that the system has some positive sides as well and has gone further to discuss some of the advantages of the electoral system.

Works Cited

Kleeb, Jane. Fail: Sen. McCoy’s Partisan Electoral College Bill. 2011. Web.

Kozlowski, Darrell. Federalism, United States, US: inforbase publishing, 2010. Print.

Lawler, Augustine. The Electoral College: top 10strenthgs and weaknesses. 2008.Web.

Effects of Electoral College on Presidential elections of a country

The nation’s presidential elections are significantly affected by the Electoral College that is in power in a country. In the US, for instance, the Electoral College has a big role in voting and the system of voting, and therefore they impact presidential elections in one way or another. It has been argued that it is not possible to have a completely fair election in a country due to undue influence and failure of the voting systems.

The results mostly announced by the Electoral College may a great extent be misleading. For instance, if three people are running for the presidency, the winner is dictated by the popular vote policy, which is used by the Electoral College.

One person gets 40% of the votes, and the other two 30% each, the person with 40% will have the popular vote, but on aggregate, he is not the winner. It may not be true because the so declared winner was rejected by 60% of the voters. 40% is too low compared to 60% of the voters who did not vote for him. The sixty percent did not approve of the winner, and, therefore, he may not be the choice of the majority.

It has been argued that the citizens of a country like the US do not necessarily vote for the president, or they do not cast their votes to elect the president, but, mostly, they just dictate the actions of the Electoral College. Since the Electoral College actions are the opinions of the nation’s Senators and Congressmen, it also reflects that people vote to dictate the actions of these Senators and Congressmen. The presidential elections, therefore, may not necessarily reflect the views of the people because their views are dictated by the Electoral College (Cummings & Wise 362, 363).

The US citizens feel that the voting for the presidential candidate is supposedly the pledged to be done by the Electoral College and the nation’s Senators and Congressmen. Their casting of ballots is, therefore, only a guide to the Electoral College in choosing the president. Ironically, the people vote for the electors instead of the leaders they wish because the Electoral College is manned by the Senators, and Congressmen whore could therefore be taken as the electors.

Another effect of the Electoral College to the presidential election is about the distribution of votes among states. In the US, for instance, the electoral votes in each state are not distributed based on the popular votes cast to each candidate but the winner is taken to be the one with the popular vote in each state. It is taken that the ‘winner-takes-all’ basis is the general policy. According to this policy, the States that have a large number of voters are treated unfairly because the person with the popular vote, especially where the contestants are many since the popular vote winner may not be the best choice of the people (Cummings & Wise 362, 363).

The percentage of the people who did not give him their approval may generally be higher than those who gave him their votes. The popular vote system that the Electoral College applies is therefore full of faults because if every elector is voting for the candidate he represents, then the system makes no logic in the elections. The votes of the majority, therefore, may not count in the popular vote system.

The negative effect of the Electoral College in the presidential election is best depicted by the 2000 US general election where George Bush became the president, although he did not have the overall popular votes. The Electoral College system is deemed to give the actual process of the election, but this is a wrong belief that people have ignorantly embraced. People are made to believe that they are making informed decisions in choosing their leaders while in real sense they are not. The Electoral College tampers with the rights of the people to choose the leaders that they feel are the best to represent them in the House.

The Congressional reapportionment

The united state house of representatives tries to maintain democracy among the 50 states by ensuring that the seats are fairly distributed amongst them. The process of distributing these seats is called congregational apportionment, and it takes place immediately following the decennial census in the United States. The seats are distributed based on the population share of each state to the general population of the country or aggregate for all the states.

However, each state is guaranteed at least one seat in the House of Representatives to ensure justice is applied across all states. The constitution of the United States requires that the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives should be done after every decennial census because the distribution of seats is done based on the population of each state. The number of representatives of each State is subject to change because the population keeps on changing.

The process of redistributing these seats after every decennial census is referred to as congregational reapportionment and is done according to the reapportionment Act of 1929, which capped the house size to 435 seats in total for all states. What then do we mean by the congregational reapportionment? It generally means the Redistribution of representation in a legislative body, which depends on the ruling of the country’s population. In the US, for example, it means periodic re-allotment of USA congressional seats, which is conducted after the decennial census and according to the Act that is, purposely enacted for it.

The decennial census in the US is conducted every ten years and therefore the congregational reapportionment is conducted every ten years. The seats in the house of Representatives are redistributed in proportion to the state’s population at that time. It is common for some States to be apportioned new seats; some retain their original number while others may lose some districts due to population change. The total number of representatives is determined by congress, but the number of representatives per state is determined by the proportion of each state’s population to the total population.

The congregational reapportionment is supposed to be done after every census in the US but in some cases, congress fails to conduct it like in the census conducted in 1920 (Chafee 1015). It shows the failure of the system and the Electoral College as a whole. The majority party in the state legislature attempts to strengthen their political stand by trying to win more seats in The House of Representatives. Redistribution of seats is also affected by political powers prevailing in the country and may also not reflect the true and fair conditions in the states.

Works cited

Chafee, Zechariah. congressional Reapportionment. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 8. pp. 1015-1047. Harvard: The Harvard Law Review Association, 1929. Web.

Cummings, Milton & Wise, David. Democracy under Pressure: An Introduction to the American Political System. United States: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001.

The presidential elections of 2016 pose a range of questions to the citizens of the U.S. Since Barak Obama is already doing his second term, his reelection in 2016 does not seem a possibility according to the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. As the fact that Rand Paul (the Republican Party) has pointed at the fact of him having more advantages than Hillary Clinton (the Democratic Party) in terms of age, competency and experience, the former is more likely to win due to a better reputation and rather deplorable effects of Democrats’ rule in 2014.

Table 1. Electoral College Map (American Research Group, Inc., 2014).

It should be born in mind that the factors determining the outcomes of the 2016 presidential elections are quite different from the ones that were the driving force behind the choices of the American people in 2012. First and most obvious, the issue concerning wages and jobs should be brought up. As long as pessimistic moods among the U.S. citizens concerning the specified issues persist, Hillary Clinton is highly unlikely to win the election, and her opponent may seem a much more favorable candidate for most of the voters. However, apart from the financial concerns, the economic issues, which the state is facing at the moment, need to be mentioned. The economic concerns are obvious, with the rapid decline of the stock market soaring and the employment issues becoming the key problem in the contemporary United States’ human resource market (Nyhan, 2014).

Finally, the foreign policy concerns have shaped people’s attitude towards the Democratic Party in General. With the emergence of ISIS and the following threat to the wellbeing of the entire world, people seem to have become quite uncertain about the efficacy of the Democratic Party’s actions. The voters are obviously upset with the outcomes of their choice, which is most likely to become the key driving force behind their decisions in the 2016 presidential elections.

The healthcare concerns are the last, but definitely not the least factor that deserves to be mentioned as the basic reason for people to choose the Republican Party over the Democratic one in the 2016 presidential elections. Not only the Medicare issue, but also the recent concerns about the Ebola virus seem to be affecting people’s opinion about the efficiency of Obama’s administration and the performance of the Democratic party in general. While one must admit that not all of the issues specified above could have been taken under Obama’s administration control, it is still obvious that the lack of stability and the increasing amount of threats that people have faced over the course of the current President’s administration have shaped their 2016 decision to a great degree. On a more general level of analysis, these are not the economic and political threats, but teh insecurity that the choices made by the democratic Party that have defined people’s attitude towards the 2016 candidates (Judis, 2014).

While Hillary Clinton has been stressing her advantages comparing his age and enthusiasm to considerably less impressive characteristics of Rand Paul, Mrs. Clinton seems to be unlikely to win the 2016 elections, as the effects of the Democratic Party’s rule have been beyond deplorable in Obama’s office years. Nevertheless, one must admit that both candidates have rather good chances for winning the elections, and making a strong statement concerning the choice of the American people is quite hard at present.

Reference List

American Research Group, Inc. (2014). Electoral vote calculator. Web.

Judis, J. B. (2014). The economy crushed the Democrats – and it will again in 2016 if they don’t shape up. New Republic. Web.

Nyhan, B. (2014). What 2014 elections can tell us about 2016: Not much at all. New York Ties. Web.