Given there were no Electoral College, votes would not be based on a state’s population. Instead, responsibility would be placed on each person in America, regardless of their location in the U.S. This would defeat the arguments that, “It is not fair that they get more voters than us because of population. We are underrepresented.” Another point that can be taken from this argument is that, just because a state has a large population does not mean that everyone in that state would vote and/or cares about who the next president would be. Thus, why does that state receive representation based on the number of “potential” voters due to population when much of that population may or may not vote? Does that not falsely represent the amount of voters who did vote? For example, if California only had 100 voters, but Illinois had 1,000; is it fair that California still receives 55 votes and Illinois still only receives 20? Upon this thought, the Electoral College used to have importance because of slavery and the knowledge of the people. The initial needs and worries to have this process are not in existence anymore. There are no more slaves, and citizens can find information everywhere they go. America has been seen as a land of Democracy. In democracy, things are meant to always be done by way of a majority vote. Many argue that the Electoral College prevents a true democracy. The process does not allow for voter’s votes to count; nothing more, nothing less. It allows for a higher power to decide based on population. This system is outdated, and many would agree that it does not have much purpose or hold much value in our American system any longer. One of the most argued points of the Electoral College is that a president can win without having a true majority of popular votes. (Kimberling, 2016) Many would argue, “How is this democracy at all?” Also,
Given there were no Electoral College, votes would not be based on a state’s population. Instead, responsibility would be placed on each person in America, regardless of their location in the U.S. This would defeat the arguments that, “It is not fair that they get more voters than us because of population. We are underrepresented.” Another point that can be taken from this argument is that, just because a state has a large population does not mean that everyone in that state would vote and/or cares about who the next president would be. Thus, why does that state receive representation based on the number of “potential” voters due to population when much of that population may or may not vote? Does that not falsely represent the amount of voters who did vote? For example, if California only had 100 voters, but Illinois had 1,000; is it fair that California still receives 55 votes and Illinois still only receives 20? Upon this thought, the Electoral College used to have importance because of slavery and the knowledge of the people. The initial needs and worries to have this process are not in existence anymore. There are no more slaves, and citizens can find information everywhere they go. America has been seen as a land of Democracy. In democracy, things are meant to always be done by way of a majority vote. Many argue that the Electoral College prevents a true democracy. The process does not allow for voter’s votes to count; nothing more, nothing less. It allows for a higher power to decide based on population. This system is outdated, and many would agree that it does not have much purpose or hold much value in our American system any longer. One of the most argued points of the Electoral College is that a president can win without having a true majority of popular votes. (Kimberling, 2016) Many would argue, “How is this democracy at all?” Also,