It is generally understood that the United States is built upon the principles of democracy, in which the majority consensus of the citizens helps to define the shape of issues or elections. However, in assuming that the Constitution - the document upon which such practices are founded – is inherently democratic is only partially accurate. Indeed, it has been frequently argued that the U. S. Constitution is representative of the rule of law from a federation as opposed to a pure democracy; in a federation, elections occur among the majority of the citizenry but this process results in elected officials who then determine the direction of the country. In short, a federation transforms a democracy from the rule of the many back into the rule of the few, with the “few” in this sense being the elected officials selected through an elections process.…
Ever since its creation at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Electoral College has been the most widely debated aspect in the Constitution. There have been over 700 proposed constitutional amendments aimed at fixing or abolishing this process. And Congress has on several occasions held highly publicized hearings on Electoral College reform but overall has remained fairly inactive (Best, p. vii). And while the Electoral College is a cornerstone of our Constitution and therefore a major aspect of American democracy and government, its very nature is quite unfair and undemocratic. Many of its aspects portray biases and favor certain groups of people and certain states. It is deemed archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous by many scholars and is in direct need of reforming (Kura, p. 30). It especially contradicts Walter Stone’s instrumental voting model for the Electoral College at first makes one believe as if one’s vote counts but eventually one figures out that it is in fact quite unimportant (Stone, p. 51). For with the Electoral College, the people are not in charge but rather the system is – the Electoral College presidential election system that is.…
When citizens vote and cast their ballot for the candidate that they believe will be fit for president, they are not voting directly for their favored candidate. Instead of a direct popular election, the United States has the Electoral College, a group of elected electors who represent a certain states votes. The Electoral College was established by the constitution to protect minority interests and reduce the possibility of a regional candidate. However, some believe that the advantages of a direct popular vote election, such as its consideration of democratic values, outweigh the disadvantages. While others believe that the Electoral College has been put in place to hinder regional candidates not allow it to happen.…
The Electoral College, established by the founding fathers in the United States Constitution, is a process whereby a body of electors chosen by voters in each state cast a formal vote to elect the president and vice president. Among many other things established within the Constitution, the Electoral College requires extensive reform. The Constitution itself was merely a framework for the United States government and did not take into account the extent to which society would change between 1787 and 2015. Amidst the several problems constituted by the Electoral College, the four most threatening complications consist of the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote, the inequality among the distribution of votes according to population, the exclusion of third party victors, and the consequences that arise in case of a tie.…
The Electoral College is an institution that may have served a purpose 200 years ago when the founding fathers needed a system that would be met with approval by both large and small states. The Electoral College is a flawed method of electing our President that has created problems in previous elections and is likely to be the source of problems in the future. The Electoral College provides an undemocratic method of choosing our president that potentially undermines the will of the voters. Not only can a candidate be elected without actually winning the most votes, it puts our elections at the mercy of electors who don't always cast their vote as pledged. I intend to demonstrate that the problems inherent in this voting method far outweigh any benefits it may provide. Replacing the winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes with a system such as proportional representation or eliminating the college altogether in favor of direct election is the best way to ensure a trouble-free and fair election…
Proponents for the Electoral College to remain the same argue that the Electoral College contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, enhances the status of minority interests, contributes to the political stability of the country by encouraging a two-party system, and maintains a federal system of government and representation. They argue it contributes to the unification of the country because without the Electoral College system, the most populous states would hold all the power in selecting the president and the small states would not matter. With the Electoral College, every state matters in selecting the president. The Electoral College also enhances the status of minority interests. Candidates know that because minorities tend to concentrate in areas with a large number of votes, the minority can make the difference between receiving all the votes from that state, and receiving none of the votes from that state. In continuation, The Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the…
The founding fathers were not gods. Consequently, they were not perfect, and neither were the systems they set up to run the country. Nevertheless, they knew that things would change, and they set up ways to fix the government when needed. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the American people have the right to alter or abolish the government if it does not fit their needs. The Electoral College is flawed, and the American people need to replace it because this system does not fairly represent the people, it forces people to vote a certain way, and it does not always guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will win the election. These imperfections in the Electoral College make voters feel like their votes…
One advantage of the Electoral System is that it favors states with smaller populations. Without the Electoral system smaller states would be ignored in presidential elections. But because of this system the voice of the smaller states and minority groups like farmers are being preserved. With the State of the Union Address the President sets the agenda for the Congress and the legislations, similarity the Electoral College sets the agenda for how a presidential candidates campaign must be arranged. Candidates tend to campaign more in states that are swing states, and this is an advantage for voters who are dubious. Undecided voters in swing states can use this as an opportunity to educate themselves on the various policies each candidate stand for. The Electoral College system helps promote a two party system which is beneficial to our nation. Due to the winner take all rule, third and fourth parties help deny a plurality to a candidate, but third parties do not have the hope of winning large numbers of electoral college votes. This system discourages third parties from running and promotes “a stable balance by accommodating varied interests and opinions.” A two party system not only reduces political dissension but also increases a country’s harmony but increasing compromise and consensus between the two parties. Another advantage of the Electoral College is that it gives states the absolute power to participate…
Michael M. Uhlmann, government professor at the university of Clairemont, explains the benefits the Electoral College has to offer. He claims that the if the Electoral College were to ever be abolished, terrible consequences would follow. If abolished, the two-party system would disappear and a drastic growth in factional parties will arise. Without the two party system, Uhlmann believes that, candidates would not have a center to work toward. He argues that the two-party system “forces the ambitions of presidential candidates into the same constitutional mold that defines and tempers American political life as a whole” (Uhlmann, 2008). This system makes for a more equitable…
Ever since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 there has been constant debate as to whether or not our system of voting, the Electoral College, is a democratic institution. After all, how can an electoral system that grants the power of the presidency to the candidate who did not win the popular vote claim to be truly democratic. This debate over whether or not we should dispense of the Electoral College in favor of a system based on a purely popular vote will most likely continue to be an issue, because without a constitutional convention and amendment, which is highly unlikely, it cannot be changed. And if it were changed, such a shift in policy would be sure to have extensive social and political consequences.…
The Electoral College In the United States, we the people are guaranteed a vote in our government. Built upon the principles of freedom and democracy, The United States has striven to give equal representation to the people. Presidential elections are held to give people the chance to vote for who they believe will best serve the country. The electoral college is in place and adds an extra step in the presidential election process.…
But over the new nation’s first few decades, two powerful trends in American politics brought attention to the Electoral College system’s shortcomings — the rise of national political parties that would contest presidential elections, and the growing consensus that all white men (not just the elite) should get the right to vote, including for president.…
Another example is the 2000 election, the president candidate Al Gore won the popular vote, however, the other president candidate George W. Bush won the electoral college (Mayer). This occasions hasn’t happened recently, it also happened in the early election history three instances: 1876, 1888 and 1960 (Edwards 62). As a result of these elections, it ignores the will of the people. United States is built with democracy and it seemed that electoral college is an undemocratic system. Jonathan Chait, an American liberal commentator and writer for New York magazine, argues that “the electoral college failed to mention the most egregious aspect of the process: it subverts democracy. It makes an utter mockery of the principle of one man, one vote.,” (“Electoral College, Pros”). It questions if the Electoral College favors the people at…
The Electoral College follows a winner-take all representative system, which means that the voices of some citizens will not matter. The Electoral College is a system of representatives included in the U.S. Constitution, created by the Founding Fathers, to help ensure that voters selecting the president were qualified and knowledgeable. These voters were chosen, because they knew what they were doing, rather than possible unreasonable voting by the public. However, this system is not required anymore, and can be detrimental to citizens of the United States of America. The Electoral College should be abolished, because it favors’ the voters of small states and because it does not accurately represent the voice of the people of the U.S.…
The electoral system is “regarded as an anachronism, a non-democratic method of selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner” as pointed out in the article In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our desired method of choosing the president. The United States was founded upon the ideologies of freedom and representative government, which begs the question, why would we have a non-democratic method to decide the most powerful person in a nation where democracy remains as a provocative principle? The Electoral College is not a true democratic way to choose a president as a popular vote is. Equally importantant, is the belief of “faithless” electors. The article that was previously cited choosing against the Electoral College states that “’faithless’ electors have occasionally refused to vote for whomever they please”. These “faithless” electors are chosen to choose president that the people want them to choose but they ultimately change their minds. Getting rid of the Electoral College would ensure that untrustworthy electors would never betray the people putting the voting power in the hands of the people. According to the article, that was previously mentioned defending the Electoral College, it states that the electoral system “is not democratic in a modern sense… it is the electors who elect the president, not the people”. People cannot specifically elect the president, instead that job goes to the electors. Many people believe that we are voting for the president but in actuality we are not. A group of electors versus an entire nation in the choice of the president would obviously be determined by the peoples’ choice based on a belief of a democracy, but we still cling onto the Electoral College as the primary process. Many people have argued that if the popular vote were to be…