The current system is undemocratic. The electorate does not officially elect the president, those who are apart of the electorate college elected the president. No other country holds their election in such a convoluted manner.” “Our nation witnessed the result of allowing the Electoral College to determine the
Because of the winner-takes-all system, some presidents have won the election without the majority of the popular vote. In the 48 states that use the winner-takes-all system, whichever candidate wins that state’s popular vote receives all of the electoral votes for that particular state. The data gathered from the 2000 election demonstrates that despite winning the popular vote by about 540,000 votes, Al Gore proceeded to lose the election to George W. Bush by only 5 electoral votes. Florida’s 29 electoral votes were the deciding factor in this election. Because of the winner-takes-all system, when Bush won the popular vote in Florida, he was awarded with these votes, costing Gore the election.
The margins of victory were so close in so many states that it would be impossible to prove who truly won. Many people influenced the outcome of the 2000 election, including the Supreme Court Justices. Gore respectfully won the popular vote, while Bush took home the glory. The number of votes for each party in Florida were so close that recounts were demanded immediately. Many counties in the state of Florida faced mass confusion as the layout of the ballots for the election of 2000 left many voters confused and unsure of how they actually voted.
An example of this occurring is from the most recent which was the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Furthermore, there are pros and cons for the Electoral College. Some arguments for the Electoral College is it would allow cohesiveness throughout the country since it requires a distribution of popular support for the elected president. As well as, it helps enhance the status of minority interests, helps encourage having a two-party system and maintains a federal system of government and representation.
George Will quotes, “The winner-take-all electoral vote allocation tends to produce a winning margin that looks like national decisiveness (Document E).” Will is conveying that in appearance, the immense gap between the winning candidate and runner-up might give off the impression of a unanimous national acceptance. But, in reality that said candidate might not be the president the people really voted for. This infringes the citizen's right of choosing their own president, therefore the system is undemocratic. Additionally, Bradford Plumer quotes, “Perhaps the most worrying is the prospect of a tie.
During the 1877 through 1920 the government's role wasn't really expanding, instead people were getting furious that the government weren't really doing anything to improve life so they started going on strikes, making unions, and bringing people of different cause together to try to force the government into being useful. However, this only led to political corruption, people saying they would do something to help the people and people would believe and put their trust into this "person" to only be blackmailed in the end. These "people" were called political bosses and they had their little organization or political machines and people would do them favors to gain jobs or etc. This growing "government" was a mixed bag for the American people,
This data demonstrates the low chances of a third party candidate being able to gain any electoral votes. The system clearly disproportionately gives out electoral votes, making it especially difficult for third party candidates to win any elections. Additionally, in the 2000 presidential election, a third party candidate, Nader, went up against Gore and G.W. Bush. While Gore obtains 266 electoral votes, Bush receives 271, automatically making him the winner. On the other hand, the third party candidate, Nader, received a total of zero electoral votes, even though he gained 2,882,955 popular votes.
The 538 members in the electoral body who are supposed to represent their districts, are mostly biased when it comes to voting for the president of the United States. Typically when the whole group of electors gather to vote for president and vice president, they “are loyal to their political party and pledge to vote for their party’s nominees” (Source C). The fact that the decision of who becomes president is put in the hand of only several hundred electors who are biased is unjustified, as their votes are biased and not impartial. Since the electors pledge to vote for the party that elect them into that position and have laws where they can’t go against their pledge, this allows for a political party to rig the system to garner an outcome that only benefits themselves. This political feature in the United States disregards the opinions of hundreds of millions of citizen’s votes, and abides by the votes of 538 intransigent electors.
Treading Water In a democratic government, corrupt workers are constantly looking for ways to take advantage of the system. Even representatives that the people trust greatly trust sometimes uncovered as thieves and scandals. In Mississippi, corruption has made itself a very prevalent problem. Research shows that “corruption is costing Mississippi taxpayers an average $1,308 per person per year” (Mitchell).
The election officials claimed that it was hard to interpret the vote because of the hanging, dimpled, and pregnant
This essay will examine the Electoral College system in light of the presidential election of 2000 where Republican candidate George W. Busch and Democratic candidate Al Gore squared off in an election that ended in controversy. Ultimately,
In Ohio, for instance, Republicans won 12 out of 16 House races "despite voters casting only 52 percent of their vote for Republican congressional candidates. " The situation was even more egregious to the north. " Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress."”. This manipulation of the system is certainly not what the framers of the constitution had in mind and makes the electoral college system less and less reliable. This along with faithless electors, the men and women who truly vote for president, in 21 states do not have to vote for the popular candidate and usually the electors side with their party but is it right that on their whim, they can undo the will of thoughts of people.
Corruption of Power “Being president doesn’t change who you are. It reveals who you are,” (Obama Michelle). Definition of corrupt, dishonest or illegal behavior, specifically by powerful people, such as government officials or police officers (Merriam-Webster). Many leaders are corrupt, but that doesn’t mean that power caused their corruption. They were probably like that before.
The United States utilizes a fair, equally representative system to elect its president, right? Wrong. By examining the most basic criterion of evaluating elections, the classic “Everyone’s vote should count the same,” the United States, and more specifically the Electoral College, is doing an unequivocally terrible job representing its citizens in presidential elections. The Electoral College currently counts one Vermonter’s vote as equal to three Texans’, and one Wyomingite’s vote is worth four Californians’. Clearly this is unacceptable, and thankfully it can be changed.
One of the things that makes America so great is its election process. The US elections are fair and not rigged by the people in power(as far as the public knows.) Despite this, there are still some people who try and get the elections to go one way. This is called voter fraud. Voter fraud can take many different forms, switching ballots, tampering with results, pressuring voters, and voting in the place of others.
