These advantages can lead to a sureness and stability in elections
Though unlikely to be at the forefront of any 2016 presidential platforms, the Electoral College is a widely contested issue among partisans, many of who believe that a better method exists for selecting the President of the United States. This anti-Electoral College sentiment is also present among Americans nationwide, Republicans and Democrats alike. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 61% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats would vote to do away with the Electoral College. In today’s contentious political atmosphere, in which Republicans and Democrats are constantly at odds with one another, any level of agreement between the parties clearly indicates that a change needs to be made. Changes are already starting to occur at the state level,
This paper explores and discusses how the president of the United States is elected, but mainly analyzes the Electoral College and demonstrates possible positive and negative aspects of the voting system here in our country. The Electoral College is a difficult and intricate voting system that is hard to fully analyze in a pro-and-con fashion. Unless it is understood in its entirety and the past conflicts that brought about its existence to provide a viable method for electing the leader of the fledgling nation. The Electoral College was created during the original time of the 13 new states that composed the young United States of America. The nation was barely getting on its feet and presented various concepts and propositions for presidential elections prior to reaching the system we know today (Webster, 2016).
1. The current system of electing presidents allows candidates to be rewarded through political and personal aspects by allowing candidates to be chosen through popular support. New rules gives the party voters more political control by requiring states to select their delegates through their primary elections or open party caucuses. Today, voters in the state primaries and open caucuses choose Democratic and Republican party nominees. Momentum allows candidates to get ahead in the campaign by using the media.
Gregg II believes the Electoral College has long been one of the least understood and most unappreciated aspects of the American constitutional order. Yet, it has endured and continued to serve American democracy, why?—because it works. He argues a few times that our presidential elections are open, free, and fair due to the Electoral College. “Our fights can be bitter, but when they are decided at the ballot box they end with legitimate presidents and governable regimes,” Gregg says. He gives the example that in a presidential election, candidates are a race to win more votes than the other guy—and each is based on every vote being counted as well as all votes counting equally.
Proponents of the system accuse current skepticisms of being partisan, and the skeptics of being “sore losers”. However, defenders of the Electoral College, such as Guelzo and
Today’s political arena is so tremendous that few voters can fully understand it. Policies of jobs, foreign relations and gay marriage are great factors that forge party lines and get out the vote. However, when forced to choose, voters must make sense of their vote by using very limited information and tangles of misperceptions guided by politically biased newscasts . With so many factors beyond comprehension often voters are hindered due to a limited number of sources to receive unbiased information from (Lenz, 2012) .
Although many have debated on their reasoning, the Electoral College system may be a noteworthy cause. As a democratic nation by the people and for the people, citizens feel betrayed when they believe that their vote isn’t worth anything. Therefore, the system they thought they knew and loved fails them. It is essential for citizen’s voices to be heard in a sea of dispute and many see their vote as a method for this to take place. However, when an unpopular candidate is elected President by a small margin it is understandable to believe
The Electoral College should be eliminated because people do not have a clear choice in choosing the next President. This research paper will be discussing how the Electoral College affected the results of the Election of 1824 between the candidates Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, and the political turmoil caused by the rumor of a “corrupt bargain”. The “corrupt bargain” occurred when Henry Clay, who had a spot in the House of Representatives, convinced the House of Representatives to elect John Quincy Adams. After John Quincy Adams was named the winner of the election, even though he had the least amount of electoral votes and popular votes, Henry Clay became his Secretary of State. After this, many Andrew Jackson supporters declared
In a democracy, all citizens of a nation should be equal in every way. The Electoral College’s violation of political equality diminishes one of the most important staples of a democratic government. An even worse scenario can occur in the Electoral College in the case of a tie, in which “the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president” (Plumer 457). When this occurs, the general public’s votes are cast aside and
The 2000 presidential elections demonstrated an incredible loophole in the race for the Presidency, found in the Electoral College. In the results of the elections, George W. Bush had lost the popular vote 545,000 votes, but won the Presidency by swinging a lead of 5 votes in the Electoral College. This discrepancy outraged citizens and politicians across the United States. This is not the only instance of the majority candidate not winning the race, for it has happened three times throughout American history (Longley, Pierce 28-29). The Electoral College poses the challenge of evaluating a process that is both highly disputed in how legislators believe it should be run and so incredibly vital to the function of the United States Government.
It is clear that American voters tend to avoid local elections and off-year elections. Run-off elections are also likely to register lower voter turnout as compared to first-round elections. The larger the gap between first round elections and run-off elections, the higher the decline in voter turnout. Moreover, there are lower percentages of young people voting as compared to the older population. This is an important point to note since it highlights that young people do not have information guiding them on the importance of voting.
An important characteristic of FPTP is that only the first preference matters, all other information is useless for the outcome. This leads to a problem that voters may not reflect their real preferences. For example, voters may forecast the one who has the best chance to win, and candidates with least vote have to face the reality that they have no chance winning the election. Therefore, such information may change how they behave, and tactical voting is possible to change the outcome. For example, it may turn out that casting a ballot for the person with more chances to defeat the candidate you dislike.
In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I
