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.
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.
The Electoral College system, in our government today, is made up of a winner-take-all system. The winner take all system demonstrates that whichever candidate that receives the most votes wins all of the electoral points and the other candidate receives nothing. The Electoral College system enacts the candidates of both parties to only visit the larger states, in which they know they will most likely receive the most electoral points. This is not technically fair because each state is not getting proper representation. When states disagree, with one candidate’s views on a particular issue, they can swing and vote for the other candidate causing the other candidate to alter their approach to win back the state.
The number of votes a state receives in the Electoral College is based on the state’s population. The presidential candidate who reaches 270 electoral votes is declared the winner. This system was designed in order to prevent large states from overpowering smaller states. However, there are many flaws that come with this unique system.
The thing is that using the winner-take-all system means that the smaller party gets fewer electoral votes, which also means the president that most the people chose emerges as a
This also is one of the reasons why a candidate may win the popular vote but not the Electoral College. The votes add up in the popular vote but only the party that wins the majority, wins the Electoral College. A complicated explanation for a complex
The Electoral College system is when the candidate that wins the popular vote for a certain state takes all the electoral votes for that state. This is the “winner takes all” rule. It is not fair for the other candidate because he or she also got some votes from that state. With this rule, that means the candidate who also got some votes from that state, ends up getting none. This proves that popular vote alone should decide who the president is so that it is fair for both
It can come as a surprise to many that it does not necessarily matter which candidate receives the most votes in an American presidential election. It is often taught in schools that the United States is based on democracy, where everyone has a voice and a vote in elections. While this is true, it can easily confuse many when it comes to the American Electoral College. The electoral college, founded along with many of the other building blocks of the United States in the Constitution, was a compromise between those who supported a complete democracy in the presidential election with each citizen contributing an equal vote to all other citizens and those who supported a system in which the legislators in Congress would elect a president. This
Under a national popular vote system, disputes could arise in multiple states, making it more difficult to resolve issues in a timely and fair manner. This could lead to legal challenges and recounts that could further delay the outcome of the election and damage public confidence in the democratic
vote for president based on the popular vote of their state. The electoral college is a system that definitely needs reform but is a central part of our government. In the electoral college there can anywhere from 3 to 54 electors per state based on The State’s population. The District
Tyler Lewis says that one of the problems with the Electoral College is “The distribution of Electoral College votes per state is not equally dispersed.” Lewis is saying that the “playing field” is not equal when it comes to the vote. “It made the value of each citizens vote different from that of someone living in another state” (Lewis). States with a smaller population get more votes per person than a state with a larger population would. The article also addresses the fact that a presidential candidate can win the overall election even though they did not win the popular vote.
For example, in a safe state, which is a state that is known to vote for a certain political party in each election, the minority party will not get representation because the state will be voting in a certain way. This is true for both the Democrats and Republicans because there are safe states for each, where the minority party in a state can vote but all of the electoral votes will still go towards the majority. For these reasons, the winner-take-all system is a problem with the Electoral
Those 538 votes are distributed throughout the states. The candidate with a majority is elected President of USA. The states themselves uses the system most political scientists call FPTP or first past the post. FPTP is a system where the candidate with the most votes wins. So if you win more votes than your candidate in a state, you get all the electoral votes of that state.
The battle for the Electoral College vote is usually a tough one and it reflects upon a supposed popular majority. The reason it’s difficult is because often times less populated states are over-represented in the winner-take-all type of situation, when they win the Electoral College the chances of them winning the election for President skyrockets. However, if there is a tie the House of Representatives will chose who is best based upon the top three candidates.
The winner-take-all format serves as another justification offered by some advocates for doing away with the Electoral College. In this system, every state’s electoral votes go to the candidate who earns the most votes in that state. This may result in a situation where some states have an excessive amount of influence over how the election turns out. The Electoral College system’s swing state emphasis results in an uneven distribution of resources and attention across the nation.
