Electoral College Dbq Analysis

In 1787, years after the founding of the United States, the Constitutional Convention met to decide how the new nation would govern itself. The delegates understood that the need for a leader was necessary but still bitterly remembered how Britain abused of its power. The delegates agreed that the President and Vice President should be chosen informally and not based on the direct popular vote, thus gave birth to the Electoral College. The Electoral College is defined as “a body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president.” Since 1787 the Electoral College has been the system for voting in the United States, but with our nation ever more changing and growing it

In Document C, Samples provides a federalist argument for supporting the electoral college by stating that it gives states an important role in choosing the president and thus supporting a fundamental principle of our democracy. The problem with Sample’s argument is that the electoral college is in essence undemocratic. We know that the electoral college is undemocratic because not only are small states over represented but a citizens vote can be weighted more or less depending on the state in which they reside in. In Document F, we are told what happens in case of a tie or no one winning the electoral vote. In case of this situation occurring then the House of Representatives will decide on who becomes president where state representatives will all get an equal vote. At first glance this doesn’t seem like a bad thing, everyone gets an equal say, right? Wrong! This means that Wyoming which has a population of about 500,000 voters will have an the exact same say in presidency as California which has a population of 35 million voters. Essentially, highly populated states will find that their individual votes count proportionality less. In Document D, we are shown an example in which we can visually see how one citizens vote weighs more heavily than others depending on the state. While Illinois has a larger population than all twelve states and D.C. depicted

In Document G, show us a Chart in which depicts that the candidate who wins the popular vote never wins the electoral vote. So, the candidate who receives more votes from the public never wins the presidency. So, why even campaign if the goal is to win less votes than your opponent so you don’t win the popular vote but win the presidency? In Document A, it shows us that any candidate could win the 270 votes by winning only eleven states. These eleven states are; California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Illinois (29), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14). Granted a candidate would almost never win all eleven states because the majority of these states tend to be predominantly democrat or republic, the fact that only eleven states alone can determine who 's the president puts to question the value of the remaining 39 states. Document B, explains the winner-take-all method and how unfair the method is to third party candidates. The chart shows how even though both third party candidates won about 7% and 19% of the popular vote but won 0% of the electoral vote. In Document E, Will states “the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation tends to produce a winning margin that looks like national decisiveness” There are over 300 million people in the United States, but just 538 people get to decide