Walter E. Williams discuss how Hillary Clinton blamed the electoral college for her losing the presidential election. Williams stated that many individuals believed that the electoral college is dangerous when it comes to American politics. Individuals also claims that there are three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people in the state of Wyoming which was another factor that weight in the presidential election. In California, one electoral vote equals 715,000 people. Williams also stated that there a lot of individual who complain about using the electoral college since they believe that it’s undemocratic.
Again in Document D, George Edwards says about the Electoral College system, “(I)t favors some citizens over others, depending solely upon that state in which voters cast their votes for president.” Though candidate must have 270 of the electoral votes to become president, if there is a tie than the top three candidates are taken to the House of Representatives where each state has only one vote, and they select the president. This particular part of the Electoral College shows absolutely no political equality. In Document F, Bradford Plumer says, “Because each state cast only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters.” The fact that one representative has as much power 55 representatives is just one example of the inequality and how the power in the Electoral College system is not divided correctly.
The Electoral College system, written in the U.S. Constitution, holds each state entitled to some of its electors according to its representation in Congress. According to Fortier, the number of electors is similar to that of the congressional representation for the states (Fortier, p. 6). On the day of the election, the voters do not directly vote for the national presidential candidates but rather vote for an elector pledged to a particular candidate. Suppose the person who is a major popular vote in a state wins. In that case, all of that state's electoral votes are planned to go to the EM, except Maine and Nebraska, where the electors are allocated proportionately.
This gives a vote from Wyoming more importance in the Electoral College than a vote from California, undermining the one person, one vote basis of democracy. b. If there is a tie in the Electoral College, the vote goes to the house where every state receives 1 vote. If a state is gridlocked, meaning that it has an equal number of electors voting for each candidate, it doesn’t receive a vote. This facet of the electoral college undermines democracy by giving each state a maximum of one vote, regardless of the number of people in the state.
Whoever wins the popular vote in that states wins the electoral votes. Without the Electoral College, our country’s decisions would be decided by larger states like California and New York. Speaking for myself, those in CA and NY do not hold the same concerns that I hold and I definitely do not want them making decisions on my behalf.
The Electoral College is a way of voting indirectly for the president of the United States. The Electoral College is made up of the number of senators and members of the house of representatives in the state. An example of this is Wisconsin, Wisconsin has 8 members of the House of Representatives and all states have 2 senators, therefore Wisconsin has 10 electors. The idea of an electoral college is very controversial because many people believe that the president should be voted in directly by the people.
For example, California has 53 representatives in the house and each state has 2 senators in the senate, in total, California has 55 electoral votes. It works like that for all states and there are 538 electors in all. However, the number of electors isn’t the problem; the problem lies in how the votes are cast. Every electoral vote per state goes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state, even if the candidate won the popular vote by 1%. This process makes for an inaccurate representation of the citizens
In the question of whether the Electoral College was or still is a good idea, I would have to say no. Why the Electoral College was made goes back to the Founding Fathers of America, who had been arguing for months on whether Congress or the majority vote should pick the next president. Their compromise led to the Electoral College. However, to me, it seems like a band-aid to an actual solution because they couldn't agree on anything else.
Every states has a set number of electoral votes, and the number depends on the size of the state and its population. The state California has the most electoral votes with 53, and there are seven small states that each have 3 electoral votes each. The electoral college changes they way elections are made. Candidates can focus on bigger states and win an election without even win the majority of vote. And even though California has the most electoral votes, the value of a vote from california might be less of another state smaller state because it has a higher ratio of people per vote, which make politics more complicate and
California has the highest number of electors, with fifty-five. Tied for last are
Said form Tara Ross a retired lawyer "The Electoral College provides yet another benefit: It reduces the incidence of fraud and error. Obviously, no system can completely" which means that the fraud that it reduces would cause less chaos during an election. This method prevents this for when a state that is heavily towards one side, but they have to vote for the opposite will make the people go against the popular vote elect. As said from Richard A. Posner a retired judge "Wyoming, the least populous state, contains only about one-sixth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, but its three electors (of whom two are awarded only because Wyoming has two senators like every other state) give it slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of total electoral votes" which means that not only big states run the
The electoral college also helps the small states have an opinion that actually is heard in the presidential election. In class, it was discussed that Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota together, though their combined population is less than that of Oklahoma, each of those states has three electoral votes, whereas Oklahoma just has seven votes. Going by electoral votes, a candidate would have a better chance at winning the election if they won over Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota versus Oklahoma. With the electoral college, a candidate could win over all thirty-nine small states and win the entire election. Though the candidate could be supported by less than a quarter of the population,
Yet, the electoral process as it is now violates this noble belief. Each state despite how small the population is guaranteed two electors, and many look at this requirement as offset to the inevitable influence of large states and assurance that each is considered equal (Posner). Although it is true that the Electoral College does give smaller states a bigger voice, the act is counterproductive; the more popular states now are less represented. Because of the certification of at least two electors from a total pool of 538, large states receive less than what they should when the rest of electors are divided based on population. California, for instance, has 55 electors representing 37,254,403 -each standing for 677,355 people- while Wyoming much smaller with a population of 563,767 has three electors -each standing for 187,973 people (Petrocelli).
Over the course of its existence the college has been amended “more than 700 times (Rudalevige).” This shows the immense dissatisfaction with the current state of the electoral college. The popular vote is more beneficial than the electoral college because it encourages more people to get involved, as opposed to simply standing by and not voting because they feel that silence and voting are equivalents. A popular vote would guarantee that each person voting gets a direct say in what happens as opposed to the current system. For example, all the people living in Wyoming during the 2016 election only gained 3 electoral college votes, but each of their votes were “worth 2.87 California voters in terms of her individual share of her respective state’s electoral votes (Rudalevige).”
For example, Colorado has 7 House of Representatives and 2 Senators which means each Congress person represents around 883,300 and each of our senators represent approximately 2,650,000 people. Wyoming on the other hand has 1 House of Representative and 2 Senators meaning their congress person represents around 600,000 people and their Senators represent around 300,000 people each. There is a clear difference here when it comes to how representation is distributed into the states. Apart from this uneven distribution the system of “winner takes all” also discourages people from going out to vote. For example, some Republican lives in a Democratic state that always goes Democratic when it comes to elections, they tend to not go out and vote because they know their vote won’t make a difference because of this “winner takes all” system.
