Respond to the following: The electoral college should be abolished and replaced with one of the following:
- a national popular vote
- adopt the Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes nationwide
- some other system of your choosing should be adopted
OR, you may argue that we should keep the electoral college.
16 comments:
I believe that the electoral college should be abolished. As a replacement, the Maine-Nebraska system should be adopted. The Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes nationwide should replace it. This is because the Maine-Nebraska system is a more sensible system that would allow for a more representative body, by giving the opportunity to candidates other than those of the two main parties to have a chance of winning election. The Maine-Nebraska system, as it is today, splits the electoral votes up. It gives two electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Then, the other votes are given one to the winner of each district. This is a better representation than the current system because, as of now, if a candidate receives a high percentage of votes, but not the most, they will not receive any electoral votes, making it very difficult for any popular candidate from a 3rd party to win. For this reason, along with the need for a better representative electoral college system, the United States should permanently adopt the Maine-Nebraska system.
This being said, it would probably be a very difficult task to alter the electoral system. This is because, in current politics, the two major parties control the government. Because of this, in combination with the fact that this system make it more difficult to for a member of one of these parties to get elected, it is highly unlikely that the system will be changed.
The electoral college should be abolished, and, instead, the popular vote should be used to determine the President. The United States has a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and therefore a system directly related to the citizens and voters should be used to decide who governs us. Using the national popular vote to determine the President would be a complete representation of the voters' opinions and views, and thus, a candidate representing the greater amount of people would be elected. Also, at times with the electoral college, a candidate's victory seems greater than it actually is. Using the popular vote as an indicator would show how close candidate's are with votes and demonstrate that both candidates are equally fit to be President in the eyes of the American people.
Indeed, the Maine-Nebraska system of apportioning electoral votes seems like it would be the fairest way to distribute electoral votes because third parties are recognized. Using the popular vote, though, would also be beneficial to third parties. For instance, if a third party candidate was running in the General Election and received votes, his/her success would be noticed by the major party candidates. The third pary candidate's ideas would be recognized by the newly elected President.
Using the popular vote as a deciding factor not only fully represents the country as whole, it aids a third party candidate's status and also makes the newly elected President's victory over the opposing candidate, at times, seem less substantial. Therefore, the popular vote should be used to decide the President.
I agree with Jen when saying that the electoral college should be abolished. I believe that the Maine-Nebraska system is a proper replacement. Being a winner take all system, the electoral college over exaggerates the extent in which a candidate wins the General Election. While one candidate may have lost the popular vote by a small margin, under the electoral college system, they will not receive any electoral votes. This system makes it difficult for any third party candidates to have any change of winning an election. However, the Maine-Nebraska system would give third parties an opportunity to win elections. Instead of giving the candidate who wins the popular vote all of the electoral votes, the Maine-Nebraska system gives the winner two electoral votes, and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. This system would more accurately represent the nations' opinion because it would allow for more candidates to have the opportunity to win elections. While nationally adopting the Maine-Nebraska system would be difficult, it would allow the people of the United States to have more say in the process of electing their president.
We should keep the electoral college. The electoral college has successfully been in place for more than 200 years. So why abolish it and replace it with something new? Each state has a certain number of electors, which is equal to the sum of the number of senators and the number of members in the House of Representatives. The electoral college gives the popular vote winner all of the electoral votes. The amount of votes is based upon the size of the state. The electoral vote, along with the popular vote was written in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution added the popular vote to the electoral vote as a compromise. With that being said, it is unconstitutional to abolish it. Using strictly a popular vote would be reckless, and the result would not be good.
The Electoral College ought to be abolished and the President and Vice President of the United States should instead be elected through the national popular vote system. As I stated in my Oratorical Contest speech in February 2008, "the fact that such a direct abdication of the very ideals that have defined what a democracy is for ages could occur on the soil our nation is appalling." Indeed, the United States is founded upon the notion that every voice and every vote ought to be represented. It is founded upon the idea that it is the right of the people to constitute their government as they wish to see it. The Declaration of Independence says as much, stating that "governments are instituted among men." However, these words are essentially ignored in the election of the President. Although Al Gore received more votes than George W. Bush in 2000 nationwide, Bush won. The will of the people was irrelevant. Such a disregard for citizens in a supposedly citizen-driven republic cannot stand. Such is especially true in a nation that trumpets itself on the notion that it is the greatest democracy in the world and one in which, as aforementioned, "governments are instituted among men." If we are to be that country where "it is the right of the people to abolish" a government not of our liking and if we are to be that country that fought against tyranny because of lack of representation of the people, it is essential to have a popular-vote election of the President. The current system is not an accurate reflection of our ideals.
Instead, the Electoral College has resulted in the election of four Presidents who were not favored by the voting public. In 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the winner of the most votes for the presidency was not elected President. Although this country is often defined as a "democracy," a government based on "rule by the people," our system of electing the President does not reflect true democracy. Indeed, the Electoral College is rather undemocratic given that rule by the people can be undermined by an arcane system of complex rules devised by the founding fathers.
This fundamental flaw of the Electoral College is that it is undemocratic in a nation often defined as a democracy. However, the logic of the founding fathers in establishing it is not only flawed but no longer relevant. At the time of its inception, the Electoral College was established by the founding fathers out of fear that the public was not well-informed enough to elect the President. Since that time, the rise of newspapers, radio, TV, and the Internet has provided more than enough resources for voters to make this critical decision. Therefore, it is clear that the Electoral College ought to be treated as a relic of the past.
The Electoral College should be replaced by the national popular vote in electing the President and Vice President of the United States. The current system is not a representation of the "government instituted among men" that we strive to be. Thomas Jefferson's recognition that it is a "blot" on our Constitution should be affirmed by all Americans who care about their republic.
The electoral college is, in my opinion, a by-gone relic of an antiquated system and should be abolished. This process was invented by founding fathers to prevent the masses from gaining too much power, as they were viewed as lacking the information to effectively choose the chief executive. However, in this day and age, it is direct democracy that is needed.
The electoral college gives power to a few, instead of to the people. I believe a critical failing of this elitist system is that it results in candidates focusing more on swing states, rather than on the entire nation. For example, a state that is considered to always vote a certain way such as MA may be overlooked completely, while a state such as Pennsylvania would receive much attention from both candidates. This is unfair to the general population. Further more, in 24 of the 50 states, it is not illegal for an elector to vote for a different candidate entirely. Regardless of how often such a transgression occurs, in my opinion the very fact that the electors have so much power violates the spirit of democracy.
As recently as 2000, the country viewed the results of an election that took power away from the people. Despite the fact that the popular vote was in favor of Al Gore, it was Bush who won the electoral college and therefore the election. The United States claims to be the ideal democracy, but if such is the case, shouldn't the people elect their own president directly?
I agree with Tessy. The electoral college should remain as it has been for years. Success has come out of this process and there is no reason to change this system unnecessarily. In the electoral college, each state has a number of electors (two Senators as well as the number of members in the House.) In this system, the poplar vote winner is given all of the electoral votes. This way the final winner is decided by each state in a fair manner; the system is based on the size of each individual state. To abolish this system would be unconstitutional; this is the system written in the Constitution so many years ago by the founders of this country. If the founders believed the system would be successful, and it has been, then the system should remain the same and not be changed. Therefore, why should the system be altered in any manner if it has been successful for so many years? The electoral college should not be abolished.
The main ideology behind the reason why I do not like the Electoral College system is that the Electoral College tends to enforce only two party beliefs. I am not that into politics but when I do hear issues discussed in both parties, I do not favor all the traits that one party believes in, but rather a combination of both. And by having the electoral college system, a third party, which might have combined some of both parties ideas have no chance of winning due to the fact that no one wants the election to be decided by the House of Representatives. Third parties votes don’t really exist, but rather just to spoil the actual election. Another reason why this system is bad is that in some states, it’s overwhelmingly republicans or democrats. And if you were the minority in that state, you would have no motivation to vote because you will feel like your vote doesn’t matter.
I think the system that Main and Nebraska uses with the proportional electoral vote is the best answer. Instead of a winner take all system; they should come up with an equation of how to distribute the votes proportionally considering the round off errors. This system would be more accurate on how the entire nation feels about the election. This also will give more power to third parties because their votes would actually count for at least a little bit, and maybe eventually the third parties would become more powerful through time and become one of the main parties.
The Electoral College was created in an effort to prevent the ignorance of the masses from controlling the fate of the presidency. However, it was also created with the belief that the desires of the people would be represented as best as possible. In this day and age, the citizens of our nation are much more informed and capable of making an educated decision in regard to the presidency. Therefore, the election of the president should be determined by a national popular vote system. This system would directly represent United States citizens, in the spirit of a true democracy. As Omeed stated, the Electoral College does not always accurately represent the opinions of the people. The Electoral College has the power to elect a president that is not favored by the voting public, which has occurred a number of times in the past. The Electoral College was created with the fear of giving too much power to the people, but the problem now is in giving too much power to a smaller group of individuals. This elitist theory is outdated and should be replaced. As Jess mentioned, the popular vote system would aid third party candidates in being elected, whereas the Electoral College system helped maintain a two-party system. Leaving more possibility for the election of a third party candidate makes compromise more likely, decreasing the power, however slightly, of the two-party system which had encouraged polarization of the political system.
I believe that the electoral college should be abolished and replaced with a national popular vote. First, I believe that the electoral college system should be replaced because it does not reflect the majority vote nationwide, it can depress voter turnout, and there is the possibility of electing a President who does not win the popular vote. For example, in the 2000 election, Gore lost New Hampshire, Ohio, Nevada, and Tennessee by less than 4%; this is a very small percentage and final campaign results may have differed if another system was used.
Additionally, times have changed; in the 1800s, citizens had little knowledge of candidates and political issues. Therefore, it was imperative that they choose leaders as electors to select the President. Yet, today information is attainable and communication is more available between the states. The electoral college was only needed in the past because it was challenging to compile campaign results nationwide. Also, the lack of technology and communication made it difficult to broadcast the results.
Whether it is a national popular vote or the use of the Nebraska- Maine system, the electoral college system should be abolished, if not refined. In the past, four presidents have won the election without winning the popular vote- Harrison, Bush, Hayes, and Adams. They were able to win the election because they won states with more electorate votes instead of attaining the majority votes based on the overall population. The electoral college is extremely old. Therefore, as time, technology, and our government changes so does our system of electing the United States President.
I agree that the Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote. First of all, the Electoral College was designed to control power of the masses in choosing the President, which was the case of 200 years ago. Voters in the 1800s did not have enough information about the candidates and policies. Nowadays, citizens are much better informed of politics; therefore they cannot be influenced easily. The Electoral College also violates the fundamental meaning of democracy, since it does not reflect the will of the majority. There are cases in the past where the presidents were elected without winning the popular vote, but the electoral vote. As Omeed said, the Electoral College is outdated and is not an accurate reflection of democracy. Secondly, the national popular vote perfects the process of electing the president since it gives everyone a voice. By using it, no state receives more or less attention from both candidates. Unlike the Electoral College, the popular vote comes from the population itself; thus there will be theoretically no biases in choosing states to campaign. The Electoral College should be replaced by the popular vote.
Ibelieve we should keep the electoral college because it been in place working well since the start of the country.I believe if we did not have the winner take all it would lead to a split goverment, and the goverment would not agree on anything. I believe for that exact reason is why the framers of the constition instituted this voting system. Although third parties do not have a chance to win, there ideas still have influence on elections.Overall our goverment has done a good job on this countriesshort history, therefor we should not change it till a problem occurs.
The electoral college should be abolished and should be replaced with the national popular vote. I think the electoral college is silly and is not at all representative of who the country actually wants as a president. The national popular vote would allow the country to directly elect the president which should be the way our democracy operates in the first place. We the people should have direct influence on who the president should be and the only way for the people to have that kind of power is to have the people directly elect our commander in chief. A national popular vote gives power to the people not just two main parties.
I believe that the electoral college should be abolished because it is not neccessarily the best way to determine what the people want. In order to do exactly what the people want and carry out elections that are determined by the people America would have to adopt the use of the popular vote in determining elections.Because of America's winner take all system a candidate who loses a very close race in a state will get nothing eventhough a large portion of the people may have supported him or her. The popular vote is a failry good indication of what the people want, however using the popular vote could make things complicated and confusing.
Instead of going directly off of the popular vote i would support the use of the Maine-Nebraska system. While this system gives the most votes to the winner of the popular vote,it does not leave other candidates empty handed as the electoral college does because it awards votes by district. This system would make it easier for third parties to have success.
While the Maine-Nebraska system or the use of the popular vote would be a more accurate representation of what the people want, these systems would be very difficult to put into use. Becaus the votes would be so divided it could complicate elections and make it more difficult for members of one party to get elected.
Post a Comment